Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says (opens in new tab)

This is the reality, combined with the fact that this was pretty much the status quo already. O-1 visas were also a commonly targeted with lawmaker bribes. This just codifies what was already happening and screws over the smaller companies that don't have the resources, networks, guanxi, etc to play the game.

Every change this admin implements needs this examination first. Everyone is in here having earnest discussions about policy pros and cons, but it ain't that country anymore.

The companies the admin favors are being given backdoors for every policy that's presented, and the way to become favored is to present bribes, whether they come in the form of gold plaques, lawsuit settlements, crypto investments, or stock market collusion.

This thread is a poignant example of why I think tech folks might be one of the most gullible crowds out there - despite being perceived as smart. It's like a perfect storm of attributes and incentives. So here we are, completely preoccupied with picking apart details and effects of visa programs for a blatantly obvious kiss-the-ring initiative that couldn't care less about that.

Top 6 H-1B visa companies:

    Amazon      14,365
    Tata         5,505 (Tata is an outsourcing company/body shop)
    Microsoft    5,189
    Meta         5,123
    Apple        4,202
    Google       4,181

Watch for activity favoring Trump from those companies.

Why is DHS getting involved? It should be the sec of state. They issue visas. Or have things changed?

So you are saying this is bullish for QQQ

Judging from reason events, this is just another scourge he can (and will) use against democratic cities or entities

I see, they're just redirecting the firehose.

"One software company was approved for over 5,000 H-1B workers in FY 2025; around the same time, it announced a series of layoffs totaling more than 15,000 employees. Another IT firm was approved for nearly 1,700 H-1B workers in FY 2025; it announced it was laying off 2,400 American workers in Oregon in July. A third company has reduced its workforce by approximately 27,000 American workers since 2022, while being approved for over 25,000 H-1B workers since FY 2022. A fourth company reportedly eliminated 1,000 jobs in February; it was approved for over 1,100 H-1B workers for FY 2025.

American IT workers have reported they were forced to train the foreign workers who were taking their jobs and to sign nondisclosure agreements about this indignity as a condition of receiving any form of severance. This suggests H-1B visas are not being used to fill occupational shortages or obtain highly skilled workers who are unavailable in the United States."

This speaks for itself.

Its a proclamation, not an executive order. This is important to keep in mind because Congress granted explicit statutory authorization to the President in the Immigration and Nationality Act 212(f) and is unlikely to be cut down by the courts for this reason:

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Also interestingly, it seems to only explicitly impose restrictions on entry into the US. But most visa holders are already in the country, and atleast according to this proclamation, they'd be unaffected.

People seem to be missing the part where DHS reserves the right to allow exceptions for any company they desire. Now they have another way to play favorites.

I had a former employer with an Indian subsidiary for this very purpose. The problem is that there is no loyalty to the company and it becomes a revolving door of inexperienced people who couldn't get into H-1B. Always fun when they lie you about testing a feature that you haven't implemented yet. Incidentally, they also introduced ransomware into the entire corporate network (domestic IT was also barely competent).

Most companies, even fairly small ones, already have a substantial number of contract tech employees in India, Eastern Europe, or South America.

Why did they not do that before, if it was feasible?

Of course it depends on the nature of the business but push that too far and you can lock yourself out of projects that require work to be performed on US soil.

I work for a very small company and we've seen by that stipulation a couple of times on anything _remotely_ close to defense/MIC/security.

And the administration can tighten those screws further if it desires.

(I am the only H1B in the history of the company, now a citizen. It would have been impossible to have taken this path with this alleged financial burden)

Yes, see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2024/09/16/the-micros...

Nope, it means the people that would have gone to US will to to Canada instead.

Brazil and Canada will absorb a lot of big tech headcount. Google et al are already moving lots of headcount to both countries. This will accelerate it, even if it’s struck down

They've already had the option to do this all along...

this news is tied with the tax code corrections... All R&D work in a foreign country is to be depreciated over 15 years, it can immediately be depreciated for an American worker.

the PE who bought the company I work for already have a large Indian subsidiary and effectively require a 1:1 ratio

The cost of hiring in the US versus elsewhere is already greater than $100k for the type of tech firm that can just open an international office. I took the base salaries of Google SWEs on levels.fyi for NYC, London, Bengaluru, and Toronto, multiplied them by the standard 1.4 for overhead, and realized the US is already significantly more expensive than most developed countries, let alone the Global South. Companies clearly value employing in America despite the cost.

