H-1B Policy Missteps: Trump’s $100k Fee and $208k Salary

The Trump administration set off a fierce backlash in the tech and higher education sectors after announcing in September 2025 a new $100,000 fee on most new H-1B visa petitions, a move critics say functions as a de facto ban on fresh hires from abroad. The fee, which the administration said applies to applications filed on or after September 21, 2025, lands hardest on employers recruiting workers outside the United States or cases that require consular processing. Business groups, university leaders, and immigration lawyers warned the change will hit startups and midsize firms first, while the largest multinationals may absorb the cost by passing it along to clients or reducing other investments.

The administration paired the new charge with a separate proposal to set a national minimum salary of $208,000 for H-1B workers, regardless of role, location, or experience. Taken together, the two steps amount to a sudden and sweeping challenge to the decades-old program used to hire high-skilled workers in science and tech.

Previous H-1B filing costs commonly totaled between $2,000 and $5,000, including government filing fees and legal support. The leap to six figures dwarfs past costs and, according to industry groups, effectively ends new H-1B hiring for all but a handful of firms. Companies that planned to bring in entry-level engineers or data scientists say the salary proposal, if finalized, would make those roles financially impossible in most markets.

Government rationale and expert pushback

Officials argue the moves are aimed at protecting U.S. workers, claiming the H-1B program has been “abused” to depress wages or replace Americans in certain jobs. But economists and policy specialists across the political spectrum questioned that rationale and warned the changes are blunt tools that miss the real problems.

• Experts note the H-1B program supplies a large share of the workforce for core technology and research teams.
• Many H-1B workers earn pay on par with or above similarly skilled U.S. workers.
• Analysis by VisaVerge.com warns the sudden imposition of a $100,000 fee is so disproportionate to prior costs that it will “freeze” new hiring channels rather than steer firms to U.S. applicants, because many positions require niche skills unavailable in local markets within the hiring time frame.

Immediate fallout: firms, startups, and research labs

The fallout was immediate in boardrooms and labs.

• Founders at venture-backed startups said they halted offers to candidates abroad and began shifting projects offshore to keep product timelines intact.
• University research labs that rely on postdoctoral scholars and specialized technologists described scrambling to reassign projects or risk delays.
• For some firms in smaller cities, the numbers are especially stark: a growing software company in Raleigh or Omaha that once projected total hiring costs of $10,000 to $15,000 for an entry-level engineer now faces a $100,000 fee plus the prospect of a $208,000 pay floor—figures that exceed typical annual revenue per junior seat.

Managers said they will either move the work to overseas teams or cancel the roles entirely.

How the fee applies (procedure and references)

Immigration attorneys pointed out that the fee targets the initial gateway to the program: the employer’s petition, filed on Form I-129, which is the standard application to classify a worker as H-1B.

• If the petition involves consular processing because the worker is abroad, the new charge applies under the policy announced in September.
• The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) maintains program details and petition requirements on its official H-1B page, which employers consult to plan hiring timelines and costs.

For those still moving forward, attorneys warned that existing budgets would be blown apart, leaving even well-funded startups reconsidering their entire staffing strategy. Employers that do proceed must still file the underlying petition.

• The petition is filed using Form I-129, while broader program information is outlined on the USCIS H-1B page.

Broader economic and strategic implications

This moment stands in contrast to long-standing economic objectives: for decades, both parties have said the United States should attract and keep global talent to strengthen key industries. The H-1B program, while far from perfect, has been one pathway to do that, and it remains widely used in:

• software
• cloud infrastructure
• semiconductor design
• biomedicine
• advanced manufacturing

Estimates often cite about 750,000 H-1B workers currently in the country, many of whom power teams that build products and train future engineers.

By making new hiring extremely expensive, the administration’s approach risks prompting companies to send more work to affiliates or contractors abroad. That shift may reduce domestic job creation around those teams, including roles in support, sales, and operations that typically cluster near core engineering groups.

International competition for talent

Industry reaction fused policy concerns with practical worries. Tech executives noted that Canada, Germany, and Australia have increased visas for high-skilled workers and sped up processing in recent years, seeking the same candidates that once prioritized U.S. offers.

