President Donald Trump extended an executive order that would impose a fee of $100,000 for H-1B non-immigrant visas by another year, the White House said on Friday.
The policy will remain in place through September 21, 2027, with limited exceptions for workers, companies or industries deemed to be in the national interest, the White House said in a statement on Friday.
In a statement, the White House said, "On September 19, 2025, Proclamation 10973 (Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers) (2025 Proclamation), was issued to address significant abuses of the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program."
"The restrictions enacted by the 2025 Proclamation have proven to be highly effective but the underlying conditions necessitating the restrictions persist," it read.
"It is therefore in the interests of the United States to extend the 2025 Proclamation for an additional 12 months, until 12:00 a.m. eastern daylight time on September 21, 2027," the White House said.
US employers seeking to hire skilled foreign workers can use the H-1B visa program for a fee, allowing tech and other professionals from abroad to work in the United States for a few years.
The White House said on Friday that registrations from the largest information technology staffing and outsourcing firms have fallen 92% since the H-1B payment requirement and a new weighted selection system took effect, while more applications are now for workers with advanced degrees and higher-paying job offers.
More than 700 petitions have included the $100,000 payment, according to the proclamation.
It added, “Finally, there has been a positive shift in FY 2027 H-1B registration and selection data toward higher-skilled and higher-paid workers, with registrations for beneficiaries with at least a U.S. Master’s degree rising from 45.1 percent of total registrants for FY 2026 to 66.1 percent for FY 2027.”
Trump has criticised the H-1B program and wants to permanently raise the fee from between $2,000 and $5,000 to at least $100,000.
Trump's initial order for a fee hike, first released in September 2025, was set to expire this month.
Despite criticism that some companies use the visas to hire lower-paid foreign workers instead of Americans, business groups and companies say they help recruit highly skilled professionals and address a lack of qualified US workers in some industries.
The H-1B visas, established by Congress in 1990, are especially critical for tech companies seeking to recruit from India and China.
Changes to how potential visa holders are scrutinized and processed have impacted companies' hiring and expansion plans, with some top H-1B users, such as Google parent company Alphabet, moving to increase operations in India.
The US Department of Homeland Security also began pursuing a separate, more far-reaching proposal last month that would impose a roughly $103,000 fee on all H-1B petitions subject to the annual visa cap.
Unlike the earlier initiative, it would apply to almost anyone getting a new visa, not just those who are outside the country.
The development is significant to Indian professionals as Indians account for the largest share of approved H-1B beneficiaries by country of birth.
USCIS data for FY2024 shows that 71% of approved H-1B petitions were for beneficiaries born in India, compared with about 12% for China.
The higher fee does not apply to every H-1B worker. It did not apply to visas granted to foreign citizens already in the United States on student visas, who make up a large share of new H-1B recipients, or to renewals of current visas.
The fee also did not apply to renewals of existing H-1B visas.
For Indian workers outside the US who receive H-1B opportunities requiring entry into the country, the legal status of the $100,000 payment could have significant consequences for employers and visa applicants.
The decision to extend the fee for another year came even as the legal battle over the H-1B fee continues in court.
The legal status of the fee remains uncertain as a federal judge in Massachusetts struck down the government’s guidance for implementing it in June. The government has appealed that decision.
A Boston-based appeals court is reviewing a June decision by a federal judge who deemed the higher fee imposed by the Trump administration illegal and blocked the government from collecting it.
Another court is considering whether a judge properly rejected a challenge to the fee by the US Chamber of Commerce, the largest US business lobbying group.
