The US vice president has defended the proposed fee on new cap-subject H-1B petitions as the Trump administration seeks to push companies towards hiring and training domestic workers.
US Vice President JD Vance has backed the Trump administration's proposal to impose a $103,265 fee on new H-1B visa petitions, arguing that American companies should hire and train workers in the United States rather than rely on foreign skilled professionals.
Vance endorsed the proposal in a post on X after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unveiled the new fee plan. “If an American corporation needs workers, it should hire and train Americans,” he said.
The proposed charge would apply to H-1B petitions subject to the annual cap, including petitions eligible for the advanced-degree exemption. It would be payable when the petition is filed and would come on top of other applicable H-1B fees. The proposal is not yet final and will go through a public-comment process.
What The New Fee Means
The proposed 3,265 charge represents a dramatic increase in the cost of sponsoring an H-1B worker. DHS estimates that the fee could generate about .8 billion annually, based on roughly 85,000 cap-subject petitions.
The H-1B programme allows US employers to hire foreign professionals in specialised occupations, including technology, engineering, research and other highly skilled fields.
The annual statutory cap is 85,000 new H-1B visas — 65,000 under the regular quota and another 20,000 reserved for applicants with advanced degrees from US institutions.
Some H-1B Petitions Exempt
The proposed fee would not apply universally to the H-1B programme. Petitions that are exempt from the annual cap, including certain applications filed by higher education institutions and nonprofit or government research organisations, would not be subject to the new charge.
That distinction is important because the proposal is aimed specifically at cap-subject petitions, rather than every H-1B worker already in the United States.
Indians Could Face Major Impact
The proposal has particular significance for Indian professionals because Indian nationals account for the largest share of H-1B beneficiaries.
According to data cited by the Times of India, Indians received about 2.83 lakh H-1B visas in fiscal 2025, including extensions, representing around 70% of the total. For initial employment, Indian nationals received nearly 58,000 visas.
A substantial increase in employer costs could therefore affect hiring decisions involving Indian technology professionals and other skilled workers. Companies could have to weigh the additional government fee against the cost of recruiting and training workers domestically.
Trump Administration's Wider Push
The proposal is part of a broader Trump administration effort to reshape employment-based immigration and encourage employers to prioritise American workers.
The administration has argued that the H-1B programme can be misused and that companies should invest more in domestic workers. Vance's comments reinforce that position by linking the higher immigration cost directly to the administration's “hire and train Americans” approach.
At the same time, technology companies and immigration advocates have warned that substantially higher costs could make it harder for US businesses to recruit specialised talent, particularly when domestic candidates with the required skills are not readily available.
Legal Battle Could Continue
The latest proposal follows a legal setback for the administration's earlier attempt to impose a $100,000 H-1B fee. A federal judge in Massachusetts struck down that measure in June, ruling that the president lacked the authority to impose what the court considered a tax on H-1B petitions.
The new $103,265 fee is being pursued through a formal rulemaking process and is based on a different legal mechanism. The proposal will be open for public comments for 30 days, meaning it is not yet an operative final rule.
For Indian professionals and US employers, the immediate impact will therefore depend on whether the proposed fee survives the rulemaking process and any subsequent legal challenges.
