US revokes permanent residency programme access for major technology firms
The United States administration has revoked access to the PERM programme, which converts H-1B visa holders to permanent residents, for Microsoft, Adobe, four Indian technology firms (Infosys, Tata, Wipro, HCL) and Capgemini. Vice President JD Vance and Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling cited alleged "fraud and abuse" as justification, claiming the companies have taken hundreds of thousands of jobs from American workers. Microsoft and India's technology industry body NASSCOM have strongly denied the allegations, arguing they follow proper procedures and pay competitive wages.
Since 2009, the targeted companies have requested nearly three million foreign workers and received over 230,000 H-1B approvals and 100,000 permanent labour certifications, according to the administration. Microsoft, which has laid off more than 20,000 staff since early 2025, stated it only hires H-1B workers who meet rigorous standards and pays them competitively. NASSCOM countered that Indian technology companies have increasingly reduced their reliance on H-1B visas in recent years whilst expanding local hiring in the US.
- US revokes H-1B PERM access for Microsoft and Indian tech firms over fraud
- Companies cite competitive wages and skilled talent necessity; deny wrongdoing claims
- Over 3 million foreign worker requests made by these firms since 2009
New here? Start with this
The H-1B visa allows United States companies to hire foreign workers for specialist jobs, and the PERM programme lets some of these workers obtain permanent residency. These programmes are widely used by technology firms, particularly Microsoft, Adobe and major Indian outsourcing companies like Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro and HCL.
For years, critics have argued that companies use these programmes to hire cheaper workers from abroad rather than employing Americans at higher wages. They claim companies sometimes lay off American staff and then replace them with imported workers, a practice they say is unfair to American workers and costs jobs.
The companies dispute these allegations, saying they follow proper hiring rules and pay wages comparable to American workers in similar roles. The debate reflects wider disagreements about immigration policy and whether programmes like these help the broader economy or harm American employment prospects.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The case for revoking access reflects legitimate concerns about labour market protection. When major technology firms hire hundreds of thousands of foreign workers whilst simultaneously conducting mass redundancies of American staff, it suggests the visa system is being exploited to suppress wages and displace domestic talent. Protecting employment and wages for American workers in high-skill, high-wage technology roles—sectors critical to national economic competitiveness—constitutes a defensible policy priority.
The case against
The companies' position appeals to procedural fairness and economic necessity. The PERM programme requires employers to demonstrate that no qualified American workers are available; the administration has presented aggregate hiring numbers without evidence these companies violated this requirement or engaged in actual fraud. If these firms paid competitively and followed legal procedures, rescinding their access without due process punishes lawful conduct, whilst documented talent shortages in specialised technology roles suggest a policy response based on suspicion rather than proven wrongdoing.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Register as “India’s tech giants shrug off changes to USA’s skilled visa program”.