• Recruiters said they are already advising candidates who lose U.S. options to pick roles in Toronto, Berlin, or Sydney, where employer fees are far lower and salary rules align with local labor markets.
• If the United States prices entry-level and mid-career hires at senior compensation levels and adds a six-figure filing charge, companies may simply reallocate headcount to those countries.
• The U.S. could then import the finished products later, an outcome that does not create more jobs at home and could widen the trade deficit in the short term.

Supporters’ view and experts’ alternative solutions

Supporters of tougher rules counter that some staffing firms have used the H-1B route to place workers at client sites at lower wages, and they applaud steps that make misuse more costly. Yet labor experts argue the right way to handle that concern is targeted enforcement.

Suggested targeted measures include:

• sharper audits
• more site visits
• tougher penalties for violators
• improving wage data sources
• sharpening oversight of third-party placements

Broad measures like a blanket $100,000 fee and a nationwide $208,000 pay floor do not separate good-faith employers from bad actors; instead, they sweep together hospitals, universities, and early-stage companies with any firm that might cut corners.

As one senior university administrator put it privately, sticking to the rules will not help if the price to hire a single researcher is now equivalent to an entire lab’s equipment budget for the year.

Effects on team composition, pay bands, and training

The proposed salary floor drew fire for ignoring regional pay bands and experience levels. If a new graduate in a lower-cost city must be paid the same as a principal engineer in San Francisco, hiring will stall outside a handful of markets, and teams will grow top-heavy.

Payroll specialists said that, under such a rule:

• companies could hire one senior engineer for the cost of two or three junior hires,
• mentoring opportunities for U.S. graduates could diminish,
• the pipeline for training future engineers—who often learn core skills working alongside more experienced peers—would be weakened.

Critics say that missing link—how teams actually grow and share knowledge—undercuts the claim that the policy helps American workers.

Timing, recruiting cycles, and institutional consequences

The timing adds complexity for those planning future hiring cycles. Many employers recruit months in advance, lock in offers, and prepare H-1B petitions tied to an academic calendar or product road map.

• With the fee covering most new filings from September 21, 2025, human resources teams said they would cancel or defer offers to avoid sudden six-figure outlays that were not budgeted.
• Some firms expressed concern about the knock-on effect for diversity and global collaboration, given that international hiring often brings language skills and market knowledge useful for overseas customers.
• Others worried about retention, since ambitious candidates who cannot join U.S. teams this year may not reapply next year if they settle into roles abroad.

Policy analysts stressed that none of this addresses well-known pain points in the system, which include long processing times, unpredictability in lottery selection, and backlogs in adjudication. Even if the administration’s goal is to reduce fraud or lift wages, specialists argue, the announced steps are poorly matched to those goals and require targeted rulemaking rather than a shock to the entire pipeline.

Immediate employer choices and sectoral impacts

For now, employers face immediate choices:

1. Pay the $100,000 fee and comply with the proposed salary floor.
2. Pivot to overseas hiring and transfer work to affiliates or contractors.
3. Pause roles and risk project delays.

Several executives said the answer depends on:

• how quickly they must fill a role,
• whether a foreign team can legally and securely handle sensitive work,
• the nature of the work (e.g., a cybersecurity firm may be unable to move data offshore; a consumer app developer might shift a feature to a contractor in another country by next quarter).

In either case, the effect on U.S. job growth could be felt within months, especially in regions where small and midsize companies drive most tech hiring.

Legal prospects and impacts on students and research

The legal community expects challenges, but cases take time and outcomes are uncertain. In the meantime:

• foreign students graduating from U.S. universities who hope to transition from optional practical training to an H-1B job face a narrower path;
• university counselors report growing anxiety among graduates who planned to join U.S. teams and now must weigh roles in other countries;
• research institutions warn that lab output will suffer if they cannot bring in the specialists who keep projects on schedule, from AI safety to clean energy materials.

Conclusion: long-lasting ripple effects

As debate intensifies, even some past critics of the H-1B program say the new measures overshoot. They acknowledge flaws in the system, including the lottery’s randomness and uneven oversight, but argue that pricing out nearly all new hiring does not fix those problems.

In their view, the policy risks weakening the very sectors the United States says it wants to lead. Whether the administration revises the approach or presses ahead, employers and workers are already adjusting plans, and the effects of this sudden shift will ripple through campuses, startups, and research labs long after this hiring season ends.