The Trump administration is moving forward with a proposal to charge employers more than $100,000 for H-1B skilled worker visas, according to the New York Times, marking the second attempt to impose such fees after courts blocked a similar plan last year.

The proposed fee structure would represent a dramatic increase from current costs, which typically range from $5,000 to $10,000 depending on company size and visa type. Immigration policy experts say the change could fundamentally alter which organizations can afford to hire international talent—potentially shutting out universities, hospitals, and small businesses while favoring only the largest corporations.

"This isn't just about making the program more expensive. It's about making it prohibitively expensive for entire sectors of the economy," said immigration attorney Sarah Chen, who represents technology startups and research institutions. "A $100,000 fee per visa would mean many of our clients simply couldn't participate in the program at all."

A Second Attempt After Legal Setbacks

The new proposal comes after the administration's previous effort to attach similar fees to H-1B visas was struck down by federal courts in 2025. Legal challenges centered on whether the executive branch had the authority to impose such substantial fees without congressional approval, and whether the increases were arbitrary and capricious under administrative law.

According to the Times, the revised proposal attempts to address some of the legal concerns that doomed the earlier version, though immigration advocates say the fundamental problems remain. The administration has not yet released the full text of the proposal or detailed how the fees would be structured.

The H-1B visa program allows U.S. employers to temporarily hire foreign workers in specialty occupations that typically require a bachelor's degree or higher. The program caps annual new visas at 85,000, with 65,000 available for workers with bachelor's degrees and 20,000 reserved for those with advanced degrees from U.S. institutions.

Who Would Bear the Cost?

The proposed fee increase would have vastly different impacts across sectors. Large technology companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon—which are among the top H-1B sponsors—could likely absorb the costs, though even they would face pressure to reduce their reliance on the program.

But for smaller organizations, the math becomes impossible. A regional hospital trying to hire a specialized physician from abroad would face a choice between paying a six-figure visa fee or leaving the position unfilled. A university research lab bringing in a postdoctoral fellow would need to find additional grant funding just to cover visa costs—money that would otherwise support the research itself.

"We're talking about institutions that are already operating on thin margins," said Dr. James Rodriguez, who directs a biomedical research center at a mid-sized university. "If we had to pay $100,000 per visa, we'd have to cut positions. That means less research, fewer discoveries, and ultimately fewer benefits for patients."

The proposal also raises questions about equity in access to global talent. Wealthier institutions and corporations would maintain their ability to recruit internationally, while smaller players would be effectively locked out—potentially concentrating even more power and innovation capacity among a handful of dominant firms.

The Broader Immigration Policy Context

The fee proposal is part of a broader pattern of immigration restrictions under the Trump administration, which has consistently sought to reduce both legal and unauthorized immigration through executive action.

Supporters of higher fees argue that they would generate revenue for immigration enforcement and processing, reduce demand for visas by making employers more selective, and potentially encourage companies to invest more in training American workers. Some also contend that the current system allows companies to underpay foreign workers, and that higher costs would ensure only truly necessary positions are filled through the program.

Critics counter that there's little evidence the program depresses American wages in most sectors, and that many H-1B positions exist because qualified U.S. workers aren't available—particularly in specialized fields like artificial intelligence, advanced mathematics, and certain medical specialties.

"The premise that making visas more expensive will create more American jobs is fundamentally flawed," said economist Dr. Patricia Williams, who studies labor markets and immigration. "In many cases, these positions will simply go unfilled, or companies will move operations overseas where they can access the talent they need."

What Happens Next

The proposal will likely undergo a formal rulemaking process that includes a public comment period before any fees could take effect. That timeline means the earliest implementation would be sometime in 2027, though legal challenges are virtually certain if the administration moves forward.

Immigration advocacy groups are already mobilizing opposition, and business coalitions that typically support Republican policies have expressed concern about the potential economic impact. Universities and research institutions are particularly vocal, arguing that the fees would undermine American competitiveness in science and technology.

"We're in a global competition for talent," said Dr. Rodriguez. "When we make it harder and more expensive to bring the world's best minds to American institutions, we're not protecting American workers—we're handicapping American innovation."

For the thousands of foreign workers currently in the United States on H-1B visas, and the many more hoping to come, the proposal creates yet another layer of uncertainty in an already complex system. Whether the administration can overcome the legal obstacles that blocked its previous attempt remains to be seen, but the message is clear: the path to working legally in the United States is becoming narrower and steeper.