DHS Published a 358-Page EB-5 Proposed Rule on July 2. The Bridge Financing Change Is the One That Will Reshape the Market.

What DHS published on July 2

On July 2, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security published a 358-page Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register — document 2026-13392, Volume 91, No. 126 — to implement the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022. The RIA was passed by Congress four years ago and fundamentally restructured the EB-5 investor visa program. The problem since 2022 has been that the actual regulatory text was never updated to reflect what Congress enacted. USCIS has been adjudicating EB-5 cases under a hybrid state: new statutory requirements, old regulatory language, and a series of policy memos filling the gaps. This NPRM closes that gap in a single 358-page rulemaking.

The comment period runs 60 days and closes on August 31, 2026. DHS specifically invited comments on several provisions, including whether less restrictive alternatives to the bridge financing elimination might accomplish the same program integrity goals with less market disruption. Nothing in the proposed rule takes effect because it was published. The path from proposal to binding regulation requires DHS to review the comment record, draft a final rule, publish it, and allow an implementation window — typically 60 to 90 days between publication and effective date. That timeline is measured in months.

The bridge financing proposal — the one that matters most

Bridge financing is how most large regional center EB-5 deals actually get built. A developer cannot wait two years for USCIS to process investor I-526E petitions before breaking ground. So the typical structure uses short-term bridge financing — a conventional loan from a bank, the developer's own capital, or third-party lenders — to fund construction while the EB-5 capital is being raised. When the EB-5 subscriptions close and investor capital arrives, it repays the bridge. The project can move forward without being paralyzed by the USCIS adjudication queue.

Under the NPRM, this transaction structure loses its job creation credit. The proposal states that EB-5 capital used to repay bridge financing cannot be counted toward the 10-job creation requirement per investor. This is the most consequential proposal in the document. Job creation is not an administrative detail in the EB-5 program — it is the fundamental condition that justifies the investor's green card. Remove job creation credit for a particular use of funds and you eliminate the eligibility basis for any investment structured that way.

DHS acknowledged the disruption and specifically invited comment on partial alternatives: capping the bridge financing restriction to a percentage of total project costs, limiting it by duration, or carving out certain financing types from the prohibition. Whether the final rule adopts the proposed outright elimination, a narrower version, or something else entirely is unknown until DHS works through the comment record after August 31. But the proposal as written would reshape the regional center deal structure more than any single rule change in the program's history.

Three tiers instead of two, and the new HEA category

The current EB-5 program has two investment levels. Projects located in a Targeted Employment Area — a rural area or a high-unemployment zone where joblessness runs at least 150 percent of the national average — require a minimum investment of $800,000. Projects outside a TEA require $1,050,000. This two-tier structure has been in place since 2022.

The NPRM proposes a third tier: the High Employment Area. An HEA is defined as a geographic zone within a metropolitan area where unemployment is significantly below the national average — prosperous urban cores where many regional center projects are sited. The proposed minimum investment for HEA-located projects is $1,400,000. That is 33 percent higher than the current standard non-TEA minimum and 75 percent above the TEA minimum.

Separately from the NPRM, the existing EB-5 statute calls for a routine inflation adjustment to the investment amounts on January 1, 2027. That adjustment happens under existing law regardless of what becomes of the proposed rule. Anyone planning an EB-5 investment in the second half of 2026 should account for both the pending NPRM and the January 1 adjustment.

The TEA calculation methodology on the chopping block

To qualify for the reduced $800,000 investment threshold, a project must demonstrate it is located in a Targeted Employment Area. For the high-unemployment designation, that means showing the area's unemployment rate is at least 150 percent of the national average. Currently, two methodologies are accepted for making that calculation.

The first uses Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics data directly — county or metropolitan statistical area figures that are straightforward to obtain. The second is the Census Share Methodology, which combines LAUS data with American Community Survey data at the census-tract level. This approach allows much more granular geographic targeting. A project in a census tract with elevated unemployment can qualify for TEA status even if the broader county does not. It has been used extensively to fit urban projects into the TEA reduced-investment tier.