Akriti Anand is a Deputy Chief Content Producer at LiveMint. She is a digital journalist with more than six years in the news industry.<br><br> In her current role, she covers both national and international politics, and also keeps a close watch on the latest trends in science and space exploration. <br><br> Akriti joined the LiveMint team in October 2023. Before this, she built a strong career at other major media houses. She worked as a senior sub-editor at India Today. Later, she moved to CNBCTV-18. There, she covered high-pressure topics like breaking news and major elections. She spent much of her time analysing Parliament bills and complex political debates. She is also a skilled editor who knows how to polish a story for a digital audience. <br><br> One of her career highlights happened at CNBCTV-18. She made her first television debut during the Chandrayaan-3 mission. She also provided special on-air coverage for the Karnataka Elections. <br><br> When she is not busy with breaking news, Akriti loves to write explainers and interview experts on a wide range of issues. She also enjoys making complex space missions easy for everyone to understand. <br><br> Her education helps her tackle these diverse subjects. She holds a BA in English Literature, a Postgraduate Diploma in Mass Communication, and a Master’s degree in Development Studies. She is currently expanding her knowledge in climate journalism.<br><br> Connect with Akriti here<br> LinkedIn: <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/akriti-anand-868285199">https://www.linkedin.com/in/akriti-anand-868285199</a><br> Twitter/X: <a href="https://x.com/AkritiAnand7">https://x.com/AkritiAnand7</a><br> Email: akriti.anand@htdigital.in
Oops! Looks like you have exceeded the limit to bookmark the image. Remove some to bookmark this image.
Facts Only
* President Donald Trump extended an executive order imposing a $100,000 fee for H-1B non-immigrant visas.
* The policy is active through September 21, 2027.
* Proclamation 10973 was originally issued on September 19, 2025.
* Registrations from large IT staffing and outsourcing firms decreased by 92% following the fee and a new weighted selection system.
* H-1B registrations for beneficiaries with at least a U.S. Master’s degree rose from 45.1% in FY 2026 to 66.1% in FY 2027.
* Over 700 petitions have included the $100,000 payment.
* The fee does not apply to renewals of existing visas or to foreign citizens already in the U.S. on student visas.
* The U.S. Department of Homeland Security proposed a separate fee of approximately $103,000 for all H-1B petitions subject to the annual cap.
* FY2024 USCIS data shows 71% of approved H-1B petitions were for individuals born in India and 12% for those born in China.
* A federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the government from collecting the fee in June; the government has appealed this decision.
* The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has challenged the fee in court.
Executive Summary
The U.S. government has extended a policy requiring a $100,000 fee for certain H-1B non-immigrant visas through September 2027. This initiative aims to curb perceived abuses of the visa program by discouraging lower-paid foreign labor and prioritizing high-skilled workers with advanced degrees. Data suggests a significant decline in applications from large outsourcing firms and an increase in the proportion of applicants holding Master's degrees.
However, the policy faces substantial legal challenges. Federal courts in Massachusetts have previously blocked the collection of these fees, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is actively contesting the measure. While the administration views the fee as a tool for national interest, business groups argue that such restrictions hinder the recruitment of essential talent and ignore domestic labor shortages. The situation remains volatile as appellate courts review the legality of the payments, leaving employers and foreign professionals—particularly those from India—in a state of regulatory uncertainty.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that the U.S. is transitioning the H-1B program from a volume-based staffing tool into a high-value talent filter, effectively using price as a barrier to eliminate "outsourcing" models while preserving "innovation" models.
This shift reflects a protectionist paradigm that views labor not as a fluid global resource, but as a zero-sum competition between domestic workers and foreign nationals. The unstated assumption is that a high entry price automatically equates to higher skill or "national interest," ignoring the possibility that only the wealthiest corporations—rather than the most innovative ones—can afford the talent.
The human agency at stake is significant: the "cost of entry" for professional migration is being shifted from the employer's operational budget to a government-mandated premium. This creates a secondary effect where companies like Alphabet shift operations to the workers' home countries, such as India, rather than bringing workers to the U.S. This potentially accelerates the decentralization of the U.S. tech hub.
Patterns detected: none
Bridge Questions:
1. Does a high financial barrier effectively filter for "skill," or does it simply filter for "corporate wealth"?
2. If tech giants move operations abroad to avoid visa fees, does this achieve the goal of protecting U.S. workers, or does it merely export U.S. economic activity?
3. What objective metrics, beyond degree level and salary, would accurately define "national interest" without relying on arbitrary fees?
Counterstrike Scan:
A coordinated influence campaign pushing this narrative would emphasize "winning" against "outsourcers" and use the 92% drop in staffing firm registrations as a definitive victory for the American worker while omitting the legal instability of the order. The actual content does not match this; it maintains balance by detailing the court challenges and the concerns of business groups.