$100K Visa Fee: The Game-Changer for U.S. Tech Talent

19 September 2025

U.S. President Donald Trump looks on as he speaks with the media in the Oval Office, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 5, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder/ File Photo

On September 19, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that imposes a steep annual $100,000 fee on companies that sponsor H-1B visas. H-1B visas are essential for firms that hire skilled foreign workers such as engineers, coders, researchers and others in the tech and STEM sectors. The rule takes effect immediately and will significantly reshape how U.S. employers bring in talent from abroad.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was the administration official who laid out the policy’s justification. He said the point is to ensure only workers with highly specialized skills are sponsored. The aim is that companies will carefully assess whether someone coming from overseas truly fills a role that cannot be filled locally. He argued that the visa program should not be used to suppress wages or bypass employment opportunities for U.S.-born workers.

The fee is expected to hit large technology, finance and consulting companies hardest. Firms like Amazon, Microsoft, JPMorgan and others that have historically made heavy use of H-1B visas were quick to respond to the announcement. In internal communications some asked employees living outside the U.S. under H-1B status to return quickly in order to avoid complications under the new system. Companies are also cautioning employees in the U.S. against international travel until further guidance is finalized.

Industry groups outside the tech firms are also raising alarm. India’s IT industry body Nasscom warned that this move could severely disrupt operations for Indian companies that have U.S.-based work or projects staffed by Indian professionals under H-1B visas. Because the change was announced abruptly many firms say they lack clarity and are scrambling to assess both the operational and compliance costs. Critics argue the size of the fee could make using the H-1B route untenable for many businesses especially startups or companies with tighter margins.

Supporters of the policy claim it corrects imbalances in how the H-1B program has been used, particularly where lower wage offers and entry-level roles have been filled by visa holders at rates below what U.S. workers might expect. They say this reform could help boost wages, protect domestic workers, and encourage investment in training home-grown talent. The administration also hopes this will reduce what it sees as misuse of the program.

Yet many observers warn the fee could backfire. Some argue that it may force companies to move some work overseas or reduce hiring altogether. Others worry for U.S. competitiveness in areas such as artificial intelligence where global talent plays a key role. A $100,000 per year cost for each sponsored worker represents a major increase over what companies currently pay in government fees, and it comes as parts of the industry still struggle with recruitment and retention.

Legal questions are emerging too. There is uncertainty over whether the executive branch has the authority to impose such a high fee without Congressional backing. Traditionally visa fees are meant to cover processing costs, and some critics say this exceeds that power. Calls for legal challenges are already in motion.

Among affected individuals the reaction is mixed. For some international workers this introduces a new level of risk and instability. Visa holders hoping to renew or extend their status, or those who travel frequently, now face added pressure. For many, staying in the U.S. or avoiding travel until everything settles may be the safest path.

In summary the $100,000 annual fee is a dramatic shakeup of a long-standing program that many U.S. employers rely on to draw in global talent. The policy underscores the administration’s intent to reshape immigration and labor policies, especially as they relate to tech, innovation, and foreign labor. Whether this change strengthens domestic workforce opportunities or harms innovation and competitiveness may depend heavily on how the policy is implemented, how legal challenges play out, and whether companies adapt quickly enough.