Trump’s H-1B overhaul widens: the $100,000 entry policy is extended as layoff scrutiny expands
Two new White House actions push high-skilled immigration policy in the same direction through different legal channels. One extends the administration’s six-figure payment requirement for certain H-1B workers seeking entry from abroad. The other tells federal agencies to scrutinize sponsoring employers’ layoffs and share more labor-market data. A separate DHS proposal would add a $103,265 filing fee for cap-subject petitions. The crucial complication: the $100,000 policy remains tied up in federal litigation, and a court order blocking its implementation has not been stayed.
The White House renewed restrictions on entry for certain H-1B workers unless a $100,000 payment accompanies or supplements the petition, subject to national-interest exceptions.
State, Labor and Homeland Security are directed to consider recent or planned layoffs affecting similarly situated U.S. workers and to coordinate with Commerce, Education and SBA.
A Massachusetts judge vacated agency implementation in June; the First Circuit denied the government’s request to stay that ruling in July while the appeal proceeds.
For employers, foreign professionals and universities, the Trump administration’s Sept. 18 actions do not reduce to a single “H-1B fee.” They create a layered policy environment in which the same petition can be affected differently depending on where the worker is located, whether the case is cap-subject, whether travel or consular admission is required, whether the employer has recently laid off similar U.S. workers, and what happens next in federal court.
President Donald Trump’s proclamation extends the 2025 H-1B entry restriction for another 12 months. Its text says the restriction applies to certain people who must seek admission to the United States to take up approved H-1B employment, including cases routed through consular notification or a port of entry. The proclamation says those petitions must be accompanied or supplemented by a $100,000 payment unless the Homeland Security secretary grants a national-interest exception.
At the same time, a new executive order directs the departments that administer H-1B petitions, labor condition applications and visas to coordinate with three additional agencies and to consider whether a sponsoring employer engaged in layoffs during the previous year or plans future layoffs that negatively affect similarly situated U.S. workers. It also tells the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division to begin reviewing data tied to previously filed labor condition applications within 30 days.
Those changes arrive while litigation is unresolved. That matters because a policy can be extended on paper even while agency implementation is blocked by a court order. The most useful way to read the Sept. 18 actions, therefore, is not as a clean start date for a single new charge, but as an escalation of the administration’s policy position while judges continue to determine what the executive branch may lawfully enforce.
What the White House actually changed on Sept. 18
Two presidential actions, two distinct legal toolsThe first action is a presidential proclamation titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers.” It extends the framework created in September 2025. The White House says the renewed restriction takes effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time on Sept. 21, 2026 and, absent another extension, runs until Sept. 21, 2027. The operative language restricts entry for H-1B specialty-occupation workers covered by the proclamation unless the associated petition is accompanied or supplemented by a $100,000 payment.
The proclamation is framed as an entry restriction under sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That framing is important. The document does not simply rewrite every H-1B filing fee for every H-1B worker in every posture. It directs Homeland Security to restrict decisions on petitions for covered workers who are currently outside the United States and specifies that the restriction applies to people who must seek admission to effectuate the petition approval. It also authorizes discretionary national-interest exceptions for an individual, a company’s workers or an industry.
The second action is an executive order titled “Enhancing Program Integrity and Interagency Coordination in the Administration of the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Program.” It directs the secretaries of State, Labor and Homeland Security to coordinate and consult with the secretaries of Commerce and Education and the administrator of the Small Business Administration. Those added agencies are expected to provide relevant wage, employment, academic, industrial and other economic information.
The order then adds a specific review factor: whether the sponsor directly or indirectly engaged in layoffs during the previous year, or plans future layoffs, that negatively affect similarly situated U.S. workers. It does not say that any layoff automatically bars an H-1B filing. Instead, it tells the agencies to take that information into account “consistent with” specified provisions of the immigration laws. How that instruction is translated into forms, guidance, evidentiary requests or adjudication standards will determine much of its practical reach.
The $100,000 payment was extended — but its enforceability is still in court
Why the proclamation and the litigation have to be read togetherThe administration’s proclamation states its policy clearly. The courts have not given that policy a single, final answer. Two major cases reached different district-court conclusions in late 2025 and 2026, and both are now part of ongoing appellate litigation.
In Massachusetts, a coalition of states challenged federal agency actions implementing the 2025 proclamation. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled on June 8, 2026 that the implementation actions were unlawful and vacated them. The federal government sought a stay while it appealed. On July 24, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied that request. The First Circuit’s order describes the district court judgment as vacating actions by Homeland Security and the State Department that implemented the proclamation’s $100,000 payment requirement.
