(UNITED STATES) — Major technology companies cut H-1B visa filings sharply in the first quarter of fiscal 2026, as Trump administration rules including a $100,000 fee on new petitions for workers abroad and tighter compliance measures reshaped hiring plans.

Department of Labor data showed certified H-1B applications fell across much of Big Tech in October-December 2025 compared with Q1 FY2025. The figures track applications reviewed for wage compliance, not U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approvals or lottery outcomes.

Amazon posted the largest volume and the steepest drop among the biggest filers. Its certified applications fell from 4,647 in Q1 2025 to 3,057 in Q1 2026.

Meta and Google each recorded nearly 50% year-over-year declines. Apple and Microsoft also reported fewer filings, while IBM, Salesforce and Tesla posted declines.

Nvidia moved the other way. Its filings rose from 369 to 434.

The downturn followed a set of policy changes that took effect in September 2025 under the Trump administration. Those changes included a $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions for workers abroad, a lottery overhaul that gives preference to higher-wage, higher-skilled applicants for FY2027 registrations, and broader vetting rules.

Officials also imposed wider employment history reviews, social media screening, doubled FDNS site visits, stricter wage audits and remote work restrictions. The administration widened its scrutiny beyond H-1B cases to H-4 EADs, OPT/STEM OPT and third-party placements.

That combination altered the economics of sponsorship. For companies weighing overseas recruitment, the new fee alone raised the cost of bringing in workers from abroad.

The Labor Department figures do not capture the full annual H-1B picture. They reflect certifications, which can include extensions, transfers and job switches, rather than only new cap-subject petitions.

Timing matters. New cap-subject petitions usually peak in the second quarter after the lottery, so the October-December numbers offer an early view of employer behavior rather than a final count for the year.

Even so, the first-quarter retreat points to a broad change in corporate calculations. Large employers that once filed at high volume are pulling back while the rules tighten and costs rise.

The H-1B program remains a central route for U.S. companies to hire skilled foreign workers, especially in technology. Annual totals hinge in part on the 85,000 cap, which includes 65,000 regular slots and 20,000 under the master’s exemption.

The latest numbers arrive against a backdrop of layoffs in the tech sector. Amazon cut 16,000 jobs in January 2026 and 14,000 in October 2025, while Meta laid off hundreds in March 2026 and Google carried out recent cuts.

Those reductions trimmed hiring demand at the same time that compliance risks grew. Companies also shifted toward AI-focused teams, moved more work offshore to places including India, Canada and Singapore, or leaned more heavily on domestic talent amid fears of penalties.

Richard T. Herman, an immigration attorney, linked the drop to employer caution rather than a loss of interest in overseas workers. “When companies stop sponsoring, it’s rarely because they don’t value their global talent. It’s because they’re terrified of punishment for unintentional mistakes.”

His comment captured a theme running through the quarter’s data. The policy changes did not simply add paperwork; they changed how employers assess legal exposure tied to each petition.

Under the new system, scrutiny now extends across several parts of the immigration pipeline. Employers face more checks on wage levels, more site visits and tighter rules on how and where sponsored employees work.

Remote work restrictions add another layer for companies whose operations spread across offices, client locations and home-based roles. Third-party placement rules also matter for firms that staff workers outside their own premises.

The lottery change marks another shift. Instead of random selection, FY2027 registrations now favor higher-wage, higher-skilled applicants, changing the profile of petitions that employers may choose to submit.

That redesign could affect both volume and mix. Some companies may file fewer cases while concentrating on roles they believe fit the new selection priorities.

The first-quarter data already suggest that businesses are becoming more selective. Amazon, which still filed more than any other company named in the data, cut thousands of applications from the prior year.

Meta and Google, long associated with large skilled-worker recruitment pipelines, each saw filings drop by nearly half. Apple and Microsoft also moved lower, though the available figures did not provide exact totals for them.

Across the rest of the group, IBM, Salesforce and Tesla also reduced filings. Nvidia stood out as the exception, increasing its count even as other large employers retreated.

That increase aligns with a separate signal from Nvidia leadership. Chief Executive Jensen Huang said the company would continue hiring immigrants despite the new fees.

His stance contrasts with a broader retreat reflected in the quarter’s certifications. It also suggests that some employers remain willing to absorb added cost and oversight when they see a strong need for specialized talent.

The effect of the policy shift reaches beyond Silicon Valley. Hospitals, universities and nonprofits also face sponsorship cuts as the new fee and enforcement rules ripple across sectors that use foreign talent.

Business groups have sued over the $100,000 fee, adding a legal fight to the policy debate. The challenge reflects concern that the cost and compliance structure could reduce access to workers far outside the tech industry.

For now, the Labor Department numbers offer a narrow but revealing snapshot. They do not show which cases USCIS will approve, which registrations will win lottery selection, or how many employers may file later in the fiscal year.

They do show how companies behaved in the first months after the September 2025 changes took effect. On that measure, many of the largest users of the H-1B system turned more cautious.

The caution appears rooted in more than one factor. Layoffs lowered immediate hiring needs, while the Trump administration’s rules raised the financial and legal stakes for every new filing.

That mix matters because H-1B visa filings often reflect a company’s forward hiring plans. When filings fall, it can signal a pullback in recruiting, a move toward internal redeployment, or a shift in where jobs are based.

Offshoring forms part of that adjustment. The quarter’s pattern came as companies expanded work in India, Canada and Singapore, reflecting a broader effort to place some roles outside the United States.

Domestic hiring also becomes more attractive when sponsors fear penalties. Faced with stricter audits and broader reviews, employers may favor workers who do not require visa sponsorship.

The data also highlight a common point of confusion in the H-1B debate. Certified Labor applications are not the same as approved visas, and a decline in certifications does not automatically translate into an equal decline in final admissions.

Some of the certified cases in the quarter covered employees already in the United States who sought extensions, transfers or job changes. That makes the first-quarter figures a measure of employer activity under Labor Department review, not a direct measure of new cap-subject hiring.

The next quarter will provide a fuller test. Because new cap-subject petitions typically cluster after the lottery, Q2 will help show whether first-quarter caution extends into the core filing season.

Much will depend on how employers respond to the fee, the revised lottery and the wider enforcement posture. Market conditions will matter too, especially if companies keep reshaping teams around AI or continue cutting jobs in other areas.

For now, the early signal is plain: the Trump administration changed the cost and risk of sponsorship, and many of the country’s largest technology employers responded by filing fewer H-1B cases. Herman framed the consequence in stark terms, saying companies are “terrified of punishment for unintentional mistakes.”