It is an annual cost. This will dramatically shake up the US tech industry. I expect to see engineering budgets increase, and less Americans struggling to get interviews and ultimately jobs at companies HQ'ed here.

The originally stated purpose of the H1-B program was to import top-tier elite talent but anyone who watched it evolve saw that it became terribly exploitative. I've watched as companies that I've worked for have given 1/4 market rate or worse to H1-B hires. They got addicted to cheap talent. It stopped being about talent on the hiring side and more about increasing head-count at a major discount.

Bring in top talent, but pay them what they're worth if you do. A top-talent elite hire should easily be worth double what a native-born top-talent elite hire would be worth if this program can just do what it was designed to do.

From CNN:

"Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on a call Friday evening that the administration came to the fee of $100,000 per year, plus vetting costs, after talking with companies.

He noted that the payment structure is still under discussion with the Department of Homeland Security, in terms of “whether we’re going to charge the $300,000 up front or $100,000 a year for the three years.”

It’ll be struck down in court within a year. The question is: who’ll be brave and bring the case?

annual cost and they raised the minimum pay to 150k so now its a minimum of 250k to hire an h1B. Or they can hire a new american grad, pay them 80k and train them

Except that I (and I believe it will apply to many folks similar to myself) working for US company branches located in the EU for a decade, on the staff/EM positions, with education to qualify also for O1 - will not put my life and my family’s life to be the subject of sudden immigration changes.

What’s stopping them from doing the same for L1/O1 folks and locking them in with days’ notice?

Few of my US colleagues that I know are now abroad, and I cannot fathom how they took the news.

I would think the hospital industry would get an exemption from this as it is critical to the US.

Hire Americans.

they're not, it's a moat

Do you honestly think the H-1B visa program is not predominantly used for hiring less expensive workers with fewer choices and negotiating leverage?

The US has had its mask off since 2016-17. The tech industry somewhat more recently.

Unless Trump bullies companies to close their foreign offices. I'm pretty concerned with that as that would impact me. That being said, I don't see how FAANG could operate only with US citizens.

That is my interpretation.

Regardless of whether you think imposing a $100k fee on H1Bs is a good idea or not, there is no way that a 2 day deadline makes sense from an implementation perspective. On a weekend too. This is just going to cause panic and confusion at the border.

No, the language clearly limits the restriction to those “aliens … currently outside the United States.” “Entry” in this context means seeking admission (or re-entry) to the U.S. from abroad, under a new petition or visa that starts outside. It is tied to new petitions, and specifically those where the beneficiary is abroad.

“(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall restrict decisions on petitions not accompanied by a $100,000 payment for H-1B specialty occupation workers … who are currently outside the United States …”

Looks like

Employers aren't allowed to pass visa fees straight off to an employee.

It's real. Here's the executive order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/the-...

Do you mean reversed by future executive order answer that question is most likely, however, courts have shown a propensity to limit which executive orders can be undone by future presidents. For example, we saw this during Trump won with DACA.

> low birth rates [...] from economic pressures and lack of personal decisions in Healthcare for women

This is an outlandish and ridiculous hypothesis with zero substance to it. All research points to it being the other way around. They higher the economic pressures and the less freedom people have in reproductive healthcare, the higher the birth rates. The moment Germany introduced the birth control drugs, the birth rate dropped.

If a country develops from the level of Somali to something like Germany and the birth rate tanks to somewhere slightly above 1, increasing the birth rate by maybe 0.1 by enabling more personal decisions has literally zero impact.

Of course I'm still a proponent of decreasing economic pressure on parents and enabling reproductive freedoms like pre-implementation diagnostics. The consequences on birth rate is just something we have to deal with one way or another.

> ...mostly from economic pressures and lack of personal decisions in healthcare for women

I've got some bad news for you about, well, pretty much all of human history...

I think this is extremely tangential to the article, but is there any evidence that any mounting American demographic crisis has anything to do with abortion being overturned?

But H-1Bs are for specialized workers... somehow I don't think that is a meaningful contributor to overall low birth rates, but I could be wrong.

The reason silicon valley works is because it has a giant market that can support products and services before they can go global. Same reason why China has its own tech hubs.