JD Vance Calls H-1B Reforms Essential to Protect American Wages

(MISSISSIPPI, UNITED STATES) Vice President JD Vance on October 29, 2025 defended the Trump administration’s sweeping H-1B visa overhaul at a Turning Point USA event in Mississippi, arguing the program has been misused to swap out American workers for cheaper foreign labor and depress immigrant wages as well as pay for U.S. staff.

“Legal immigration is complicated because we let in about a million legal immigrants into the United States of America every single year. And the evidence is pretty clear that a lot of those immigrants are actually undercutting the wages of American workers,” Vance said, setting out the White House’s case for tightening rules on a visa widely used by the tech industry.

The administration last week announced a new $100,000 fee for new H-1B visa applications, a dramatic jump from about $1,500. Officials say the higher cost, together with planned changes to how visas are allocated, is aimed at discouraging mass filings by outsourcing firms and at favoring higher-paid, higher-skilled roles.

“It’s one of the reasons why the President of the United States and a lot of us in the administration have encouraged H-1B reform,” Vance said.

The fee applies to petitions and entries tied to the 2026 H-1B lottery. Current visa holders and applications already filed are unaffected, administration officials have said.

Vance, speaking to a packed Turning Point USA audience, framed the move as part of a broader effort to push down overall immigration and recalibrate programs toward what the White House calls genuinely exceptional talent. He argued the H-1B, intended for “specialty occupation” workers, had strayed from its original purpose.

“If you look at the H-1B visa, what it’s supposed to be is that you have a super genius who’s studying at an American university and who’s working at a great company. You want that super genius to stay in the United States of America and not go somewhere else. What it’s actually used to do is hire an accountant at a 50 per cent discount for an American citizen. I don’t think that we should be hiring accountants from foreign countries when we’ve got accountants right here in the United States that would love to work for a good wage,” he said.

The administration also plans to replace the long-standing random lottery with a weighted selection system based on wage levels, giving applicants with higher salaries better odds of selection. This push aligns with a stated goal to reorient H-1B reform toward roles that are harder to fill domestically without, officials argue, allowing companies to drive down immigrant wages and U.S. pay scales with bulk filings for entry-level positions. Vance coupled that policy case with a broader appeal to reduce annual inflows.

“There are people who want to come to the United States of America, and some of them I’m sure can enrich the United States of America by coming here, but we have got to get our overall numbers way down. Too many people have come into the United States of America,” he said.

At the event, Vance leaned on figures the administration has cited to justify the crackdown. Officials say IT outsourcing companies have “prominently manipulated” the H-1B system, pointing to a rise in the share of IT workers in the program from 32% in 2003 to over 65% in the last five years. A cited study found a 36% wage discount for H-1B “entry-level” positions compared with U.S. workers in similar roles, a gap that critics of the program say shows how employers can use the visa to suppress compensation. In one example circulated by the administration, an unnamed software company reportedly secured approvals for more than 5,000 H-1B workers in the 2025 fiscal year while laying off over 15,000 employees in the same period, a pairing that has stirred public anger over domestic job losses.

The H-1B program, which is capped annually and administered by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, has long drawn intense lobbying from both industry and labor groups. Employers file petitions for roles they say require specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor’s degree, and workers can remain in the United States for up to six years in many cases, with extensions possible in certain circumstances. While demand far exceeds supply most years, the administration says it wants fewer bulk submissions and more precise targeting toward higher-paid roles. For formal program details, USCIS maintains an overview of eligibility, caps, and employer requirements on its H-1B Specialty Occupations page, which can be found at USCIS H‑1B temporary workers.

In Mississippi, Vance argued that H-1B reform is part of a larger push to protect American workers at a time of high-profile layoffs in technology and finance. Supporters of the shift say tying selection chances to wage levels will curb abuse by staffing firms that flood the lottery with multiple entries for junior roles. They also say the $100,000 filing cost will deter speculative petitions and force companies to be selective, reserving applications for positions they genuinely cannot fill domestically. The White House has positioned the policy as pro-worker and as a measure that will lift both immigrant wages and U.S. pay by removing incentives to hire cheap. To critics in the tech sector, however, the fee risks slamming the door on startups and mid-size companies that cannot afford such costs, while the wage-based selection could systematically disadvantage recent graduates and early-career workers from abroad who would otherwise launch careers at U.S. firms.

Industry groups warn that the steeper price tag will reshape how companies plan their hiring for 2026, especially in software, cloud services, and consulting. Analysts expect the change to push more firms to expand teams in Canada or India if they cannot secure visas for recruits, and to rethink campus recruiting that depends on H-1B sponsorship. Indian IT giants TCS, Infosys, and Wipro—heavy users of the visa—are expected to be among the hardest hit, with potential costs running into the billions when factoring in application fees, legal expenses, and delayed project staffing, according to industry assessments. Executives in those sectors say reduced hiring in the United States could lead to work being returned to India rather than kept on U.S. soil, a shift that may ripple across client timelines and service delivery.

