Recent changes to the law have employers concerned about the H-1B visa program.
getty
For years, employers viewed the H-1B program as a competitive but relatively predictable way to hire global talent. That changed on September 21, 2025, when a presidential proclamation introduced a $100,000 fee tied to certain new H-1B petitions. It raised immediate questions about the future economics of international hiring.
While the headlines sparked concern, the reality is more nuanced. The policy does not affect every employer or every H-1B worker, but it does represent one of the most significant shifts in employment-based immigration policy in recent years.
When the H-1B policy first broke, many employers understandably panicked. But as I told clients then, and would tell them now, panic is the wrong response. Matters like this have a way of leveling out.
Sure enough, the White House quickly clarified that the $100,000 charge is not an annual tax on all H-1B workers. It is a one-time payment tied to new H-1B petitions, and the administration said it does not apply to existing H-1B holders reentering the country, nor to renewals. The same White House fact sheet also said the fee can be waived on a case-by-case basis if DHS determines the case is in the national interest.
Just as important, the proclamation did not stand alone. It also directed the Labor and Homeland Security departments to revise prevailing-wage policy and prioritize “high-skilled, high-paid” H-1B workers. DHS then followed through with a final rule published on December 29, 2025, replacing the traditional random selection process with a weighted system that took effect on February 27, 2026, in time to shape the FY2027 cap season.
Who Pays and Who Doesn’t
The practical answer is that the employer pays when it files for a new H-1B worker subject to the proclamation. That is why I keep telling HR teams and CFOs to stop asking, “Can the candidate absorb some of this?” and start asking, “Should we sponsor this role under the new economics at all?”
Reuters reported the administration’s position that the order bars new H-1B recipients from entering the country unless the sponsoring employer has made the $100,000 payment, while the administration has said the order does not apply to existing H-1B holders or to people who applied before September 21.
In other words, the employers most exposed are those planning fresh cap-subject filings for workers abroad or otherwise outside protected existing H-1B status. Employers with current H-1B populations should not assume the rule suddenly makes every extension, amendment, or reentry a six-figure event. It does not.
The national-interest exception is where strategy comes in. The administration made room for case-by-case relief, and sectors such as healthcare immediately began pressing for it. Within days of the announcement, the American Medical Association and dozens of medical societies urged DHS to categorically exempt physicians, residents, and fellows based on workforce needs and the realities of underserved care.
That tells employers that exemption arguments are not theoretical and are part of the real planning toolkit.
The Wage-Weighted Lottery and Hiring Strategy
The wage-weighted rule is where many companies will feel the bigger long-term shift. Under the new regulation, wage level IV registrations go into the selection pool 4 times, level III 3 times, level II 2 times, and level I 1 time. DHS explicitly said the goal was to favor higher-paid workers while still preserving some chance for all wage levels.
But employers need to read past the headline. The rule also says that if a beneficiary has multiple registrations at different wage levels or would work in multiple locations, DHS can assign the lowest relevant wage level for selection purposes. In practice, that means a single lower-paid offer or lower-paid location can dilute the advantage of an otherwise stronger case. I do not think employers should game wages. I do think they should align compensation, job level, worksite design, and registration strategy far earlier than many have in the past.
That is why I am urging clients to think in categories: cap-subject hires abroad, candidates already in the United States who may have other options, cap-exempt opportunities, and alternative visa paths.
The new environment rewards disciplined workforce design. It punishes improvisation. The fact that the government reported only 85 payments of the $100,000 fee by February 15 suggests the policy has already chilled filings. That may reduce competition in some pockets, but it also means employers that do proceed should do so intentionally and with a stronger factual record.
What Employers Should Do Now
My advice is to first map every anticipated 2026 hire by immigration posture: new cap-subject abroad, change-of-status possibility, current H-1B holder, cap-exempt route, or alternative classification.
Second, revisit salary bands now, not at the offer-letter stage.
Third, confirm that worksite assumptions and wage-level determinations are defensible under the new rule, especially for remote or multi-location roles.
Fourth, build national-interest arguments that are supported by the facts, rather than treating exemptions as an afterthought.
I would also make sure internal stakeholders are aligned. Legal may understand the rule, but finance needs to understand the reserve, and business leaders need to understand the tradeoffs.
In this market, the best employers will not be the ones who sponsor the most. They will be the ones who know exactly which roles justify a six-figure spend, which roles should move to cap-exempt or alternate classifications, and which roles should be redesigned entirely. That is how immigration becomes a strategy rather than a disruption.
Leave a comment