(TEXAS) — Governor Greg Abbott ordered Texas state agencies and public universities to stop filing new H-1B visas petitions, expanding a growing push by several Republican-led states to curb taxpayer-funded sponsorship even as the program remains federally administered.
Abbott’s order, dated January 27, 2026, suspended new H-1B petition filings by state agencies and public universities through May 31, 2027, and required written approval from the Texas Workforce Commission for any exceptions.
Texas also directed institutions to compile and report information about their H-1B usage by March 27, 2026, including the nationalities and job titles of current visa holders, a data-collection step that could shape future policy choices and public scrutiny of hiring decisions.
“State government must lead by example and ensure that employment opportunities — particularly those funded with taxpayer dollars — are filled by Texans first,” he said.
The Texas move sits at the leading edge of a state-level debate over whether state agencies and public universities should use H-1B visas at all, adding a new layer of uncertainty for international faculty, medical staff, researchers and other specialized hires. While the federal government controls eligibility rules and visa issuance, state officials can decide whether state agencies and public universities will act as petitioners.
Florida, Oklahoma and other states have also moved to restrict or consider restricting H-1B sponsorship within public employers, extending a national political fight over foreign worker programs into state workforce management and higher-education governance.
Florida‘s Board of Governors advanced a proposal dated January 29, 2026, that would pause new H-1B hires across the state university system until January 5, 2027, directing trustees not to use the program while officials gather information on visa usage and costs.
“The pause is to “gather more information and then make an informed policy decision,” Levine said.
Chairman Alan Levine linked the moratorium to a fact-finding exercise rather than a permanent ban. The pause is to “gather more information and then make an informed policy decision,” Levine said.
Oklahoma lawmakers, meanwhile, introduced proposed legislation dated January 30, 2026. The bill, SB 2073, would ban state agencies from employing H-1B visa holders or individuals on practical training (OPT) student visas.
Together, the state actions have triggered warnings from faculty leaders, immigration experts and university administrators who argue that broad hiring freezes threaten academic freedom, research output and the ability of public systems to compete for talent.
Critics have described state bans as “reckless,” arguing they weaken institutional autonomy by substituting statewide restrictions for department-level judgments about specialized teaching and research needs.
Universities rely on international scholars for roles in STEM, medicine and research, higher-education scholars have said, and limiting H-1B pathways can disrupt recruitment pipelines that operate on academic calendars and grant-funded timelines.
The issue extends beyond campuses. H-1B visas also cover specialized professionals in health care, technology and science, and opponents of the state freezes have warned that restrictions could strain staffing in medicine and specialized care, particularly in underserved areas.
Research institutions that recruit internationally trained talent for cutting-edge projects could face delayed work and reduced capacity, critics have said, adding that competitive losses can be difficult to reverse once top candidates accept offers in other states or countries.
The state measures also come as universities and immigration advocates watch federal changes that have raised the cost of new filings and adjusted how candidates get selected, changes that can hit public institutions with fixed budgets and public-sector pay scales.
At the federal level, the Trump administration introduced a $100,000 supplemental fee on new H-1B visa applications, a cost increase that has already sparked legal challenges by university associations.
Many universities participating in those challenges have called the fee “prohibitive” and “regressive,” arguing it erects a higher barrier for public and nonprofit employers that hire researchers, instructors and clinicians.
For Texas institutions, a filing pause can force immediate recalibration of hiring plans, especially when offers depend on employer sponsorship. New petitions are a gateway step for a worker who does not already hold H-1B status, and a suspension can affect start dates and planning for departments that recruit on fixed cycles.
The exception pathway in Texas, which requires written approval from the Texas Workforce Commission, also implies an internal review process where institutions may need to justify why a position cannot be filled without H-1B sponsorship and how a proposed hire fits within the state’s restrictions.
The reporting requirement adds another operational layer. Collecting nationalities and job titles of current H-1B holders can create a detailed inventory that state officials could use to evaluate scope, costs, and the role of international hiring across agencies and universities.
Florida‘s approach differs in structure and oversight. Rather than an executive order, the state university system’s governing body moved toward a system-wide moratorium that officials said would allow time to gather information and assess costs before deciding on longer-term policy.
The downstream impact can be immediate for faculty searches and postdoctoral recruitment, where candidate pools often include international scholars and where offers can be time-sensitive. Specialized staff hiring for labs and clinical programs can face similar constraints if sponsorship becomes unavailable for new hires.
Carson Dale, the student representative on the Florida Board of Governors, warned that delays risk losing candidates in a competitive global market.
