Overview

$100,000 Fee for H-1B Visas

On September 19, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Proclamation 10973, which imposed a $100,000 fee for new H-1B petitions filed for beneficiaries located outside of the United States. The proclamation went into effect on September 21, 2025. The legal vehicle was the president's authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants the executive broad power to restrict the entry of noncitizens — an authority Trump had previously used in his first term to impose travel bans.

Trump imposed the $100,000 fee in order to restrict the program, arguing that it has undermined U.S. security through the "replacement of American workers." The administration stated that the fee was intended to address perceived abuse of the H-1B program and protect U.S. workers, specifically focusing on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics occupations. The proclamation also carried broader policy ambitions: it directed the Department of Labor to raise prevailing wage levels, a move intended to ensure H-1B workers are not hired at below-market rates compared to U.S. workers.

The initial proclamation caused immediate confusion about scope. Many U.S. employers and H-1B workers panicked when the proclamation appeared to require a $100,000 payment for any noncitizen entering the United States with an H-1B visa after September 21. Within 24 hours, the administration clarified that the fee would apply only prospectively, but many questions remained, and the White House and agencies were not consistent in messaging about who would be affected. The White House clarified that the fee "does not apply to anyone who has a current visa" and "only applies to future applicants in the February lottery who are currently outside the U.S." and does not apply to anyone who participated in the 2025 lottery.

In practical terms, the fee applied to certain new H-1B petitions for beneficiaries who would be approved through consular processing abroad. For H-1B visa holders incurring the fee, their employers were obligated to pay it; while the proclamation did not dictate the payor, Department of Labor regulations state that employers are obligated to pay all costs associated with the H-1B petition process.

Significance and Impact

The H-1B visa is the workhorse of the U.S. immigration system, currently used by approximately three-quarters of a million U.S. workers to provide high-skilled labor in specialty occupations requiring at least a related bachelor's degree or its equivalent. Imposing a $100,000 charge per petition placed the program effectively out of reach for many smaller employers and created enormous uncertainty for larger ones deciding whether to plan around it.

Several companies, including Walmart, said that they would pause their participation in the H-1B program as a result of Trump's proclamation. Higher education institutions were also sharply affected. All colleges, regardless of size, did not want to pay the fee. Smaller institutions that lacked the funds simply could not afford it, while larger ones with sufficient resources did not want to pay because of the significant cost.

The fee's actual uptake revealed how much of a deterrent it functioned as in practice. Few employers paid the fee; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services received only 85 payments of $100,000 through mid-February, according to court filings. That figure underscores that the policy's primary effect, even while legally in force, was to chill participation rather than to generate revenue.

The proclamation also came at a moment of unusual tension within Trump's own political coalition. Prominent voices in the technology sector — including figures aligned with the administration — publicly defended the H-1B program as indispensable for American innovation. The fee put the administration in the position of simultaneously appealing to its nativist base while potentially antagonizing the tech industry it had cultivated in its second term.

Reactions and Debate

Opposition to the fee was broad and came from multiple directions simultaneously. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit challenging the fee, stating that it would force businesses relying on the H-1B program to choose between dramatically increasing their labor costs or hiring fewer highly skilled workers. The Association of American Universities joined the Chamber in that litigation, reflecting concern across both industry and academia.

The legal challenge that ultimately produced the most significant ruling came from a coalition of states. In December 2025, a coalition of state attorneys general filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in the case California et al. v. Trump et al. Twenty Democratic state attorneys general argued that the proclamation exceeded the president's statutory authority and that agency guidance implementing the fee violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

The federal courts produced conflicting results. A D.C. district court initially ruled in December 2025 that the fee fell within presidential immigration authority, a conclusion the Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities appealed. On June 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of the states on all claims and vacated the policy implementing the fee in its entirety, finding that the $100,000 fee proclamation was not an immigration restriction but rather a tax, which the president lacked authority to impose. Judge Sorokin agreed with the states, finding that "the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax," and that Congress had not delegated that power to the executive branch.

The Massachusetts ruling drew on a broader constitutional principle reinforced by a separate Supreme Court decision earlier in 2026. The judge cited the Supreme Court's February opinion striking down Trump's reciprocal tariffs on imports from most of the world's countries because he lacked the legal authority to unilaterally impose them. The analogy between a $100,000 visa charge and a tariff — both functioning as revenue-generating impositions on entry — proved analytically persuasive to the court. The legal fight centers on whether a president can impose a charge of this size without explicit approval from Congress.

Outlook

As of mid-August 2026, the fee is not being enforced. On July 24, 2026, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to revive the $100,000 payment requirement while the government appeals the lower court decision that struck it down. Because the stay was denied, the fee is not currently enforceable while the government's appeal proceeds. The administration filed its notice of appeal on June 11, 2026, three days after the Massachusetts ruling.

Federal courts have reached conflicting conclusions on the fee, leaving open the possibility of further review, potentially up to the U.S. Supreme Court. With multiple pending challenges in different circuits, the Supreme Court will likely weigh in. The core constitutional question — whether a president may use entry-restriction authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to impose what functions as a revenue-generating tax — has not been definitively resolved, and the circuit split makes Supreme Court review more likely than not.

Trump can continue pursuing the appeal and could ultimately seek Supreme Court review if lower courts continue ruling against the administration. The outcome will carry consequences well beyond H-1B policy. A ruling affirming broad executive authority to impose large fees on visa categories could reshape how future administrations manage legal immigration without Congress. A ruling against the administration would reinforce limits on presidential unilateralism in immigration and fiscal policy simultaneously — and would add to the body of precedent constraining Trump's second-term use of executive proclamations.

The episode also illustrates a durable tension in Trump-era immigration politics: the desire to restrict high-skilled foreign labor competes directly with the preferences of the technology sector that forms a significant part of the president's political and financial coalition. How that tension is resolved — in court, in Congress, or through further executive action — will help define the longer-term shape of American immigration policy toward skilled workers.