Rapid-Fire Wednesdays Podcast | 2026 Midterm Elections: Immigration Policy Impact

The transcript version of our weekly Q&A for corporate immigration professionals. Join our Immigration News Digest Newsletter for more immigration updates.

By Kimberley Best Robidoux & Miki Kawashima Matrician

🎧 Available on YouTube & Spotify

In this edition of Rapid-Fire Wednesdays, WR Immigration attorneys Kimberley Best Robidoux and Miki Kawashima Matrician discuss what the 2026 midterm election results could mean for U.S. immigration policy and employers. With Democrats gaining control of both chambers of Congress and flipping several traditionally Republican governorships, the election results could bring significant changes to immigration oversight, enforcement funding, and state-level policy. Topics include congressional oversight of immigration agencies, appropriations restrictions on ICE, the prospects for immigration legislation, anticipated regulatory changes, the Congressional Review Act, and the role of state governors and attorneys general in challenging federal immigration policies. Discover what employers, HR teams, and Global Mobility professionals should be watching as the immigration landscape evolves.

Question 1: How could Democratic control of Congress change immigration oversight?

Response: Democratic control of both chambers of Congress gives the new majority control over committee leadership, hearings, investigations, and the legislative agenda. One of Congress’s most significant tools is its oversight authority. Committee chairs can call agency officials to testify, request documents, issue subpoenas, and investigate federal agencies involved in immigration, including ICE, USCIS, CBP, the Department of State, and the Department of Labor. Congress can also ask the Government Accountability Office and agency inspectors general to review worksite enforcement, processing delays, adjudication holds, and agency spending. These efforts could produce more public information about agency practices and increase pressure on agencies to streamline adjudications. Congress also has authority to inspect immigration detention facilities, providing another avenue for oversight of DHS operations.

Question 2: What can Congress do through its power of the purse to influence immigration enforcement?

Response: Congress can use appropriations legislation to place conditions on how ICE and other federal agencies spend their funding. Potential measures include restricting funding for certain enforcement practices, limiting transfers between agency accounts, imposing reporting requirements, requiring access to detention facilities, and setting conditions on private detention contracts. Congress could also decline to fund new enforcement initiatives. These appropriations provisions can create leverage in negotiations with the administration, particularly regarding ICE enforcement, detention spending, workplace actions, and the use of private contractors. On the other hand, Congress could direct additional funding toward USCIS processing, immigration courts, asylum adjudications, legal orientation programs, and agency oversight. Employers should watch how funding decisions affect agency resources, enforcement priorities, and immigration processing.

Question 3: Does Democratic control of Congress make comprehensive immigration reform more likely?

Response: Comprehensive immigration reform remains unlikely without support from the White House or a significant bipartisan coalition. Although Democrats will control both chambers, President Trump retains veto authority, and the new majority is not expected to have the two-thirds support in both chambers necessary to override a veto. Large legislative packages addressing legalization, asylum, family-based immigration, and employment-based immigration will therefore face significant obstacles. However, more targeted bipartisan legislation may have a path forward, particularly when attached to must-pass bills. Potential areas include visa number recapture, protections for certain long-term residents, targeted workforce programs, and agency funding. President Trump has also indicated a willingness to negotiate with Democrats on immigration, although the appointment of Stephen Miller as Chief of Staff suggests that disagreements between Congress and the Executive Branch will likely continue.

Question 4: Could the election results accelerate pending immigration regulations?

Response: The administration may try to finalize pending immigration regulations before the new Congress takes office and begins its oversight work. Several proposals are already in the pipeline involving employment-based immigration, student work authorization, grace periods, and public charge. Finalizing a regulation before the new Congress convenes could put the policy in a stronger position than leaving it as a proposal. However, moving quickly also creates litigation risks. Agencies must comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including responding to public comments, explaining their decisions, and assessing costs and reliance interests. Failure to follow required procedures could expose finalized regulations to legal challenges. Employers should continue monitoring pending proposals and be prepared for potential changes.

Question 5: How does the Congressional Review Act allow Congress to challenge recently issued regulations?

Response: The Congressional Review Act (CRA) allows Congress to pass a joint resolution invalidating a recently issued final rule. If the resolution becomes law, the rule is invalidated, and the agency generally cannot issue another substantially similar rule unless Congress subsequently authorizes it. The CRA includes expedited procedures, and certain rules issued late in a congressional session may receive an additional review period when the next Congress convenes. The exact lookback period depends on the congressional calendar. However, the CRA has an important limitation: the joint resolution must be presented to the President. President Trump could veto a resolution disapproving a regulation issued by his own administration. Without the two-thirds majority needed to override that veto, Democratic control of Congress alone may not be enough to overturn recently finalized regulations through the CRA.

Question 6: How could newly elected Democratic governors influence immigration policy?

Response: Although immigration is primarily governed by federal law, states have authority over their own agencies and how state resources are used. Governors cannot grant immigration status, issue visas, or prevent federal immigration enforcement. However, they can influence state policies involving information sharing, cooperation with federal enforcement, access to state services, workplace notice requirements, and professional licensing. State responses to federal enforcement activity may also become an important area of focus. Employers should remember that governors do not necessarily control their state’s attorney general. In states where the attorney general is independently elected, the two officials may take different positions on immigration matters. Employers should therefore monitor both offices when evaluating a state’s immigration posture.

Question 7: How might states challenge federal immigration regulations and executive actions?

Response: Democratic governors and state attorneys general may work together to challenge federal immigration policies through litigation, as occurred with challenges to the 2019 public charge rule. States can argue that the federal government exceeded its statutory authority, violated the APA, failed to consider the impact of its actions on states, or violated constitutional protections. For example, a coalition led by California, New York, and Illinois has challenged the administration’s 2026 public charge rule, arguing that the rule exceeds DHS’s authority and is arbitrary and capricious. These lawsuits may provide an important check on federal immigration policy. However, litigation outcomes and timelines are unpredictable. A court must issue an injunction, stay, or vacatur before implementation of a challenged policy is legally blocked.

Question 8: What should employers and Global Mobility teams watch following the 2026 midterm elections?

Response: Employers should monitor developments across Congress, federal agencies, state governments, and the courts. Congressional oversight could generate greater transparency into agency practices and enforcement priorities, while appropriations legislation could affect agency resources and operations. Targeted immigration legislation may advance even if comprehensive reform remains unlikely. At the same time, pending regulations could be finalized before the new Congress takes office, creating potential compliance changes and litigation risks. State governors and attorneys general may also take a more active role in challenging federal immigration policies. HR, Legal, and Global Mobility teams should stay informed about legislative developments, regulatory changes, court decisions, and new agency guidance to anticipate potential impacts on immigration sponsorship, workforce planning, and employer compliance.

About the Authors

Kimberley Best Robidoux is a Partner in WR Immigration’s San Diego office with 25+ years of experience advising employers and individuals on business immigration, immigration compliance, and I-9 and E-Verify matters. She currently serves as the Chair of the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s Verification and Documentation Committee and has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America®, Super Lawyers®, Who’s Who Legal: Corporate Immigration, Lawdragon and other leading publications.

Miki Kawashima Matrician is Co-Managing Partner of WR Immigration’s Boston office, where she advises employers on business immigration, corporate immigration policies, compliance, and risk management. She teaches Business Immigration Law at Boston University School of Law and is recognized by Chambers®, Super Lawyers®, and Best Lawyers® for her immigration expertise. She co-hosts WR Immigration’s monthly Chatting with Charlie Visa Bulletin Reactions and quarterly webinars alongside Charlie Oppenheim.