The NPRM proposes to eliminate the Census Share Methodology. USCIS states that the approach does not generally produce statistically valid unbiased estimates at the census-tract level. If finalized, TEA unemployment calculations would be limited to the LAUS-only method. Projects that currently qualify for TEA status under the Census Share method but would not qualify under LAUS-only would face a higher minimum investment — either the standard $1,050,000 or the proposed HEA rate of $1,400,000 depending on the location.

What the regional center oversight proposal actually says

The EB-5 regional center program has operated without a formal compliance infrastructure for most of its existence. The NPRM proposes to change that comprehensively. Required annual reporting, formal audits, site visits by DHS, and enhanced recordkeeping would become standard obligations. The agency would be authorized to conduct compliance reviews at any point in a regional center's operating life — not just at initial designation.

The enforcement side of the proposal is new territory. DHS would have authority to issue warnings, impose monetary penalties of up to 10 percent of the total capital invested in affected enterprises, suspend a regional center's authorization, terminate its designation entirely, or permanently debar individuals and organizations from participating in the EB-5 program. Permanent debarment is a sanction that has not existed in the regional center framework under prior rules.

The promoter registration framework is a separate but equally new concept. EB-5 investments are typically marketed through networks of brokers, agents, and placement firms — many operating internationally in China, India, South Korea, and elsewhere — who connect investors with regional center offerings. The NPRM would establish the first formal federal registration requirement for these promoters.

The provisions that will get less attention than they deserve

Buried in 358 pages are a few items worth flagging. On cryptocurrency: the NPRM confirms that digital assets, including cryptocurrency, can serve as a lawful source of EB-5 investment funds. This reflects existing USCIS adjudication practice but codifies it in regulation. An investor using crypto holdings as the source of an EB-5 investment can do so, provided the documentation standard is met — lawful origin and transfer must be clearly documented. Using crypto does not eliminate the source-of-funds requirement; it specifies that crypto is a valid category when properly documented.

On job creation methodology: the NPRM eliminates two previously accepted approaches. Visitor spending projections — counting indirect jobs created by tourist or consumer spending associated with a project — would no longer be permissible. Troubled-business job retention models — which counted preserved jobs at at-risk businesses rather than net new jobs created — would also be eliminated. These affect a narrower range of deals than the bridge financing issue, but for structures that have relied on them, the elimination is significant.

The September 30 grandfathering deadline is not the NPRM comment deadline

There is real confusion in the EB-5 community between two deadlines that involve different legal frameworks. The NPRM's comment period closes August 31, 2026 — that is the date to submit written comments to DHS. Comments submitted after that date will not be considered in the rulemaking record.

Separately, the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act of 2022 — the statute this NPRM is implementing — includes its own grandfathering provisions that protect certain investors under the rules in effect at the time of filing. September 30, 2026 is a key boundary in the grandfathering analysis under the RIA for certain petition types. This date comes from the statute, not from the NPRM. It applies regardless of whether or when the proposed rule is finalized.

For investors weighing whether to file an I-526 or I-526E petition before the end of the fiscal year, the September 30 date matters for grandfathering purposes independent of the proposed rule. For stakeholders focused on the proposed rule itself, the operative deadline is August 31. These are two different clocks running on two different legal tracks.

What this is and what it is not

The 358-page NPRM is significant for a reason that goes beyond any individual proposal. For four years, the EB-5 program has operated under a statutory framework — the RIA — that was never translated into binding regulatory text. Regional centers, attorneys, investors, and adjudicators have worked through a patchwork of policy guidance, interim procedures, and statutory interpretation. This NPRM is the attempt to replace that patchwork with actual regulation. Whatever the final rule looks like after the comment review, comprehensive codification matters for program stability.

What it is not: effective law. Nothing in the NPRM applies today. The comment period closes August 31. After that, DHS must work through the public record, respond to significant comments, and publish a final rule with its own effective date. The timeline from today to an effective final rule is measured in quarters, not weeks. The proposals are substantial enough that the final rule — in whatever form it takes — will matter for regional centers and investors making decisions now.

This article is informational only and does not constitute legal advice. The EB-5 proposed rule was published July 2, 2026 and has not been finalized. Its provisions may change substantially before any final rule takes effect. Consult a licensed immigration attorney for guidance on your specific EB-5 investment or regional center situation.