Immigration Services Caught in Shutdown Crossfire: What This Means for Applicants
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Joseph Edlow announced Thursday that despite being primarily fee-funded, vital immigration services could face delays during the federal government shutdown. Taking to social media, Edlow warned that “public facing interactions such as interviews, naturalization ceremonies, and contact center responses may also be delayed,” expressing regret for any negative impacts on individuals seeking benefits. This announcement has raised eyebrows among immigration experts, as USCIS has historically continued operations during previous government shutdowns due to its unique funding structure—most of its operations are financed through application fees rather than congressional appropriations. Only E-Verify, the system employers use to confirm work eligibility, relies on taxpayer funding, yet this system has remained operational throughout the current shutdown.
The potential slowdown comes at a particularly challenging time for an agency already struggling with substantial backlogs in processing applications for visas, green cards, and citizenship. Under the Trump administration, USCIS has implemented more rigorous vetting procedures for legal immigrants, which has already extended processing times for many applicants. In his announcement, Edlow emphasized that the agency would continue prioritizing national security concerns, maintaining its focus on vetting and flagging potential security issues to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This aligns with USCIS’s evolved role under the Trump administration, which has seen the agency take a more active stance in immigration enforcement rather than focusing solely on benefit adjudication, which has historically been its primary mission.
Immigration attorneys and policy experts have responded with skepticism to Edlow’s announcement, questioning why a fee-funded agency would experience significant disruptions during a government shutdown. Steven Brown, an immigration attorney from Houston, characterized any potential slowdown as “a policy choice” rather than a necessity, arguing that the shutdown should not serve as “bad-faith pretext to reduce adjudication speed.” Similarly, Sam Peak from the Economic Innovation Group called the situation “outrageous,” noting that with 97% of the agency funded by user fees, USCIS “shouldn’t be impacted by a government shutdown” and has remained “operational during previous shutdowns.” These critiques suggest that any service reductions might reflect policy priorities rather than budgetary constraints.
The political dimension of this situation cannot be overlooked, as Edlow explicitly blamed Senate Democrats for the shutdown, echoing sentiments expressed by other Trump administration officials and Republican lawmakers. He claimed on social media that Democrats were demonstrating that “while they claim to care about aliens and efficient processing, their actions show they prioritize their radical agenda over the implementation of the laws passed by Congress.” This partisan framing of the shutdown’s impact on immigration services underscores the deeply politicized nature of immigration policy in the current climate. The shutdown comes amid the Trump administration’s broader efforts to tighten controls on legal immigration pathways, raising questions about whether operational decisions at USCIS might be influenced by political considerations rather than strictly administrative necessities.
For the millions of immigrants navigating the U.S. immigration system, the ambiguity surrounding USCIS operations during the shutdown creates additional uncertainty in an already complex process. While Edlow indicated that services would be affected, he provided little clarity on whether applicants would still be able to submit new applications or how existing applications would be processed. This lack of transparency compounds the anxiety felt by many immigrants who have already invested significant time, money, and emotional energy into their immigration journeys. Each delay in processing can have profound implications for individuals’ lives—postponing family reunifications, delaying employment opportunities, or extending periods of legal limbo for those awaiting status adjustments.
The situation highlights fundamental tensions in America’s approach to immigration administration. On one hand, USCIS’s fee-based funding model was designed precisely to insulate essential immigration services from government funding disputes. On the other hand, the agency’s evolving role under different administrations demonstrates how immigration policy implementation can shift significantly based on executive priorities, even without legislative changes. As the shutdown continues, the impact on legal immigration processing will serve as a critical test of institutional resilience and priorities. For applicants caught in this uncertainty, the coming days and weeks will reveal whether USCIS can fulfill its core mission of administering America’s legal immigration system efficiently and fairly, even amid broader political disputes over government funding and immigration policy.
