The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has proposed permanently raising the cost of an H-1B skilled-worker visa to $103,265, up from the current $100,000 imposed last year and far above the prior range of $2,000 to $5,000. The fee increase is part of a broader policy shift under the Trump administration that includes enhanced vetting of applicants with technology backgrounds, focusing on potential censorship and free-speech concerns.
Employer registrations for H-1B visas fell to about 344,000 last year, a decline of more than 25% from 2024 and less than half the 759,000 registrations in 2023. As of late February, roughly 70 employers had paid the $100,000 fee across 85 applications. The program’s annual quota remains capped at 65,000 visas, with an additional 20,000 reserved for workers holding advanced degrees. Visas are typically granted for three years and may be renewed for a total of six.
Legal challenges have emerged against the fee increase. A federal judge in Boston ruled in June that the $100,000 fee was illegal and blocked its collection, a decision now under review by a Boston-based appeals court. The Department of Homeland Security’s proposal to make the higher fee permanent adds urgency to pending litigation, which could be amended to challenge the new rule. Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, have filed lawsuits alongside unions and Democratic-led states.
Corporate responses to the policy changes have included shifts in hiring and expansion plans. Major H-1B users such as Google have increased operations in India, citing the enhanced vetting process and processing delays as factors in their decisions. The State Department has directed U.S. consulates to scrutinize LinkedIn profiles, resumes, and family-member backgrounds of applicants—particularly those with technology sector ties—over concerns related to censorship and protected expression.
Established by Congress in 1990, the H-1B program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign professionals in specialized occupations when qualified American workers are unavailable. Critics argue the program has been used to hire lower-paid foreign workers instead of Americans, while supporters contend it addresses persistent skill shortages in key industries.
