Trump administration proposes $103,265 fee for new H-1B filings

A six-figure H-1B filing charge could reshape which employers can afford to hire skilled foreign workers. The proposal is not final, and it arrives after an earlier $100,000 policy was struck down in court.

The Trump administration is moving to impose a fee of more than $100,000 on H-1B worker visas, proposing a $103,265 charge for most new H-1B filings. The fee is part of a proposed increase in H-1B visa costs that could affect employers seeking to hire H-1B workers and applicants hoping to begin jobs in the United States.

The number matters because an H-1B petition is typically employer-sponsored. A charge at this level could make the program far less accessible to startups, universities, hospitals and smaller firms, even as supporters of the policy argue that it would curb misuse and push employers to recruit more U.S. workers.

A proposed fee, not a final rule

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed attaching the $103,265 charge to new H-1B filings, according to a filing reported by The Wall Street Journal and referenced in Reuters coverage. The payment would be due before the government decides whether to approve a petition.

That timing is significant. Employers would need to take on a major cost before receiving an approval, rather than paying only after a worker has cleared the immigration process.

The proposal would be subject to a 30-day public-comment period before it could take effect. During that window, employers, immigration lawyers, workers, trade groups and other interested parties can submit formal feedback. DHS would then need to review the comments and complete the regulatory process.

For now, the key word is proposed. A published proposal can change before becoming a final rule, and a final version could also face legal challenges.

Who could face the charge

The proposal is aimed at most new H-1B visa applicants, rather than being confined to workers applying from outside the United States, according to the reporting. That broader reach is one of the biggest differences for employers trying to assess their exposure.

H-1B visas are used for specialty-occupation jobs that generally require highly specialized knowledge and at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. Technology companies are prominent users, but the program is also used in engineering, finance, research, health care, education and other fields.

In practical terms, the employer filing the petition would confront the fee. But the effect would not stop there. A company that decides the cost is too high may withdraw a planned offer, choose a different candidate or move work to another country.

Large companies may have more room to absorb six-figure costs than smaller organizations. A well-funded business making a rare, strategic hire could see the fee as expensive but manageable. A young company hiring its first specialist may see it as prohibitive.

Why the scale changes hiring

Immigration filings already involve government charges, attorney expenses and administrative work. A $103,265 fee would be different in magnitude: it would turn the H-1B process into a six-figure up-front decision before salary, relocation, benefits and legal costs are added.

That could alter the kinds of roles employers are willing to sponsor. Companies might reserve H-1B petitions for senior employees or unusually hard-to-find skills, while reducing sponsorship for early-career workers and positions where candidates have comparable alternatives.

Supporters of a steep fee can argue that it raises the cost of relying on overseas talent and discourages companies from using the visa system as a lower-cost staffing tool. The White House’s 2025 proclamation on H-1B entry restrictions framed the policy around concerns that some employers could use foreign labor to undercut U.S. wages and workers.

Critics are likely to argue that a broad fee does not neatly separate abusive practices from legitimate recruiting needs. Hospitals seeking specialized physicians, universities hiring researchers and companies filling technical gaps may say the cost punishes employers that are following the rules.

An earlier $100,000 policy failed

The new proposal follows an earlier Trump administration plan to charge $100,000 in connection with H-1B visas. That prior approach was struck down by the courts, according to reporting on the new DHS filing.

The legal history matters because it helps explain why the administration is pursuing a proposal through a formal rulemaking route. A regulation generally requires public notice, an opportunity for comment and a reasoned explanation from the agency. Those steps do not guarantee a policy will survive a lawsuit, but they create a more developed administrative record.

The White House proclamation published in 2025 said the Homeland Security secretary should restrict decisions on H-1B petitions not accompanied by a $100,000 payment. The current proposal’s $103,265 figure suggests the administration is seeking a more specific regulatory mechanism after the earlier policy encountered judicial resistance.

Whether the agency has sufficient legal authority for the new charge, and whether the amount is justified under applicable immigration and administrative law, could become central issues if opponents go to court again.

The H-1B system already has limits

The H-1B program is not an open-ended work visa. For many employers, demand exceeds the number of visas available each year, leading U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to use a registration and selection process for cap-subject petitions.

That scarcity already forces employers and workers to make plans around uncertainty. A six-figure filing charge could add a second filter: not just whether an applicant is selected and qualifies, but whether an employer believes sponsorship is financially worthwhile.

Some employers may respond by increasing domestic recruitment, which is a stated policy goal for advocates of tighter restrictions. Others could rely more heavily on remote work abroad, overseas offices or alternative visa categories where available.

The result may vary sharply by sector. A multinational technology company, a regional hospital and a small research lab do not have the same budgets, hiring pipelines or ability to relocate work.

What employers and applicants should watch

The most immediate milestone is the proposed rule’s public-comment period. The final text, implementation date, exemptions if any, and treatment of particular categories of new filings will determine the policy’s real reach.

It is also unclear whether the proposed fee would remain at $103,265 after comments or whether DHS would revise the amount, scope or timing. The administration could face pressure from business groups and education or health-care organizations, while immigration-restriction advocates may press for a tough final rule.

For workers, the proposal underscores a basic reality of the H-1B system: sponsorship depends on an employer’s willingness and ability to navigate a costly process. Applicants should not assume a proposed charge is already in force, but employers considering future H-1B hiring will be watching closely.

The core issue is larger than a filing fee. The Trump administration’s proposal would test whether H-1B sponsorship remains a viable route for a wide range of employers or becomes a pathway available mainly to organizations able to treat a six-figure government payment as part of the cost of hiring.