U.S. Alert – Coalition of Business Leaders Tells Trump: We Support International Entrepreneur Rule

A coalition of business leaders, investors, and organizations sent a letter on February 8, 2018, to President Donald Trump in support of the International Entrepreneur Rule (IER), which is in effect following a court order. The Trump administration has signaled that the IER is likely on the chopping block. The letter says that killing the IER “would upend the ability of talented immigrant entrepreneurs to launch new enterprises and employ American workers in communities across the United States.”

Among other things, the letter notes that “Rescission of the International Entrepreneur Rule” has been pending review with the Office of Management and Budget since November 17, 2017. “This potential new rule places a dark cloud over IER, as immigrant entrepreneurs are uncertain of how long IER will be in place,” the letter notes:

The rescission rule stifles investment into new companies with foreign-born founders, which ultimately costs the U.S. economy. It also exacerbates an alarming trend of elite entrepreneurs launching successful startups outside the United States. Twenty years ago our country’s share of global venture investment was 90%, but that number has dropped precipitously to 81% in 2006 and to 53% in 2017. In 2016, China was home to six of the ten largest venture capital investments in the world. If we continue to push entrepreneurs overseas, our share of global investment will continue to decrease.

As background, on January 17, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published the International Entrepreneur final rule with an original effective date of July 17, 2017. On July 11, 2017, DHS published a final rule delaying the effective date until March 14, 2018, to allow for a full review of the rule. The Trump administration proposed in late 2017 to rescind the final rule. In December 2017, a federal court ruled in National Venture Capital Association v. Duke that the rule should go into effect because the government had not provided sufficient notice-and-comment for the delay rule under the Administrative Procedure Act.