$100K H-1B Fee Extended Through 2027

Employers that rely on H-1B visas face more uncertainty after the Trump administration extended a $100,000 payment requirement for certain H-1B workers through Sept. 21, 2027. The extension preserves a policy that has significant implications for talent acquisition, workforce planning, and the cost of hiring skilled foreign workers.

The extension renews the 2025 presidential proclamation that restricted the entry of certain H-1B workers unless an employer made a $100,000 payment. The restriction generally applies to workers outside the United States who require consular visa processing or other admission procedures to begin H-1B employment. The proclamation also allows exceptions when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) determines that employment is in the national interest.

The payment requirement remains blocked however, by federal court action. In June, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated the government’s policy implementing the fee, finding that it exceeded statutory authority and that the implementation violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The Trump administration appealed. On July 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit refused to block the lower court ruling that vacated the $100,000 H-1B fee, again barring collection of the fee while the appeal proceeds.  

As a result, the legal status of the fee is in question. The White House has extended the underlying restriction, but the existing court order remains an obstacle to its implementation. The government has indicated that it intends to comply with the court’s order while considering its next steps.

HR leaders should prepare for the possibility that the payment could return if the litigation produces a different outcome. 

Specialty Credential: U.S. Employment Immigration

The White House said that registrations from the largest information technology staffing and outsourcing firms have fallen 92% since the H-1B payment requirement and a new weighted selection system took effect, with more applications for workers with advanced degrees and higher-paying job offers being submitted. 

The $100,000 payment is also no longer the only major H-1B cost employers need to monitor. Separately, the DHS has proposed a $103,265 fee for cap-subject H-1B petitions, based on different statutory authority from the presidential proclamation. Unlike the earlier initiative, it would apply to almost anyone getting a new visa, not just those who are outside the country. 

The proposal has moved through federal regulatory review, although it remains a proposed rule rather than an operative fee.

Layoffs Could Trigger More Scrutiny

The White House issued a separate executive order Sept. 18 directing agencies to review would-be H-1B employers for “recent or planned layoffs” of U.S. workers when considering whether to approve H-1B petitions. That will include H-1B petitions that have already been filed. 

"The executive order calls for layoff-related information to be considered across H-1B filings, potentially increasing scrutiny of employers whose workforce reductions overlap with sponsored positions," said Daniela Medrano Sullivan, an attorney at Ogletree Deakins in Denver.

"The executive order directs the secretaries of State, Labor, and Homeland Security to consider whether an employer conducted layoffs within the prior year or plans future layoffs affecting similarly situated U.S. workers when adjudicating H-1B-related filings," she said.

She explained that employers could see additional scrutiny at multiple points in the H-1B process, including during the labor condition application (LCA) review, petition adjudication, consular visa issuance, or admission at the border.

"Employers may need to address the relationship between workforce reductions and sponsored positions across the relevant filing record," Sullivan said. "The phrase 'similarly situated' may draw on existing regulatory concepts addressing essentially equivalent jobs, which compare responsibilities, required qualifications, and area of employment. Consulting, staffing, outsourcing, and other third-party placement models may face particular scrutiny because those arrangements can raise displacement questions at client worksites."