(UNITED STATES) — U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told a Senate panel that more than 200,000 H-1B applicants used a $100,000 fast-track route in FY2026, drawing fresh scrutiny to a policy that has changed the economics of the skilled worker visa program.

DHS had received around 286,000 H-1B applications so far for FY2026, and more than 200,000 applicants or sponsoring employers chose the $100,000 route, according to the testimony. That option reduced processing time to about 15 days, compared with a much longer ordinary timeline.

The figures place the $100,000 H-1B fee at the center of employer hiring plans across technology, healthcare, engineering, education, finance and research. They also sharpen questions about whether access to the visa now depends less on eligibility alone and more on whether an employer can absorb a six-figure filing cost.

The payment requirement came from a presidential proclamation issued in September 2025, which restricted the entry of certain H-1B nonimmigrant workers unless the relevant petition was accompanied or supplemented by a $100,000 payment. USCIS later said the requirement applies to new H-1B petitions filed at or after 12:01 a.m. Eastern time on September 21, 2025, subject to the terms of the proclamation and any available exceptions.

The administration framed the rule as a measure to prevent abuse of the H-1B system and discourage employers from using foreign labor to replace American workers. In practice, the requirement reaches far beyond the largest technology companies.

Hospitals, public school districts, universities, nonprofits, rural employers and early-stage startups face the same headline number. Large companies may absorb the cost for selected high-value roles; smaller employers may find it prohibitive.

Lawmakers used the Senate hearing to press on that gap. Questions raised there focused on whether employers in underserved regions should be treated differently from large companies hiring in sectors with deeper talent pools.

Rural healthcare providers stood out in that discussion because many depend on foreign-trained doctors and specialists when they cannot recruit U.S. workers to remote or underserved communities. Teachers and other professionals needed in rural states also came up as senators examined how the fee reaches small towns, hospitals, colleges, research labs and public services.

Mullin indicated that DHS may have flexibility to provide relief in some cases. That leaves open the prospect of exemptions, waivers or special treatment for national interest cases, rural healthcare, education or other critical workforce needs, though the reach of any relief remains unsettled.

The policy does not mean H-1B visas are being “sold.” Employers still need a qualifying specialty occupation, a qualified foreign worker, proper wage compliance, petition approval by USCIS and, where applicable, visa stamping and admission procedures.

Payment alone does not secure status. Approval still turns on eligibility, documentation, employer compliance and immigration adjudication.

Indian nationals are among the largest groups using the H-1B program, and the shift could alter sponsorship patterns for workers already in the pipeline. Many move from F-1 status to OPT, STEM OPT and then H-1B, while others rely on employer sponsorship from abroad in technology, engineering, medicine, research and finance.

A six-figure filing cost can push employers to reserve sponsorship for senior, specialized or high-revenue roles rather than entry-level positions. It can also make the transition from F-1 to H-1B harder for students whose prospective employers are unwilling to take on the added expense.

Smaller employers may decide not to sponsor at all, even when they need a foreign professional. Workers outside the United States may also feel the pressure more directly than people already in valid U.S. status, depending on how the rule applies to a given petition.

The same pressure runs through U.S. hiring decisions. A company filing a new petition now faces a direct question: is the role important enough to justify the additional $100,000 cost?

Large technology companies, financial institutions, AI firms, semiconductor companies and advanced engineering employers may still move ahead when the role is highly specialized. Junior roles, routine IT jobs and positions where employers believe domestic hiring is possible face a tougher path.

Healthcare employers confront a different problem. In rural and underserved areas, the issue is often not budget choice but the lack of available doctors, specialists, nurses, researchers and other healthcare workers willing to serve those communities.

Schools and universities face similar math. Public institutions and rural districts may struggle to justify a $100,000 filing cost, while startups that depend on highly skilled founders, engineers and researchers may find the upfront immigration expense hard to bear.

DHS has left room for case-specific treatment where an exception is considered to be in the national interest. Employers likely to seek relief include rural healthcare providers facing doctor shortages, public schools needing specialized teachers, universities and research institutions recruiting scientists or faculty, startups in AI, cybersecurity, defense technology, biotechnology or semiconductors, and nonprofits that cannot pay a six-figure filing cost.

Any exemption process would turn on documentation. Employers would need to show workforce shortage, patient impact, student impact, public interest or the absence of available domestic alternatives if DHS opens waiver procedures.

The policy also faces legal scrutiny. A federal judge in Boston has questioned the scope of presidential authority to impose such a large fee through executive action.

That dispute centers on whether immigration law allows the administration to restrict entry and impose a payment requirement of this scale, or whether a fee that large functions more like a tax that needs congressional authorization. Immigration fees usually move through statutory and regulatory processes, and this six-figure requirement has prompted debate over whether executive power reaches that far.

Employers and applicants still have to treat the rule as active while the case moves forward. Court rulings and new DHS guidance could narrow the policy, preserve it or change how exemptions work in practice.

Anyone involved in a new petition first needs to confirm whether the filing is covered by the $100,000 H-1B fee. The rule may not apply in the same way to all H-1B situations, including cases where a person already holds H-1B status, has a petition filed before the effective date, or seeks an amendment, extension or change of employer.

Applicants should speak with their employer and an immigration attorney before making travel or filing decisions. International travel can create complications if a new visa stamp is needed or if the petition falls within the scope of the proclamation.

F-1 students should discuss sponsorship early with employers because the new cost may shape hiring decisions well before a petition is filed. Workers should also avoid informal reimbursement arrangements, since H-1B wage and fee rules are technical and improper shifting of employer costs to employees can create compliance problems.

Employers, meanwhile, need to review which roles are truly critical and whether the worker’s skills are hard to replace in the U.S. labor market. Budgets, compliance duties, public access files, wage requirements and documentation supporting the need for the foreign worker now carry added weight.

The data from FY2026 suggest the program is already splitting into two tracks. One track remains open to employers with enough financial capacity to pay for speed and certainty; the other leaves smaller institutions, rural employers, hospitals, schools, nonprofits and startups weighing whether the price is simply too high.

Those numbers, 286,000 total H-1B applications, more than 200,000 fast-track users, about 15 days for accelerated processing, and an effective date of September 21, 2025 at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time, have turned a filing rule into a test of who can still afford to compete for global talent.