On Capitol Hill, Senators Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, have introduced legislation to raise wage standards and narrow eligibility for both H-1B and L-1 visas, a rare bipartisan signal that lawmakers are prepared to tighten these channels even beyond executive action.

“Congress created the H-1B and L-1 visa programs as limited pathways for businesses to acquire top talent when it can’t be found at home. But over the years, many employers have used them to cut out American workers in favour of cheap foreign labour,” Grassley said, calling for more stringent rules to ensure companies first consider qualified U.S. applicants.

The bill dovetails with the administration’s theme and could add statutory guardrails if it advances, although business groups are expected to mount a full-court press to dilute or defeat it.

State-level moves are emerging as well. In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis has directed state universities to bar H-1B hiring to prioritize recent domestic graduates.

“We need to make sure our citizens here in Florida are first in line for job opportunities,” DeSantis said,

a stance that aligns with the administration’s broader message and could be mirrored by other governors amid voter anxiety about job security and pay. University systems in tech-heavy states will be watching for spillover effects, including the impact on research labs and advanced programs that often recruit international specialists.

For workers and students abroad, the fee and selection changes rewire the risk calculus. The administration has made clear that current H-1B holders and previously submitted petitions will not be affected, limiting immediate disruption for families already in the United States. But for 2026 applicants, especially those at entry-level pay, the wage-weighted lottery and the $100,000 upfront cost could push the H-1B route out of reach. Immigration lawyers say the combination may shift demand to other categories where possible or prompt more candidates to accept roles in other countries, thinning the pipeline of foreign graduates who have traditionally flowed into American firms after completing U.S. degrees.

Advocates for a looser system argue that the new costs and rules will undermine U.S. competitiveness in fields like artificial intelligence, chip design, and biotech, where global talent is in short supply and where research teams are built around select specialists. They warn that layering a steep fee on top of restrictive selection could deter precisely the “super genius” the administration says it wants to keep, especially in cases where candidates are comparing offers across several countries. Business leaders also worry about the knock-on effect on startups, which often cannot match Fortune 500 salaries and may be least able to absorb a six-figure filing cost for a single recruit.

The administration’s allies counter that if the United States is truly competing for top talent, higher pay should follow naturally and the wage-tier advantage will boost candidates the economy needs most. They also point to persistent layoffs and argue that strengthening labor standards within visa programs will reduce incentives to replace existing staff or to outsource entire departments. Supporters say reshaping H-1B selection around pay is a concrete way to force alignment between skills needs and policy while ensuring that immigrant wages do not become a tool to undercut domestic salaries.

Vance’s remarks in Mississippi, delivered to the conservative Turning Point USA audience, suggest the White House is willing to absorb pushback from corporations to frame this as a kitchen-table issue. He returned several times to the link between immigration levels, job competition, and pay. In pairing the fee hike with a selection overhaul, the administration is moving beyond rhetoric to change how companies budget for sponsorship and how they target candidates. That approach reflects a broader effort to show action on concerns about economic dislocation and fairness in hiring, particularly in sectors that rely heavily on contract work and offshoring.

The debate over H-1B reform is unfolding against a political backdrop where immigration policy has become a defining fault line. While the proposals are administrative and legislative in nature, their impact will be felt most immediately in corporate staffing plans and in the choices facing international graduates as they contemplate where to build careers. For students finishing degrees in 2025 and 2026, the likelihood of paying the $100,000 fee or facing long odds in a wage-weighted selection could reshape internship pipelines and return offers. Companies that once filed en masse may pull back, focusing on a smaller number of higher-salaried roles that stand a better chance in the new system.

Even within industry, reactions are varied. Some executives welcome curbs on mass filings they say have distorted the market and made it harder for smaller firms to compete. Others caution that the fee is a blunt instrument that will privilege the largest companies and that the wage-based selection, while sensible in principle, could miss high-potential early-career candidates whose salaries sit below top tiers. Immigration attorneys anticipate a rush to clarify how wage levels will be measured and audited, and whether bonuses, equity, or regional pay differentials will factor into selection. Much will depend on how the Department of Homeland Security writes the rules and how rigorously agencies enforce them once the 2026 cycle opens.

For now, the message from the White House is unambiguous: the administration wants fewer overall entries, a tighter H-1B channel, and a labor market where employers cannot rely on cheaper overseas hiring to cut costs. Vance captured that position in Mississippi with a stark assessment of the current system and a pledge to push further. Whether the combination of an eye-watering fee and a wage-weighted selection will produce the intended outcomes—or simply divert hiring overseas—will begin to come into focus as companies rework budgets and as the next application cycle approaches. What is certain is that the policy has thrust immigrant wages, corporate staffing strategies, and the role of Turning Point USA-style grassroots advocacy into the center of the country’s running fight over who benefits from the modern economy and who bears the costs.