Is America making its most critical skilled-worker visa a luxury item? That is the question echoing around boardrooms, law firms, and engineering units following President Donald Trump’s surprise announcement of imposing a $100,000 charge on fresh H‑1B visa petitions a greater than 460-fold hike from the current level of $215.
The White House moved quickly to clarify that the charge applies only to new applicants, not renewals or current holders, and is, for now, a one-time payment. But the damage from the initial announcement was immediate. Within hours of the signing, immigration attorneys described “total chaos” in the H‑1B process, with tech workers abroad rushing to re-enter the U.S. before the rule took effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time. On an India-bound Emirates flight from San Francisco, at least 40 passengers numerous employees of large tech companies got off after emergency company alerts advised of possible re-entry issues.
The H‑1B program, established in 1990, permits U.S. employers to recruit foreign professionals in specialty occupations that need at least a bachelor’s degree. Congress limits the number to be given out annually to 65,000, with another 20,000 for those who have advanced U.S. degrees. In 2024, 64% of approved petitions were for computer-related positions, followed by architecture, engineering, and teaching. The program is a pillar of the U.S. tech industry: Amazon alone received well over 9,000 approvals in the previous year, while Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Apple each sponsored thousands.
Economists and labor experts point out that H‑1B workers usually supplement, not supplant, U.S. expertise. The median H‑1B salary in 2021 was $108,000 more than double the national median and higher rates of visa approvals are linked to higher rates of patent filings, venture capital investment, and IPO activity. Restrictions, on the other hand, have prompted U.S. companies in the past to increase business in Canada, India, and Mexico, sending jobs and tax revenue overseas.
That specter hangs over them now. Big Tech might take the fee on the chin as part of the cost of doing business, but mid-sized businesses and early-stage startups have a stark calculation. “A $100K annual fee won’t bother Big Tech, but it kneecaps startups and bodyshops the same,” wrote Y Combinator’s Garry Tan on X. For a small company that is paying a base salary of $150,000 to $200,000, tacking on $100,000 in government fees makes domestic hiring of foreign talent impossible. Venture capital partners say the outcome will be more distributed teams and product development moved overseas.
Trump administration officials cast the measure as a check on what they describe as abuse of the system by outsourcing companies, which critics say use H‑1Bs to staff lower-paying, entry-level jobs instead of scarce, high-skill positions. Trade Secretary Howard Lutnick was candid: “If you have a very sophisticated engineer and you want to bring them in … then you can pay $100,000 a year for your H‑1B visa.” The administration argues the fee will cause companies to leave the program for only the “best of the best.”
But the step comes with the introduction of two pricey immigration options: the $1 million “Gold Card” and $5 million “Platinum Card” visas. The investor-class channels, based on so-called “golden visa” programs overseas, provide fast-tracked residency and in the Platinum option, even as much as 270 days in the U.S. without paying taxes on foreign earnings. Lutnick has indicated that these would supplant some employment-based visas, such as those for professors, scientists, and artists. Critics say that this rebrands American immigration as a pay-to-play system, favoring money over merit and potentially pushing aside the very innovators the H‑1B was intended to draw.
The legal basis for the $100,000 fee is questionable. Immigration law allows the executive branch to charge fees to recoup processing fees, but experts point out there is no law on which to base a fee of this size. “The president has literally zero legal authority to impose a $100,000 fee on visas,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council. Lawyers anticipate resistance from multinational companies and small businesses, but even if courts invalidate it, the policy’s deterrent effect on international talent mobility could persist.
Meanwhile, the engineering and technology industries have a tight deadline to adjust. Businesses with international employees are rethinking recruiting funnels, business travel policies, and whether U.S.-based positions are feasible for foreign nationals. Some managers are already looking to expand in Vancouver or Bangalore as a hedge. As one Microsoft manager said, “So the U.S. doesn’t get $100,000 and probably loses $100,000 a year in federal and state tax revenue per immigrant. No net new U.S. jobs will be created. They’ll just move the jobs to Vancouver.”
