Ukrainian Adjustment Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 24, 2026
Bottom line
The bill offers a dedicated and expedited path to permanent residency for Ukrainians displaced by conflict, providing long-term stability and integration opportunities.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a pathway to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status for certain Ukrainian nationals and their qualifying family members who were inspected and admitted to the United States before the bill's enactment or paroled into the U.S. after February 20, 2014. It streamlines the adjustment process by waiving specific grounds of inadmissibility and exempting these adjustments from numerical immigration limitations, while mandating robust security vetting.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this legislation provides a crucial and compassionate response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, offering a permanent solution for individuals who cannot safely return home. It allows them to fully integrate into American society, contribute economically, and live without the constant fear of deportation, aligning with U.S. humanitarian values and support for Ukraine.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that creating a special adjustment pathway for one nationality could set an undesirable precedent, potentially leading to demands for similar carve-outs for other groups and undermining the existing, often backlogged, immigration system. Concerns about the integrity of the immigration process and the potential for abuse, despite vetting requirements, may also be raised.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to quickly grasp its core provisions and implications.
Section 2(a)
Definition of Eligible National of Ukraine
This section precisely defines who qualifies for the adjustment of status. It includes Ukrainian citizens or nationals (or those who last habitually resided in Ukraine) who passed security checks and were either inspected and admitted to the U.S. before the bill's enactment, or paroled into the U.S. after February 20, 2014. It also extends eligibility to qualifying spouses, children, parents, legal guardians, or primary caregivers of such individuals, provided they are physically present in the United States.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these criteria are carefully crafted to target those most affected by the ongoing conflict and already present in the U.S., ensuring that the benefit is extended to those genuinely in need of permanent protection and stability.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the February 20, 2014, date is arbitrary or that expanding eligibility to certain family members beyond immediate spouses and children could broaden the scope excessively, potentially straining resources.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire to provide broad humanitarian relief with the need to define a manageable and justifiable scope of eligibility for a specific population.
Section 2(b)
Streamlined Adjustment to Lawful Permanent Residence
This provision mandates the Secretary of Homeland Security to adjust the status of eligible Ukrainian nationals to lawful permanent residence. Applicants must submit an application, be otherwise admissible to the U.S. (with specific waivers for certain inadmissibility grounds), and satisfy vetting requirements. The Secretary must also determine that granting permanent residency is not contrary to the national welfare, public safety, or national security of the United States. It also applies the admissibility requirements typically used for refugees.
Section 2(c)
Waiver of Inadmissibility Grounds
The Secretary of Homeland Security is granted broad authority to waive most grounds of inadmissibility under U.S. immigration law (except for certain criminal and security-related grounds) for applicants seeking adjustment of status. These waivers can be granted for humanitarian purposes, to ensure family unity, or if a waiver is otherwise in the public interest. However, the bill explicitly limits waivers for criminal conduct committed within the U.S. on or after February 20, 2014, by an applicant.
Section 2(d)
Vetting Requirements Equivalent to Refugee Admissions Program
This section mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security must establish vetting requirements for applicants seeking adjustment of status under this Act that are equivalent to the rigorous vetting requirements applied to refugees admitted to the United States through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.
Section 2(e)
Protection for Battered Spouses and Children
This provision extends eligibility for adjustment of status to an alien whose marriage to an eligible Ukrainian national has been terminated, provided there is a demonstrated connection between the termination and battering or extreme cruelty perpetrated by the principal applicant. This eligibility can last for up to two years after the marriage termination. It also explicitly applies existing protections for battered spouses and children under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to applications under this section.
Section 2(f) and 2(l)
Retroactive Admission Date and Exemption from Numerical Limitations
Upon approval of an adjustment application, an alien's admission as a lawful permanent resident is recorded as of the date they were first inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States, providing a longer period of LPR status. Crucially, aliens granted adjustment under this section are explicitly exempted from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas established under sections 201, 202, and 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, meaning their adjustment does not count against annual country or worldwide caps.
Section 2(i) and 2(j)
Fee Waivers and Protections During Application Processing
The bill prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from charging fees for adjustment of status or employment authorization applications, or for issuing permanent resident cards or employment authorization documents, beyond the specific administrative cost of processing. Furthermore, it mandates that the Secretary permit eligible Ukrainian nationals to apply for a waiver of any associated fees. During the period an alien's bona fide application is pending, and they remain compliant with requirements, they cannot be removed from the U.S., considered unlawfully present, or deemed an unauthorized alien, unless a prima facie determination of ineligibility is made.
Defines eligible nationals as those paroled into the United States *after February 20, 2014*.
Section 2(a)(1)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define eligibility criteria precisely. The date likely corresponds to the start of significant Russian aggression in Ukraine (e.g., the annexation of Crimea), providing a clear and politically relevant starting point for the conflict-driven displacement.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this date is crucial for targeting individuals directly affected by the ongoing conflict and subsequent displacement, providing a clear and justifiable starting point for eligibility that aligns with geopolitical events.
Case against: Critics might argue that this specific date could arbitrarily exclude individuals who fled Ukraine due to earlier instability or other reasons, potentially creating an unfair cutoff for those in need of permanent status.
Estimated impact: This date significantly shapes the size and composition of the population eligible for adjustment, encompassing many who arrived under programs like Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) and other humanitarian parole initiatives since 2014.
The Secretary *may not* waive inadmissibility grounds under section 212(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (criminal grounds) if the criminal conduct was committed *on or after February 20, 2014, and within the United States* by an applicant for adjustment of status under this section.
Section 2(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting to include specific carve-outs or limitations to broader grants of authority, ensuring that certain behaviors, particularly criminal conduct within the U.S., remain disqualifying for immigration benefits.
Case for: Proponents would argue this limitation is essential for maintaining public safety and addressing concerns about individuals who commit crimes while residing in the U.S., even if they are otherwise eligible for humanitarian relief, thus upholding the integrity of the system.
Case against: Some advocates might argue that even these criminal grounds should be waivable on a case-by-case basis for humanitarian reasons, especially if the crimes are minor or related to trauma experienced by individuals fleeing conflict.
Estimated impact: Ensures that individuals with recent criminal records in the U.S. are generally excluded from this adjustment pathway, potentially affecting a small but significant number of applicants and reinforcing public safety measures.