Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy Slams H-1B Visa Fee Hike, $100,000 Supplemental Fee

(TELANGANA, INDIA) — Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy condemned a proposed U.S. H-1B visa fee hike as “totally unacceptable,” attacking a plan that introduced a $100,000 supplemental fee for certain new H-1B petitions and warning it would hit Telugu technology professionals hard.

Reddy, who posted his criticism on X on Sept 20, 2025, described the move as a “shocker” and urged New Delhi to intervene quickly as legal and policy uncertainty continues into March 2026.

“The executive orders of the President of America had come as a shocker to all. This is totally unacceptable in the historical context of Indo-American relationships,” Reddy wrote.

“The suffering for our Telugu techies will be unimaginable. Requesting Hon’ble Prime Minister and EAM Shri @DrSJaishankar to resolve this issue on a war footing,” he added, while urging the Indian government to “immediately set up a mechanism to resolve this amicably keeping the interests of our tech population and skilled workers.”

The dispute has become a cross-border issue for Indian technology workers and employers that rely on U.S. visas, and for U.S. companies building recruitment pipelines in India. With the supplemental payment set at a level far above normal filing costs, the proposal has sharpened concerns about who can afford sponsorship and how quickly employers can move talent.

Reddy’s comments followed a U.S. H-1B Fee for New Petitions”>Presidential Proclamation on Sept 19, 2025 titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” which framed the fee as a tool to deter misconduct. The proclamation claimed the measure was necessary to “curb abuses that displace U.S. workers and undermine national security” by making it more expensive to sponsor foreign labor.

One day after Reddy posted his criticism, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt sought to narrow the public understanding of the proposal amid what she described as confusion about how it would operate.

“To be clear: This is NOT an annual fee. It’s a one-time fee that applies only to the petition. This applies only to new visas, not renewals, and not current visa holders,” Leavitt said on Sept 21, 2025.

That framing matters because H-1B petitions cover multiple common situations, from a first-time hire abroad to an extension for a worker already in the United States. Employers and candidates have focused on whether the supplemental payment attaches broadly, or only to specific pathways.

U.S. government guidance in late 2025 further emphasized that the fee targets a narrower set of new cases tied to entry from abroad, rather than renewals for existing H-1B workers. On Oct 20, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security released a memorandum stating that the $100,000 payment is required for new H-1B petitions for beneficiaries outside the United States who do not already hold a valid H-1B visa.

The DHS description aligned with Leavitt’s public messaging by excluding renewals and current holders. It also sharpened the distinction between consular processing cases for workers abroad and many in-country petitions, a difference that can determine whether an employer faces a six-figure upfront cost.

The supplemental payment, as described in the U.S. guidance, stacks on top of standard H-1B filing fees rather than replacing them. Employers already pay baseline government charges when filing an H-1B petition, and the supplemental amount is tied to a narrower slice of new petitions involving beneficiaries outside the country.

Standard filing fees had already increased in April 2024 to $780 for the I-129 petition and $600 for the Asylum Program Fee. The fee design, however, makes the largest impact in the consular processing channel, where the beneficiary remains abroad and the petition aims to bring the worker into the United States.

In practical terms, companies hiring a new worker located outside the United States face the biggest exposure. By contrast, the proposal includes exemptions that would leave many other routine petition types outside the supplemental payment, including H-1B renewals and extensions.

The exemptions also list “Change of employer” petitions for those already in the U.S., along with most “Change of Status” petitions such as F-1 students transitioning to H-1B within the U.S. That difference has prompted employers to reassess whether to sponsor candidates abroad or prioritize hiring from pools already inside the country.

For corporate planning, the details matter because a petition that triggers the supplemental payment can change recruiting budgets overnight, particularly for startups and mid-sized firms. A six-figure fee at the point of filing can discourage an employer from entering the process at all, or push the employer to look for alternative staffing models.

