(UNITED STATES) — Amitav Acharya challenged the job-stealing narrative around the H-1B visa program on a New York Times podcast, arguing that many foreign professionals do not compete for the same jobs as many American workers.
Speaking on a February 20, 2026, episode of the New York Times podcast Interesting Times with Ross Douthat, the scholar and author said H-1B visa holders and many American workers often operate at “completely different levels of skill.”
Acharya linked the “job-stealing” narrative to how modern labor markets work, with H-1B hiring concentrated in high-skill knowledge sectors such as technology, research, engineering, and advanced healthcare.
The comments landed as the U.S. government advances a more protectionist posture on skilled immigration, with officials framing changes as measures to prevent displacement of domestic labor.
Matthew Tragesser, USCIS Spokesman, criticized the prior registration system in a December 23, 2025, statement posted to the USCIS Newsroom. “The existing random selection process of H-1B registrations was exploited and abused by U.S. employers who were primarily seeking to import foreign workers at lower wages than they would pay American workers,” he said.
“The new weighted selection will better serve Congress’ intent. by incentivizing American employers to petition for higher-paid, higher-skilled foreign workers,” Tragesser added.
In another official statement dated January 14, 2026, Tragesser said: “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.”
Acharya’s argument focused on what he described as a mismatch between the political framing of competition and the kinds of roles the H-1B program covers, which allow U.S. employers to hire foreign professionals in specialty occupations requiring advanced education or technical expertise.
He said the assumption that H-1B workers take jobs from supporters of former U.S. President Donald Trump reflects a misunderstanding of labor markets, where specialized hiring often targets credentials and experience that differ from other parts of the workforce.
The scholar also pointed to politics around nationality and visibility inside the program, saying Indian nationals held roughly 70% of H-1B visas recently, a concentration he said creates a “political perception” of displacement.
Even with that perception, Acharya argued the underlying friction often stems from broader economic anxieties rather than direct job competition, as labor shortages and workforce transformation drive skilled immigration.
The H-1B debate has repeatedly returned to the center of U.S. politics, particularly during periods of economic uncertainty or rising nationalism, with policy discussions that include proposals to restrict hiring, increase visa fees, or redesign selection systems to favor higher salaries and advanced skills.
Supporters of the program argue it strengthens American competitiveness by filling critical talent gaps, while critics say companies may rely too heavily on foreign labor, a divide that has kept the program in the crosshairs across multiple election cycles.
Industry leaders frequently cite a persistent STEM talent shortage, saying demand for skilled professionals exceeds domestic supply, a claim that aligns with Acharya’s broader framing that skill segmentation shapes who competes for what job.
At the same time, DHS finalized a rule on December 23, 2025, that replaced the random H-1B lottery with a weighted system based on Department of Labor wage levels, with the change set to take effect Feb. 27, 2026.
Under that approach, Level IV receives 4 entries in the selection pool, Level III receives 3 entries, Level II receives 2 entries, and Level I receives 1 entry, dramatically increasing the selection odds for higher-paid workers.
A separate measure added a steep cost for some employers and workers through a Presidential Proclamation signed on September 19, 2025, titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” which imposed a $100,000 fee for certain new H-1B petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025.
USCIS also reported a drop in registrations for the current cycle, releasing FY 2026 figures on Jan. 30, 2026, that it tied to integrity measures and a shift to a beneficiary-centric system.
The agency put total registrations at 343,981, down 26.9% from 470,342 in FY 2025, and cited an initial-round selection rate of approximately 35.3%.
USCIS said the beneficiary-centric system implemented in 2025 “dramatically improved the H-1B registration and selection process” by preventing duplicate registrations, reinforcing the government’s argument that tighter rules better protect domestic labor.
Acharya, however, tied the program’s political salience to what he called “narrowed populism,” arguing that foreign professionals can become scapegoats for economic stress that has other drivers.
He described an “anti-immigrant sentiment” that, in his view, can harden even when the jobs at issue require advanced training and often draw from global talent pools that U.S. employers say they need.
Research across sectors suggests H-1B workers often complement rather than replace U.S. workers, a point frequently raised in debates over whether the visa reduces opportunities for Americans.
Hospitals and research institutions rely heavily on H-1B physicians and specialists, particularly in rural and underserved areas, where recruiting and retention can pose persistent challenges.
Reductions in skilled immigration could worsen workforce shortages in healthcare and scientific research, with spillover effects for patient care, lab staffing, and specialized services that depend on credentialed professionals.
Economists also emphasize that modern job displacement is increasingly linked to automation, AI adoption, and corporate restructuring, not immigration alone, factors that have driven widespread layoffs across industries in recent years.
That broader shift has complicated political messaging, with policymakers attempting to balance economic competitiveness, domestic workforce concerns, and national security and political messaging.
Under “America First” policies, immigration restrictions have frequently been framed as protecting American jobs, while global companies argue innovation depends on attracting highly skilled international talent and keeping advanced work inside the United States.
Acharya placed the H-1B dispute in a geopolitical context as well, suggesting India’s growing global influence and highly educated diaspora reshape perceptions of migration and talent mobility worldwide.
For international students, F-1 visa holders, and skilled professionals planning careers in the United States, the argument has increasingly centered on skills and wages as selection criteria, alongside a sense that regulatory shifts can arrive quickly.
Policy volatility has become a defining feature for applicants and employers tracking changes that touch the H-1B program, OPT, and employment-based green cards, especially when immigration rhetoric intensifies during election cycles regardless of economic data.
Demand for high-skill talent remains strong across technology, healthcare, AI, and research, keeping employer interest alive even as higher fees and wage-weighted rules change the cost and odds of sponsorship.
More broadly, the controversy reflects structural shifts that extend beyond any single visa category, including automation transforming job markets, rising economic nationalism, global competition for talent, and increasing mobility of skilled professionals.
In that environment, Acharya’s central claim collides with official warnings about displacement, leaving the H-1B visa program caught between a labor-market argument about segmentation and a political argument about protection.
Applicants and employers can find program information through the USCIS H-1B electronic registration process, while broader federal updates also appear via the DHS newsroom, as the policy fight continues to test whether skills or slogans shape the next phase of U.S. migration rules.
Amitav Acharya Debunks Job-Stealing Narrative Around H-1B Visa Program
Scholar Amitav Acharya argues that the H-1B ‘job-stealing’ narrative is a political misunderstanding, as foreign professionals often fill specialized roles distinct from the domestic workforce. Meanwhile, the U.S. government has implemented protectionist reforms, including wage-weighted selection and higher fees, to prioritize high-paid talent. Despite these regulatory shifts and falling registration numbers, the program remains a critical yet controversial tool for addressing STEM talent shortages.
