Mandatory E-Verify Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Britt, Katie Boyd [R-AL]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 21, 2026
Bottom line
The bill makes the E-Verify system permanent and mandatory for all U.S. employers, substantially increasing enforcement and penalties related to employment eligibility verification.
What it actually does
This bill permanently establishes the E-Verify employment eligibility verification system and mandates its use for all employers in the United States, with a phased implementation schedule based on employer size. It significantly increases civil and criminal penalties for non-compliance and unauthorized employment, enhances fraud prevention measures, and conditions certain federal grants on state cooperation with data sharing for E-Verify purposes.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that mandating E-Verify for all employers is a critical step to deter illegal immigration by closing a major loophole in employment verification, thereby protecting jobs for legal workers and enhancing national security by ensuring a legal workforce.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this universal mandate places an undue administrative and financial burden on businesses, particularly small businesses, and could lead to increased discrimination against legal workers due to potential system errors or misuse, wrongly denying them employment opportunities.
The bill is moderately detailed, requiring careful reading to understand its full implications, but an informed reader can grasp its core provisions within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2
Establishment of Permanent E-Verify
This section permanently establishes the E-Verify system, transitioning it from a pilot program. It outlines the system's design and operation, including requirements for initial and secondary verification processes, data security, and safeguards against discrimination. It also specifies the responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Social Security Administration (SSA), and Department of State in maintaining and updating the system's underlying data.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that permanently establishing E-Verify provides stability and certainty for employers, allowing for long-term investment in a robust system to ensure a legal workforce. They emphasize the importance of a reliable, secure, and accurate system for national security and economic integrity.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that making E-Verify permanent without addressing its inherent flaws, such as potential for errors or misuse, entrenches a system that could lead to widespread employment discrimination or wrongful denials of work authorization for legal residents.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the desire for a stable and effective employment verification system with concerns about system accuracy, data privacy, and potential for discrimination in a permanent, mandatory framework.
Section 3
Mandatory E-Verify for All Employers with Phased Implementation
This section mandates that all persons or entities hiring, recruiting, or referring individuals for employment in the U.S. must use E-Verify. The requirement is phased in over 18 months, starting with larger employers (10,000+ employees) and gradually extending to smaller businesses (1+ employee). Special timelines apply to critical infrastructure entities and agricultural labor, and federal contractors are required to use E-Verify immediately.
Section 5
Enhanced Penalties for Unauthorized Employment and Non-Compliance
This section significantly increases civil monetary penalties for employers who hire or continue to employ unauthorized aliens, or fail to comply with E-Verify requirements. First offenses see fines increase from $250-$2,000 to $2,500-$5,000, with subsequent offenses rising to $10,000-$25,000. It also introduces authority to debar repeat violators or those convicted of crimes from federal contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements, and creates a rebuttable presumption of violation if an employer continues to employ an individual after receiving a final nonconfirmation from E-Verify.
Section 7
Revised E-Verify Process and Documentation Requirements
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to detail the new E-Verify process for hiring, recruiting, and referring. It specifies documentation requirements, including the need for employers to match photographs on identity documents with the individual, if available through E-Verify. It outlines procedures for tentative and final nonconfirmations, prohibiting termination or rescission of job offers until a final nonconfirmation. The bill also introduces requirements for reverification of individuals with limited work authorization and mandatory verification for certain previously hired employees (e.g., federal, state, local government employees, critical infrastructure workers, federal contractors), and for employees whose Social Security numbers show unusual multiple use.
Section 10(d)
Conditions for Federal Grant Funding on State Data Sharing
This section amends existing law to make states ineligible for certain federal grants, specifically Economic Development Assistance Grants and Community Development Block Grants, if they do not provide DHS with access to driver's license or identity card information (including photographs) maintained by their Department of Motor Vehicles for E-Verify purposes. States must also provide assistance to resolve verification inquiries related to these records.
Authorizes an annual transfer of $100,000,000 from the general fund of the Treasury to DHS for E-Verify, and authorizes an additional $100,000,000 to be appropriated annually for the program.
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for funding provisions within an authorizing bill, but the specific amounts might be overlooked by a reader focused on policy changes.
Case for: Ensures dedicated and substantial funding for the E-Verify system, reflecting the commitment to its permanent establishment and expanded mandate.
Case against: The funding mechanism, particularly the direct transfer, bypasses the annual appropriations process for a portion of the funding, potentially reducing congressional oversight.
Estimated impact: Provides $200 million annually for the E-Verify program, with half directly transferred and half authorized for appropriation.
Delays the mandatory E-Verify requirement for employers performing agricultural labor or services until 18 months after the date of enactment.
Section 3(b)(3)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative strategy to address concerns from specific industries that may face unique challenges with new mandates, often reflecting lobbying efforts.
Case for: Provides the agricultural sector, which often relies on seasonal and migrant labor, with additional time to adapt to the new E-Verify requirements, recognizing its unique workforce dynamics.
Case against: Critics might argue that this delay creates an uneven playing field, allowing one sector to continue unauthorized employment practices for a longer period, undermining the bill's overall goal of universal compliance.
Estimated impact: Delays compliance for a significant industry for 18 months, potentially allowing continued unauthorized employment in that sector during the transition.
Requires employers to match the photograph on a presented document with a photograph of the individual, if such photograph is available through the E-Verify Program.
Section 7(b)(1)(A)(i)(III)
Why it matters:This is a technical detail of the verification process, but it represents a significant enhancement to E-Verify's fraud detection capabilities.
Case for: Enhances the security and accuracy of E-Verify by adding a biometric verification step, making it significantly harder to use fraudulent documents with stolen identities.
Case against: Could introduce new challenges and potential for error if photo databases are not perfectly synchronized or if the quality of photos is poor, potentially leading to wrongful non-confirmations for legal workers.
Estimated impact: Increases the reliability of identity verification within E-Verify, but also adds a layer of complexity and potential for error.
Amends Section 274A(a)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act by striking 'for a fee' from the prohibition on recruiting or referring an unauthorized alien for employment.
Section 15(a)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is a subtle but significant expansion of liability, removing a previous limitation on who could be penalized for recruiting or referring unauthorized aliens.
Case for: Broadens the scope of enforcement to cover all forms of recruitment and referral of unauthorized aliens, regardless of whether a fee is involved, closing a potential loophole for non-profit organizations or informal referrals.
Case against: Critics might argue that removing 'for a fee' could inadvertently penalize individuals or organizations that provide informal assistance or referrals without commercial intent, potentially chilling legitimate community support.
Estimated impact: Expands the universe of individuals and entities subject to penalties for recruiting or referring unauthorized aliens.