The effect is magnified for India, which dominates the H-1B pipeline. In 2024, Indians received 71% of all approved H-1B visas. That concentration means any cost increase focused on new visas can disproportionately hit Indian professionals and the companies that recruit them.

The exposure is especially sensitive in the Telugu-speaking diaspora tied to Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The Telugu-speaking diaspora from Telangana and Andhra Pradesh reportedly holds approximately 70% of all H-1B visas issued to Indians, a concentration that helps explain why a state leader in southern India has taken such a public stance.

Reddy cast the issue as one that links talent mobility, diaspora connections, and the broader relationship between India and the United States. His language also reflected concern that the fee could reshape who can access U.S. opportunities, particularly for early-career workers or those joining smaller firms that cannot absorb a large upfront expense.

Employers, meanwhile, have watched for signals about whether the supplemental payment becomes a real operating condition or remains tied up in the courts. The proposal has faced immediate legal challenges, and the litigation timeline has become central to hiring and compliance planning for the next cap season.

On December 23, 2025, a federal judge, Beryl Howell, initially ruled in favor of the administration, stating the President has broad authority under Section 212(f) of the INA to set entry conditions. That decision left the policy on stronger legal footing at the trial court level while opponents moved the fight to an appellate court.

An appeal is pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Trump, with oral arguments scheduled for March 9, 2026. The case has become a focal point for businesses trying to forecast whether the supplemental payment will shape FY 2027 hiring strategies.

The appellate schedule matters because H-1B hiring often runs on fixed seasonal cycles tied to eligibility windows and processing timelines. Employers deciding whether to recruit abroad or focus on in-country candidates must weigh cost, timing, and the risk that rules change again during planning.

While the fee remains contested, the administration has pursued broader changes to how H-1B slots are allocated. A new rule effective February 27, 2026 replaced the random H-1B lottery with a “wage-weighted” selection process, prioritizing higher-paid applicants for the FY 2027 cap season.

Together, the supplemental payment and wage-weighted selection could reshape who gets sponsored and from where. A projected 40–50% drop in new offshore H-1B petitions reflects the financial barrier the proposal creates for many employers when the beneficiary remains outside the United States.

Analysts suggest the higher upfront cost will push some companies to consider offshoring roles instead of relocating workers, or to hire international students already present in the U.S. who may avoid the “entry-based” fee in many change-of-status scenarios described in the draft. That shift could change recruitment patterns for Indian graduates, U.S. universities, and India-based technology hubs that supply labor to global firms.

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs warned of broader personal consequences if higher costs reduce mobility. The MEA noted the fee could cause “humanitarian consequences” by disrupting families and preventing skilled workers from pursuing career opportunities in the U.S.

That concern sits alongside business arguments focused on staffing and costs. A supplemental payment of $100,000 can dwarf other expenses involved in filing and onboarding, and may alter decisions even at firms that regularly use the H-1B program, particularly when hiring for roles that do not command wages high enough to justify added expense.

For Indian state leaders, the issue also carries a political dimension at home, as families track opportunities for U.S. employment and education. Reddy’s intervention signaled that the debate has moved beyond corporate compliance into public pressure on national officials to engage with Washington.

U.S. officials have defended the measure as a response to abuse and worker displacement concerns, using national security language in the proclamation and emphasizing narrow scope in later messaging. The administration’s statements have sought to distinguish new petitions for workers abroad from extensions and current holders, aiming to contain panic among existing visa holders and employers managing renewals.

Until the courts resolve the appeal, employers and workers have had to follow evolving implementation guidance. For operational updates, USCIS maintains its H-1B program information at the agency’s USCIS H-1B program page, while broader actions tied to the proclamation can appear in DHS announcements through the DHS newsroom and in presidential directives at White House presidential actions.

Reddy’s warning about “unimaginable” suffering for “our Telugu techies” has continued to echo in the debate as the D.C. Circuit prepares for March 9, 2026 arguments, with employers weighing whether the next hiring cycle will price out new recruits abroad or force a rapid reordering of global staffing plans.