Trump hikes H-1B visa fees to Rs.83 lakh: Major blow to Indian IT talent amid US immigration overhaul
Digital Desk
In a bold move to prioritize American workers, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order imposing a staggering $100,000 annual fee on H-1B visa applications, effective immediately.
This dramatic increase from the previous range of $460 to $2,805 could reshape the U.S. tech landscape, hitting Indian IT giants hardest as they sponsor over 70% of these visas annually.
The proclamation, inked in the Oval Office on Friday, September 19, aims to curb what the administration calls the "misuse" of the H-1B program, originally designed for highly skilled roles Americans can't fill. White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf emphasized that the fee ensures "only truly exceptional foreign talent" enters, targeting roles unmet by domestic hires. Verification from official White House documents confirms the policy's rollout, with payments required yearly for the visa's three-to-six-year duration potentially totaling $600,000 per worker.
For Indian professionals, the fallout is seismic. Last fiscal year, India secured 71% of 85,000 H-1B approvals, fueling a $50 billion remittance corridor via firms like Infosys, TCS, and Wipro. The new Rs.83 lakh ($100,000) fee per year makes mid-level engineers unaffordable, prompting predictions of mass outsourcing or shifts to Canada, Europe, and Australia. "This isn't economic anymore," U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick warned during the signing, urging companies to "train Americans first" over importing talent. Lutnick noted firms are "ready to pay" for elite hires but decried low-wage green card recipients averaging $66,000 annually.
Adding intrigue, Trump unveiled the "Trump Gold Card" a $1 million pathway to unlimited U.S. residency, akin to a green card but expedited for wealthy investors. Dubbed a "Platinum" and "Corporate Gold" variant for businesses, it promises voting rights and full citizen perks, with plans to issue up to 80,000 annually. Critics decry it as "pay-to-play" immigration, while supporters hail it as revenue-neutral reform.