(CALIFORNIA) Senator J.D. Vance told California leaders they “might try hiring Americans” before taking the Trump administration to court over a new $100,000 H‑1B/entry fee, as Democratic attorneys general press federal judges to block what they call an unlawful and sudden price tag on hiring skilled foreign workers. The jab, reported during public exchanges around the litigation, has become a flashpoint in a wider fight over President Trump’s latest immigration move and how far the White House can go by proclamation to reshape the H‑1B program overnight.

Proclamation: what it does and timing

President Donald J. Trump set the fee in a September 19, 2025 Proclamation titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers.” The Proclamation says the payment is “supplemental” and would apply to many new H‑1B specialty‑occupation petitions unless an exception applies.

• It took effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern on September 21, 2025.
• It is set to expire 12 months after that effective date unless the administration extends it.
• The Proclamation also:
  • Directed the Secretary of Labor to revise prevailing wage levels (salary benchmarks used in many H‑1B cases).
  • Directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to prioritize higher‑paid foreign workers in adjudications.

Immediate operational questions and agency guidance

Within days of the Proclamation, employers, universities, and visa applicants asked whether the $100,000 charge would be collected:

• At petition filing
• At a visa interview
• Or at a port of entry

Federal agencies responded with guidance while lawsuits were being prepared.

• USCIS H‑1B Specialty Occupations issued implementation guidance saying the requirement applies to certain new petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025, and drew distinctions based on whether the beneficiary is inside or outside the United States ??.
• Department of Homeland Security components, including CBP, circulated memoranda with operational direction for officers who would interact with travelers and employers trying to comply with a rapidly issued rule.

Legal pushback: who’s suing and why

State attorneys general have led a major legal challenge, arguing the administration cannot impose a fee of this size via Proclamation and after‑the‑fact memos.

• Twenty states, including California, joined at least one multi‑state lawsuit challenging the fee.
• The fear in Democratic‑led states: the policy will hit tech employers, hospitals, and research institutions reliant on H‑1B professionals and could deter talent from choosing U.S. jobs ??.

California’s case:

• California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a separate suit in federal court in Massachusetts, joined by Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, arguing the fee is illegal.
• The complaint characterizes the fee as a sudden change that can freeze hiring plans and disrupt family lives when workers and their families rely on visa start dates, spouse employment prospects, or children’s school enrollment.
• The states seek fast court relief because a fee this large could functionally act like a ban for many employers even if the H‑1B petition process remains technically available.

Business, campus groups, and unions are also litigating:

• Several suits, including one involving the Chamber of Commerce and universities, are proceeding in federal courts.
• Possible outcomes include preliminary injunctions, vacaturs, or appeals, all of which would extend uncertainty.

Practical impacts for employers and workers

The litigation and guidance create immediate, concrete dilemmas.

For employers:
– Decisions include whether to file a “new” petition (which could trigger the charge), hold a role open, or move a project abroad.
– Small details like filing dates and beneficiary location can determine whether the fee applies.

For workers:
– Choices include whether to risk travel, schedule a consular interview, or accept a job in another country while the litigation plays out.

Lawyers and corporate immigration teams are watching agency updates line by line because the costs are immediate and can reshape budgets and hiring plans in days.

Political reactions and public exchanges

Against this tense backdrop, Senator J.D. Vance (Ohio Republican and close Trump ally) criticized the states suing, saying officials in Democratic‑run jurisdictions:

“might try hiring Americans”

Supporters of the Proclamation argue:
– The H‑1B program can be used to undercut U.S. wages, and higher costs might push employers to recruit domestically.

Critics respond:
– The H‑1B system already requires employers to meet wage rules and complete paperwork.
– A flat $100,000 supplemental payment does not assess whether a job could actually be filled locally.

Broader regulatory changes the Proclamation instructs

Beyond the fee, the Proclamation directed agency changes that could reshape the program:

• Revising prevailing wages — potentially lifting minimum salary figures used in filings.
• Prioritizing higher‑paid foreign workers — potentially steering opportunities toward large firms and high‑pay markets.

Potential effects:
– Favoring large firms and high‑pay cities.
– Squeezing out start‑ups, public universities, and rural hospitals.
– Impacting patients, students, and communities dependent on specialized workers.

Courts, remedies, and timelines

Federal courts are now the main arena. Remedies under consideration include:

• Preliminary injunctions — could bar the government from collecting the fee while litigation continues.
• Vacatur of the policy — could force agencies to unwind guidance already issued.
• Appeals — likely if lower courts rule, prolonging uncertainty beyond initial hiring and academic cycles.

The lawsuits may produce appellate review, leaving employers to guess whether the Proclamation will remain effective for the full 12 months or be stopped sooner.

Resources and immediate reference

Many companies and institutions are relying heavily on counsel and monitoring agency updates. USCIS maintains an H‑1B information page with program basics at:
– USCIS H‑1B Specialty Occupations

Analysis from industry observers (for example, VisaVerge.com) notes the policy has already triggered widespread questions about travel and petition strategy as court challenges develop.

Key facts at a glance

Takeaway

Vance’s taunt has sharpened political lines, but the decisive actions are likely to come from the courts. Meanwhile, states suing, employers, universities, and workers must plan around a Proclamation that can take effect in hours and reshape budgets in a day, as lawyers seek court orders and the White House defends its actions.