“Top-tier candidates are not going to pause their careers to wait on a single state. they accept offers elsewhere,” Dale said.
Supporters of the state measures have defended the restrictions as worker-protection steps. Proponents, including some political leaders, have argued that limits help ensure job opportunities for domestic workers, prevent wage suppression in certain professions, and force closer scrutiny of how employers use the program.
They have also argued that states have authority to manage taxpayer-funded hiring and that a pause creates time to assess whether positions can be filled locally.
The clash is unfolding alongside broader federal disputes and reforms that have made employer decision-making more complex. Litigation over new federal fees and regulatory changes has continued, and congressional discussions have included proposals tied to employment-based green card allocation and high-skilled immigration backlogs.
Federal officials have cast the reforms as a response to misuse and as a push toward higher-paid beneficiaries. In a USCIS spokesperson statement dated December 23, 2025, Matthew Tragesser, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), said:
“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. The new weighted selection will better serve Congress’ intent for the H-1B program and strengthen America’s competitiveness by incentivizing American employers to petition for higher-paid, higher-skilled foreign workers.”
The statement appeared in a USCIS post titled “DHS changes process for awarding H-1B work visas to better protect American workers”.
The Department of Homeland Security echoed that emphasis in a press release dated January 20, 2026, which summarized “Year One” achievements under Secretary Kristi Noem.
“DHS has set the stage to break even more records. making sure that any form of legal immigration will benefit the U.S. citizen and does not pose harm to our well-being and way of life. In year two, USCIS is implementing the Department of Homeland Security’s new rule to prioritize the allocation of H-1B visas to higher-skilled and higher-paid aliens,” the department said in the release.
Public universities and state agencies say federal cost increases can collide with public budgeting constraints, and critics of state freezes argue that layering state limits on top of federal changes creates a compounded hurdle for institutions that depend on international recruiting.
Selection reforms also affect who gets through the front door of the H-1B process, shaping outcomes even before an employer deals with the cost and compliance obligations of a petition. The annual cap for H-1B visas includes 65,000 under the regular cap and 20,000 under a master’s exemption, reached for FY 2026 on July 18, 2025.
Beginning February 27, 2026, the federal government shifts to wage-weighted selection as described in federal materials, a change that gives candidates in the highest wage level (Level IV) four entries in the lottery, while Level I (entry-level) candidates receive only one. Critics of state-level freezes say that approach, combined with public-sector pay scales, can make it harder for public institutions to compete if higher wages become more central to selection odds.
International enrollment trends add another pressure point for higher education systems that rely on tuition revenue and research activity tied to global recruitment. NAFSA projected potential declines of 30–40% in international enrollment for the 2025–26 academic year, estimated at a $7 billion loss to the U.S. economy.
State-level restrictions can also ripple into international student decisions and early-career planning, analysts have said, as prospective students and graduates watch whether a state’s public universities will sponsor work authorization after graduation and whether policy stability will support long-term careers.
The practical effects can land unevenly across fields. Critics have warned that teaching hospitals and academic medical centers tied to public universities may face tighter pipelines for foreign-trained physicians and clinicians in specialized areas, while research labs may struggle to hire candidates with niche training.
Supporters of the restrictions respond that scrutinizing sponsorship within taxpayer-funded employers is appropriate and that a pause allows evaluation of whether positions can be filled with local workers, particularly when officials argue employers may use visas to hold down wages.
The federal fee increase that drew legal challenges traces to a Presidential Proclamation dated September 19, 2025, described in materials tied to the White House proclamation. Critics say the added $100,000 supplemental fee can deter filings even without state restrictions, while supporters argue higher costs and wage-prioritized selection align hiring toward higher-paid roles.
For affected workers and applicants, the state actions can change not just where they apply, but whether they can accept an offer at all if it depends on sponsorship by a public employer. Faculty leaders and immigration advocates warn that a patchwork of state policies could reshape academic and research recruitment across the country, pushing candidates toward private employers, other states, or other countries.
Dale’s warning in Florida captured the immediate concern for universities trying to recruit in a global market: “Top-tier candidates are not going to pause their careers to wait on a single state. they accept offers elsewhere,” he said.
States Pause H-1B Visas in Public Universities and State Agencies Texas Leads
Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma have introduced measures to restrict or pause H-1B visa sponsorships by public employers and universities. Governor Abbott’s order specifically halts new filings until 2027, requiring strict oversight for any exceptions. Supporters view this as a ‘Texans first’ policy to protect local wages. Conversely, critics argue the restrictions, combined with new federal fees, create a brain drain that harms STEM fields and specialized medical care.