A separate challenge brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities produced the opposite result at the district-court level in Washington. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the government’s position in December 2025. The Chamber appealed, and its case remains pending at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
States won at the district court
The district court vacated agency implementation of the $100,000 requirement. The First Circuit denied a government stay request on July 24, so that judgment was not suspended by the appellate court at that stage.
Chamber lost at the district court
The D.C. federal district court upheld the proclamation against the business-and-university challenge in December 2025. The appeal is pending in the D.C. Circuit.
The result is an unusual but not unprecedented posture: the executive branch has formally renewed the policy while appellate courts consider challenges to the legal basis and agency implementation. Reuters reported on Sept. 18 that the $100,000 requirement was facing legal obstacles and that the Boston-based appeal of the ruling blocking implementation was still underway.
For that reason, employers should not read the new proclamation’s date as proof that a previously enjoined implementation system has automatically become collectible or enforceable in every case. The operative legal picture depends on current court orders, any new agency guidance and later appellate decisions. Conversely, the existence of the court block does not erase the administration’s renewed policy or the possibility that the government may prevail later, modify its implementation or pursue the same objective through rulemaking.
Original proclamation issued
The first $100,000 H-1B entry-payment framework was announced, with implementation beginning two days later.
D.C. district court upholds the policy
The Chamber of Commerce and university challenge was rejected at the district-court level; the plaintiffs appealed.
Massachusetts district court vacates implementation
A different federal judge, in a case brought by states, concluded that the challenged agency actions implementing the payment requirement were unlawful.
First Circuit denies a stay
The appellate court declined to pause the Massachusetts judgment while the government’s appeal proceeds.
White House extends the proclamation
The administration renewed the restriction for another 12 months, setting a new end point of Sept. 21, 2027 unless extended again.
Layoffs are moving from the political argument into the review process
The executive order gives agencies a new explicit instructionThe Sept. 18 executive order is potentially more consequential over time than the headline payment because it reaches the administration of petitions, labor condition applications, visas and entries. Its central operational idea is to connect H-1B adjudication more directly with information about employer layoffs and broader labor-market conditions.
The order tells State, Labor and Homeland Security to consider whether a sponsoring employer directly or indirectly carried out layoffs in the previous year, or plans future layoffs, that negatively affect similarly situated U.S. workers. It also requires those departments to coordinate with Commerce, Education and the Small Business Administration. The White House presents that coordination as a way to pull wage data, employment conditions, academic information and industry context into program administration.
That is a meaningful change in emphasis because federal law already contains worker-protection rules, but not every H-1B employer faces the same displacement obligations in the same way. The Labor Department’s H-1B rules require an employer to attest that it will pay the higher of the actual wage paid to similarly qualified workers or the local prevailing wage, and that working conditions will not adversely affect similarly employed workers. Additional displacement-related requirements apply in particular circumstances, including to some H-1B-dependent employers and willful violators.
The new order does not itself rewrite all of those statutory categories. Instead, it instructs agencies to use layoff information as part of their existing legal responsibilities. That distinction will be central if the policy is challenged: an administration can direct executive agencies on enforcement priorities and information-sharing, but a court may examine whether later guidance or adjudication effectively creates a new substantive rule beyond the statute or regulations.
State, Labor, DHS
These departments remain the primary actors for visas, labor condition applications, petitions, status and entry. The order tells them to coordinate and to consider layoff information.
Commerce, Education, SBA
The order calls for consultation on wage, employment, academic, industrial and other economic information relevant to H-1B administration.
Wage and Hour review
DOL’s Wage and Hour Division is directed to begin reviewing data related to previously submitted labor condition applications to determine whether further action is warranted under the INA.
Who is exposed to the entry restriction depends heavily on where the worker is
Consular cases and in-country status changes are not the same pathwayH-1B is often described as if every successful beneficiary starts abroad and then flies into the United States on a new visa. The government’s own data show a more complicated pipeline. In fiscal 2024, USCIS approved 141,205 petitions for initial H-1B employment. Its report to Congress says almost 46 percent requested consular or port-of-entry notification, while roughly 54 percent requested a change to H-1B status for someone already in the United States.
USCIS total for approved H-1B petitions for initial employment in its latest congressional characteristics report.
These cases are structurally closer to the proclamation’s stated focus on workers who must seek admission.
These approvals involved beneficiaries already in the United States at the time of the status request.
