- A one-time $100,000 H-1B fee on international petitions has caused a significant drop in filings.
- The U.S. government faces a $20 million revenue deficit as standard filing fees declined sharply.
- Employers are shifting toward domestic candidates already in the U.S. to avoid the massive surcharge.
(UNITED STATES) — President Trump imposed a one-time $100,000 H-1B visa fee on certain new H-1B petitions in September 2025, and early analysis as of March 2026 estimates the move has cost the U.S. government roughly $19.5 million to $20 million as filings from abroad dropped.
The net loss stems from a decline in standard H-1B filing fee revenue that outpaced the new surcharge receipts, as employers shifted away from sponsoring workers outside the United States and instead pursued candidates already in the country.
That pattern matters for employers and foreign workers because it changes who gets considered in the H-1B pipeline, while also altering the funding USCIS relies on from filing fees to run the system.
President Trump signed a Presidential Proclamation on September 19, 2025 titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” and it required a one-time $100,000 payment for new H-1B petitions filed after 12:01 a.m. ET on September 21, 2025.
White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers framed the action as a deterrent to misuse, saying on September 20, 2025: “President Trump promised to put American workers first, and this commonsense action does just that by discouraging companies from spamming the system and driving down wages.”
USCIS later described the surcharge as part of a broader push to reshape the program. “As part of the Trump Administration’s commitment to H-1B reform, we will continue to demand more from both employers and aliens so as not to undercut American workers and to put America first,” USCIS Spokesman Matthew Tragesser said on December 23, 2025.
USCIS guidance issued in October 2025 narrowed how the surcharge applies in practice, limiting it to new petitions for beneficiaries currently outside the United States seeking consular notification, while excluding several other filing types outlined in the agency’s H-1B FAQ.
The guidance said the fee does not apply to H-1B renewals or extensions with the same employer, and it does not apply to change of status petitions for individuals already legally in the United States, such as F-1 students. Petitions filed before the September 21, 2025 deadline also remain outside the new requirement.
Analysis released on March 13, 2026 by the National Bureau of Economic Research and the Institute for Progress compared the period from September 21, 2025, and February 15, 2026 with the prior year and found the policy coincided with a sharp pullback in H-1B filings for workers abroad.
Across that window, USCIS collected $28 million less in standard filing fees than the previous year because of the drop in those filings, the analysis found. During the same period, the new surcharge generated only $8.5 million in revenue.
The gap between those two numbers produced the estimated shortfall for the government, which the analysis put at a net deficit of roughly $19.5 million to $20 million.
The analysis also pointed to the FY 2027 lottery period in March 2026, when H-1B registrations showed a sharp decline in “consular notification” requests. Employers pivoted toward candidates already in the United States to avoid the six-figure fee tied to consular processing.
Those early indicators suggest the surcharge changed filing behavior quickly, though the timeframe remains limited and employers can adjust petition timing from one cycle to the next. The same data also implies that a six-figure surcharge can reduce demand enough to depress overall collections tied to standard filings.
The fee has also faced legal challenges that continued into early 2026, even after a federal judge upheld it. On December 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell upheld the $100,000 fee and ruled that the President has broad statutory authority to manage entry under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Business and higher education groups moved rapidly after that ruling. In January 2026, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and research universities fast-tracked an appeal, and oral arguments were scheduled for February 2026.
The Chamber argued the uncertainty would shape participation in the program during the current cycle. “Employers’ ability to participate in the H-1B program this year hinges on the outcome of this appeal,” the Chamber warned.
While the litigation proceeded, DHS separately moved to reshape how H-1B slots get awarded, adding another pressure point for employers weighing whether to file. DHS finalized a rule on December 29, 2025 that replaced the random lottery with a weighted selection process favoring higher-paid applicants, including Level IV wages.
That rule took effect on February 27, 2026, according to DHS information posted with the H-1B Selection Rule. The combined result, as described by employers following the changes, is a program with higher direct costs for certain cases and new selection mechanics that tilt toward higher wage levels.
Small and medium-sized enterprises reported feeling the impact most sharply, with some saying they were priced out of the international talent market. The analysis described the surcharge as often exceeding the annual salary of the worker being sponsored, a mismatch that can force smaller employers to abandon overseas hiring plans.
Universities also described budget shocks tied to maintaining historic hiring patterns, with research institutions arguing the fee stifles innovation. The University of Michigan and other major campuses said maintaining historic hiring levels of 200–400 H-1B workers annually would now cost $20–$40 million each.
Those figures have elevated concerns across academia about how labs and research groups recruit specialized workers, especially when the candidate is abroad and the petition would trigger the surcharge under the consular notification framework.
Economic analysts also linked the policy to increased incentives to move work outside the United States, describing an acceleration in “offshoring” of tech roles to countries like Canada and India. The analysis connected that trend to the $100,000 U.S. entry barrier that does not exist in those destinations.
For workers outside the United States, the immediate effect has been a slowdown in certain recruiting pipelines as employers avoid triggering the surcharge on new consular cases. That shift also raises the value of candidates already in the country who can file in categories that the guidance excludes from the $100,000 requirement, such as change of status.
The policy debate now spans the White House rationale, USCIS/DHS implementation rules, court review, and the separate DHS overhaul of selection mechanics. Advocacy groups tracking these changes have published their own assessments, including the Proclamation Analysis released on Oct 31, 2025 by the American Immigration Council.
Taken together, the timeline shows a fast-moving set of changes that reshaped employer behavior within months. Trump signed the proclamation on September 19, 2025, and the surcharge applied to covered new petitions filed after 12:01 a.m. ET on September 21, 2025, with USCIS guidance in October 2025 clarifying that it targets new consular-notification cases.
Judge Howell upheld the fee on December 23, 2025, as USCIS reiterated its compliance message through Tragesser’s statement the same day, and DHS finalized the weighted-selection rule on December 29, 2025 with an effective date of February 27, 2026.
By March 2026, the FY 2027 registration period showed a sharp decline in consular notification requests, while the NBER and Institute for Progress analysis dated March 13, 2026 quantified the fiscal result as $28 million less in standard fees versus $8.5 million in surcharge revenue, leaving the government down roughly $19.5 million to $20 million as the appeal pressed forward.
