Trump proposes NEW eye-popping fee for H-1B visas for foreign workers amid immigration crackdown
Developing story first seen 2 hours ago
The Trump administration has proposed a new $103,265 fee for US employers seeking to hire foreign workers through the H-1B skilled worker visa programme, marking a further escalation of its hard-line immigration policies. Announced by the Department of Homeland Security on Monday, the charge would apply per H-1B recipient on top of existing filing fees, though cap-exempt roles such as most university positions and workers already in the US under the scheme would be excluded. If finalised, the measure could significantly reshape a programme long relied upon by businesses in fields such as research, engineering and technology to recruit specialists in areas short of qualified US applicants.
DHS estimates the fee could raise $8.78 billion a year, based on roughly 85,000 H-1B petitions annually, with only around $3 billion of the 10-year revenue pool going to USCIS itself; the rest would fund wider immigration enforcement, including an extra $1 billion for ICE, $76.2 million for CBP, and more than $1 billion for immigration courts to hire some 8,400 additional judges and staff. The move follows Trump's 2025 executive order attempting a similar $100,000 fee, which was struck down in federal court; officials say the new rule rests on different legal authority but is still expected to face legal challenges.
- DHS proposes $103,265 fee per H-1B visa hire
- Exempts university roles and workers already in the US
- Expected to raise $8.78bn yearly, mostly funding enforcement
New here? Start with this
The Trump administration has proposed a steep new fee, running to over $103,000, for employers who want to hire foreign professionals through the H-1B visa route, which is used to bring skilled workers such as engineers, researchers and technology specialists into the United States. The charge would be paid per hire, on top of fees that already exist, and comes as part of a broader push by the administration to tighten immigration policy. Businesses that rely on the scheme to fill specialist roles could face a significant rise in the cost of employing overseas talent.
The plan is being put forward by the Department of Homeland Security, and much of the money raised would be directed towards immigration enforcement agencies and the courts that handle immigration cases, rather than solely towards running the visa programme itself. This follows an earlier attempt by the administration to introduce a similar charge by executive order, which was blocked by a federal court, so the new proposal is being framed differently in legal terms.
The H-1B programme has long been a route for American companies, particularly in sectors such as technology and research, to recruit workers with specialised skills from abroad. Because of this, any change to its cost affects not just individual visa applicants but also the businesses and industries that depend on international recruitment, making the proposal a significant point of debate in the wider immigration policy landscape.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue the fee corrects a long-standing distortion in the H-1B system, where some employers have used the programme to undercut American wages rather than to fill genuine skills shortages. By making sponsorship costly, the measure encourages firms to first exhaust the domestic talent pool and to reserve the visa for roles where a foreign specialist's value clearly exceeds the expense, while directing the proceeds towards enforcement and a chronically under-resourced immigration court system. Advocates see this as a legitimate exercise of executive authority to prioritise the wages and job security of American workers over cheaper foreign labour.
The case against
Opponents contend the fee is so large that it will deter legitimate hiring of the doctors, engineers, and researchers that hospitals, universities and technology firms genuinely cannot find domestically, ultimately harming American competitiveness and innovation rather than protecting workers. They warn that treating a skilled-worker visa programme as a funding stream for unrelated enforcement activity conflates immigration policy with revenue-raising, and that smaller firms and start-ups, unable to absorb such a cost, will be squeezed out in favour of large corporations. Many also note that a similar fee was already struck down by the courts, suggesting the policy oversteps executive authority and will face legitimate legal and economic objections.
More coverage