USCIS reported that 73,571 approved petitions for new employment in FY2024 requested a change of nonimmigrant status. Among those, 71 percent listed the beneficiary’s prior status as F-1 or F-2, the student classifications and their dependents. That helps explain why universities and employers watch the distinction between an in-country status change and later international travel so closely. A worker may receive H-1B status inside the United States without immediately needing consular processing, yet a later trip abroad can raise separate admission and visa questions.
The renewed proclamation makes the geography explicit. It instructs Homeland Security to restrict decisions on petitions not accompanied by the payment for covered H-1B workers “currently outside the United States” and says the entry restriction applies to people who must seek admission to make an approved petition effective. The proclamation also says employers must obtain and retain payment documentation before filing an H-1B petition on behalf of a person outside the country.
That does not mean every person already in the United States is insulated from the policy indefinitely. Status, petition approval, visa issuance and admission are separate legal concepts. Travel can change which step is relevant, and individual cases can be affected by expiration dates, changes of employer, status violations or other immigration rules. The safest factual conclusion is narrower: the proclamation’s own text focuses the payment-linked entry restriction on covered workers outside the United States who must seek admission, rather than describing a universal $100,000 charge on every H-1B action.
A separate DHS proposal would set a $103,265 fee for cap-subject petitions
Rulemaking, not the proclamation — and the comment window is still openThe administration is also pursuing a more conventional regulatory route. On Aug. 25, DHS published a proposed rule that would establish a $103,265 fee for all H-1B cap-subject petitions, including petitions eligible for the advanced-degree exemption. The proposal says the charge would be paid at filing and would come on top of other applicable fees or payments.
What DHS says the proposed fee would fund
The notice describes the money as a dedicated revenue mechanism intended to recover a portion of federal costs associated with administering the lawful immigration system across DHS, the Justice Department, the State Department and the Labor Department. Written comments are due by Sept. 24, 2026.
The proposal should be kept separate from the $100,000 proclamation payment for two reasons. First, it uses notice-and-comment rulemaking rather than a presidential entry proclamation. Second, its stated coverage is “cap-subject petitions,” a category defined by the annual H-1B numerical limits, rather than by whether a worker is outside the United States and needs admission.
A Federal Register correction published in September revised the proposal’s historical petition table. The corrected data show 106,711 cap-subject H-1B petition receipts in FY2025 and a five-year average of 96,750 cap-subject receipts from FY2021 through FY2025. Those counts are not identical to the annual statutory cap because petitions can be classified by receipt year and cap year differently, and the agency notes that year-to-year deviations are smoothed by averages.
The proposed rule is therefore a second track toward a very high H-1B charge, but it is not yet a final regulation. Agencies can change proposed rules after reviewing comments, and a final rule can itself be challenged in court. Until DHS publishes a final action and an effective date, the $103,265 amount is a proposal rather than an operative filing fee.
Four real-world situations show why the details matter
The same employer can face different questions depending on case postureThe combination of a renewed proclamation, court injunctions, a new executive order and a pending fee rule creates an environment where labels alone are misleading. The following scenarios are not legal advice; they illustrate the factual distinctions built into the government documents.
New hire is abroad
A sponsor wants to bring a specialty worker from outside the United States. That fact pattern sits closest to the proclamation’s stated scope because admission and consular processing may be required. The employer must also watch the current litigation before assuming the $100,000 payment can or cannot be demanded.
Graduate changes status inside the U.S.
A U.S.-based student moving from F-1 status to H-1B follows a different procedural path. The proclamation’s entry restriction is written around workers who must seek admission, though later international travel can make visa and entry requirements relevant.
Sponsor recently cut similar jobs
The new executive order specifically tells agencies to take recent or planned layoffs affecting similarly situated U.S. workers into account. The practical consequence will depend on implementation guidance, the employer’s facts and the statutory provisions applied.
Cap-subject petition after a final fee rule
If DHS later finalizes the $103,265 proposal substantially as written, a cap-subject filing could face that regulatory fee irrespective of the separate proclamation litigation. That is why the two six-figure policies cannot be treated as interchangeable.
The wage debate is politically central, but federal law already sets a floor
Administration claims and existing worker protections are separate questionsThe White House argues that parts of the H-1B system have been used by outsourcing and staffing firms to replace U.S. workers and suppress pay. The Sept. 18 executive order repeats administration claims about wage gaps and displacement, and the proclamation says recent changes have shifted registrations and selections toward higher-paid and higher-skilled workers. Those are the administration’s policy findings and justifications, not neutral descriptions of every employer or H-1B worker.
