Navigating National Interest: Proving National Interest in a Sea of Shifting Priorities

One constant in the United States is that every four years we face the possibility of a new president and that – at least every eight years – we indeed have a new president.   Uncertainty inevitably accompanies change and often leads to anxiety. As only the second U.S. president to be elected to two non-consecutive terms in the country’s 249-year history,[1] Donald Trump made (recent) history when he was elected to a second term in the 2024 general election after losing his bid for re-election to Joe Biden in 2020. The unique circumstances surrounding President Trump’s election to a disjointed second term, along with lingering unease and heightened polarization in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, has contributed to an especially tumultuous transition for the country as power passed from President Biden back to President Trump in 2025. 

The new Trump Administration has been very vocal about its plans to reverse course on much of the preceding administration’s agenda, which has raised concerns for some prospective EB-2 national interest waiver (NIW) applicants. Experts in climate change mitigation may wonder if their work is no longer considered to be in the national interest because of Executive Order (E.O.) 14162, which directed the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to “immediately submit formal written notification of the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.” [2]  Highly skilled researchers whose work contributes to cutting-edge vaccine development may worry that the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HSS)[3] may hurt their chances of an NIW approval. These definitive and highly publicized actions, and the public sentiments that contextualize them, raise valid questions about how best to approach the first prong of NIW eligibility criteria.[4]

While these concerns are certainly understandable, it is important to remember that it is not the loudest or the most extreme voices – or a single dramatic executive action – that matters most when arguing national importance. It is essential to cut through the din to form a clear NIW strategy that is supported by compelling evidence. When gathering evidence to show national importance, remember that the “nation” is more than one individual – even the president of the United States – and “importance” is found in more than one E.O., law or policy. The president, a cabinet official or other lawmaker may have a strong opinion about a particular issue, but what do the laws already in place say about that issue? Are substantial federal funds being allocated to address the issue? Do contradictory policies exist around the issue and, if so, can we strategically emphasize the evidence that supports national importance? How much economic activity is tied to the issue?

Consider vaccines: There is currently significant negative sentiment in the country around vaccines that has been fueled, in part, by the current HHS Secretary. This does not mean that a proposed endeavor centered on advancing cutting-edge vaccines cannot be shown to have national importance. The size of the U.S. biotechnology market, the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the annual influenza vaccination campaign (a partnership of the Ad Council, the American Medical Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) all point to the national importance of advancing vaccines in the United States. Furthermore, if the applicant can provide evidence that he or she has made specific advancements in the field already – and submits credible letters of recommendation to validate this – a strong case for national importance can be made.

A case for national importance is made by showing that an applicant’s work has “potential prospective impact” and that the proposed endeavor will address critical challenges facing the nation and offer solutions or advancements that are likely to have broad impact. Will the endeavor have national or global implications within a particular field? Does it have the potential to employ U.S. workers or lead to other substantial positive economic effects? Will the endeavor broadly enhance societal welfare or cultural or artistic enrichment? Will it impact a matter that a government entity has described as having national importance or is the subject of national initiatives?

It is natural to notice attention-seeking voices, but it is wise to not get too distracted by them. When petitioning for an NIW it is imperative to stay focused on presenting clear and compelling evidence of the national importance of one’s proposed endeavor. Government officials can have their opinions and pet initiatives, but their opinions and pet initiatives don’t have to get in the way of a qualified applicant’s NIW.

[1] Grover Cleveland was the only other U.S. president to achieve two non-consecutive terms. He held office from 1885 to 1889, and again from 1893 to 1897.

[2] Putting America First In International Environmental Agreements – The White House

[3] Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. | HHS.gov

[4] Chapter 5 - Advanced Degree or Exceptional Ability | USCIS

This post is part 1 of a new 17-week series published every Wednesday. Each post is written by a different employee of Lisonbee Immigration Law about a immigration topic of their choosing. This post was written by legal writer Tracy Christensen.