Every H-1B application, whether for a new employee or an extension, must now include an additional USD 100,000 payment. The measure has been introduced through a presidential proclamation, officially justified as an attempt to “correct distortions” in the US STEM workforce. The order is temporary for one year but may be extended depending on political and labor market conditions.
Companies Most Affected
Recent USCIS figures show how central the H-1B system has been to tech companies. The top sponsors this year include:
Amazon (over 10,000 petitions approved)
TCS (~5,500)
Microsoft (~5,200)
Meta (~5,100)
Apple (~4,200)
Google (~4,100)
Deloitte, Infosys, Wipro, and Tech Mahindra also feature prominently.
For firms with thousands of H-1B employees, the cumulative cost will be astronomical, altering project budgets and staffing models overnight.
Legal & Constitutional Dimensions
As a legal scholar, I see several concerns arising out of this proclamation.
- Authority of the Executive—US law allows the President to regulate immigration in certain circumstances, but whether that includes imposing such massive fees without Congressional approval is open to challenge.
- Fairness & Equality—Since the overwhelming majority of H-1B workers come from India and China, the rule may be attacked as indirectly discriminatory.
- Due Process Issues – The lack of clear exemptions, appeal mechanisms, or phased enforcement raises questions about arbitrariness and administrative fairness.
- International Law—Policies that disproportionately harm specific nationalities can strain bilateral agreements and trade relationships, especially between India and the US
Economic Implications
For Indian IT Firms
A single company like TCS with thousands of H-1B employees could face billions of dollars in new costs annually.
This may force a shift toward remote project delivery from India or higher reliance on local American hires.
Pricing negotiations with US clients will become more complex as outsourcing costs rise.
For Individual Professionals
Skilled Indian engineers, data scientists, and researchers may find the pathway to US employment financially unviable.
Many may instead look toward Canada, the UK, Australia, or Europe, where immigration regimes are less punitive.
For the US Labour Market
Supporters argue the rule will protect American workers from wage suppression.
Critics warn it could leave gaps in specialized roles where the US talent pool remains insufficient, slowing innovation in Silicon Valley and beyond.
Policy Concerns for India
- Brain Drain Reconsidered—India may experience a slowdown in outward migration of its STEM talent. While this may benefit domestic industries, it also limits global exposure and remittances.
- Diplomatic Dialogue Needed—The Indian government will need to negotiate for either exemptions or relaxation, as millions of livelihoods are indirectly affected.
- Domestic Skill Ecosystem—This disruption should serve as a call for India to create stronger domestic opportunities, research hubs, and attractive compensation packages to retain its brightest minds.
Broader Reflections
This policy cannot be viewed in isolation. It fits into a global trend of economic nationalism. Nations across the world are re-evaluating how much foreign labor they want and under what terms. Canada and Australia, for example, are actively welcoming skilled migrants, while the US appears to be retreating into protectionist walls.
At the same time, history shows that the US economy has long benefited from the dynamism of immigrant labour—particularly Indian engineers and doctors who have shaped industries and institutions. Cutting this pipeline too sharply may harm the very competitiveness the US seeks to defend.
Anticipated Challenges
Litigation: Trade bodies, employers, and advocacy groups are likely to approach US federal courts questioning the legality of such a steep fee.
Operational Confusion: Until guidelines are clear, employers may delay hiring decisions, causing uncertainty in project execution.
Talent Diversion: Competing economies may gain from skilled workers who bypass the US for friendlier jurisdictions.
Strategic Pathways
For Indian Professionals
Explore alternative destinations with more predictable immigration pathways.
Negotiate with employers about who will bear the fee burden.
Strengthen remote working credentials to remain employable in global projects without physical relocation.
For Indian Corporations
Accelerate investment in offshore delivery centres.
Diversify markets beyond the US to reduce dependency.
Join international advocacy efforts highlighting the benefits of cross-border knowledge exchange.
For Policymakers in India
Take up the issue in bilateral dialogues with Washington.
Provide incentives for foreign tech companies to invest directly in India, thereby creating local jobs.
Strengthen the domestic startup ecosystem so that India itself becomes a magnet for top talent.
Conclusion
The imposition of a USD 100,000 annual charge on H-1B visas is more than a financial regulation; it is a political signal, a legal experiment, and an economic gamble. It challenges the traditional flow of talent between India and the United States, forcing all stakeholders to rethink their strategies.
While the proclaimed aim is to protect American workers, the measure risks weakening innovation and international collaboration. The coming months will reveal whether US courts uphold or strike down the proclamation and how companies adapt to its reality.
For India, this is both a challenge and an opportunity—to protect its workers abroad and to re-engineer its domestic labor and innovation policies at home.
The ultimate lesson is clear: in a globalized world, policies that appear to shield one economy may end up reshaping the future of many.
