Labor Department proposes national rule requiring five job searches a week for unemployment benefits

The Trump administration wants to set a single national floor for how hard unemployment claimants must look for work. The Labor Department proposed a rule Monday, Nov. 9, that would require anyone claiming unemployment insurance to complete and report at least five qualifying work-search activities each week before a payment goes out.

The proposal is set to be published in the Federal Register today, Nov. 10. The public then has 60 days to comment.

What changes

Federal law already requires every state to have a work-search requirement. It does not say what that requirement must be. States set their own rules, along with benefit amounts and the number of weeks claimants can collect.

The result is a patchwork. Many states ask for two or three work searches a week. Some ask for one. Only four require five, according to Michele Evermore, senior director of economic security and worker transitions at the National Employment Law Project.

What counts as a work search also varies by state. Depending on where you live, it might be submitting a job application, creating a profile on a job-search website, or attending a networking event.

The department says the inconsistency is the problem. In its proposal, the agency said the rule is "necessary to reduce inconsistencies beyond those created by local labor markets in State-level requirements for individuals to actively seek work." It also said the changes would "hold States accountable" for running a program that provides "temporary wage replacement."

The administration's case

Sonderling framed it as a taxpayer and job-placement issue. "This proposed rule helps jobseekers find work faster and ensures efficient use of taxpayer resources while improving the overall integrity of our unemployment system," he said in the department's release.

On X, he was blunter: "Unemployment insurance is meant to be temporary support while you find your next job, not a permanent taxpayer-funded paycheck."

The department also argues that vague or uneven definitions of an allowable activity lead to uneven enforcement and can trip up claimants who are otherwise eligible. It acknowledged the change could temporarily raise costs while states and claimants adjust.

The pushback

Evermore, whose group advocates for workers, called the proposal "devastating to claimants who may not have five search options for every week they are unemployed." She said it "will likely cost states hundreds of thousands of dollars."

Her argument is practical. "Nearly all states will have to change their claimant intake forms, and with it, their technology," she said. "Many states will have to rewrite their laws to meet this rule."

She also argued that employers "want candidates enthusiastic about their job opportunities, not ticking boxes for the work search form."

There is a federalism wrinkle here too. Unemployment insurance is a joint federal-state program, and states have run their own eligibility rules for decades. A uniform federal standard takes that discretion away. Whether that is a feature or a flaw depends on whether you trust Washington or the states to design the rules. The cost estimate above comes from Evermore. The department has not published one.

The labor market backdrop

The timing matters. Economists describe the current job market as one of low hiring and low layoffs. In October, 27.6% of unemployed people had been out of work for more than six months, up from 20.5% three years earlier.

That cuts both ways. Longer searches make five documented applications a week harder for some people to sustain. They are also the reason the administration says the benefit should push people back toward work sooner.

In almost all states, jobless workers can't collect unemployment for more than six months anyway. The six-month point is also where the long-term unemployed share is measured.

What happens next

The proposal is not law. After the 60-day comment period, the Labor Department must review the comments and decide whether to finalize, revise or drop the rule. States, advocacy groups and employers are likely to weigh in on the five-a-week threshold and on how much time states get to rebuild their systems and, where required, change their statutes. The department has not said how it would enforce the standard against states that fall short.