Existing law already requires a wage floor. The Labor Department says an H-1B employer must pay at least the higher of two amounts: the “actual wage” it pays other workers with similar experience and qualifications for the specific job, or the local “prevailing wage” for the occupation. The employer also attests that the H-1B worker’s working conditions will not adversely affect similarly employed workers.
Employers and business groups have responded that H-1B hiring is important where specialized skills are scarce and that extreme new costs could push work abroad or reduce U.S. hiring. Reuters, summarizing the debate around the extension, noted that businesses argue the program is needed to address skills shortages while the administration contends it has been abused to the detriment of American workers. The current policy fight therefore combines at least three disputes: the economics of high-skilled immigration, the design of the wage system and the legal authority of the executive branch to impose extraordinary payments or entry conditions.
What remains unchanged — at least for now
The new actions sit on top of the existing H-1B statute and processThe Sept. 18 proclamation and executive order are significant, but they do not replace the entire H-1B architecture. The statutory annual cap remains 65,000 in the regular allocation plus a 20,000 exemption for people who earn qualifying advanced degrees from U.S. institutions. Some employers and positions can be cap-exempt under existing law. The administration has separately changed how cap selection works, but the basic statutory numerical framework remains in place unless Congress changes it.
The Labor Condition Application also remains a core part of the process. Employers continue to make wage and working-condition attestations to the Labor Department before filing many H-1B petitions with USCIS. USCIS still adjudicates the petition, while the State Department handles visa issuance abroad and Customs and Border Protection addresses admission at ports of entry. One reason the new executive order emphasizes coordination is that H-1B administration is already distributed across multiple agencies.
Nor does the proclamation convert H-1B status into permanent residence. H-1B remains a temporary nonimmigrant classification even though some workers later pursue employment-based green cards through separate processes. The policy dispute is about access to and administration of a temporary specialty-occupation program, not a direct grant of permanent immigration status.
The administration’s next moves could also come through regulations rather than presidential directives. The Labor Department has already pursued separate wage-rule changes, and DHS’s $103,265 proposal shows how the government can try to build a high-cost policy through the Administrative Procedure Act process. Rulemaking does not guarantee that a policy will survive judicial review, but it changes the legal questions because agencies create an administrative record, solicit comments and explain the statutory authority for a final rule.
What to watch next
Four moving pieces can change the practical answer quicklyThe policy picture on Sept. 21 is not a finished endpoint. Court decisions, agency guidance and the rulemaking calendar can each alter which costs and review standards actually apply. Four developments deserve close attention.
The government’s appeal of the Massachusetts ruling can determine whether the vacatur of agency implementation stands, narrows or is reversed.
The Chamber case presents a separate challenge after a district judge upheld the proclamation. A later appellate ruling could deepen or resolve disagreement.
DHS’s proposed $103,265 fee remains open for public comment through Sept. 24 before the agency can move toward a final rule.
Agency instructions, data-sharing procedures and requests for evidence will show how broadly the executive order’s layoff factor operates in actual cases.
The most important distinction for readers is between political intent and present legal effect. The White House has made its intent unmistakable: it wants a smaller, more expensive and more heavily scrutinized H-1B pipeline, particularly where the administration believes employers are replacing U.S. workers or using lower-wage labor. But agencies still have to implement those directives within existing statutes, regulations and court orders.
That is why the practical answer to “Does a new H-1B hire now cost $100,000?” cannot responsibly be a universal yes or no. A covered overseas case may fall within the proclamation’s terms; a court order may constrain the agencies’ ability to implement that payment; a different cap-subject petition could later fall under a separate final DHS fee if the proposed rule is completed; and an employer’s recent layoffs may generate additional scrutiny under the new executive order. The headline number is only the first branch in a much larger decision tree.
H-1B policy: quick answers
Did the White House extend the $100,000 H-1B policy for another year?
Yes. The Sept. 18 proclamation extends the entry-restriction framework until 12:00 a.m. Eastern time on Sept. 21, 2027 unless it is extended again. But ongoing litigation affects implementation, and the First Circuit denied a government request to stay a district-court judgment that vacated agency implementation of the payment requirement.
Does every H-1B worker or petition automatically owe $100,000?
No. The proclamation describes a payment-linked restriction for covered H-1B workers who are outside the United States and must seek admission to effectuate the approved petition, subject to national-interest exceptions. Other H-1B filings can involve different procedural paths and fees.
Is the proposed $103,265 DHS fee the same policy?
No. DHS proposed the $103,265 amount through notice-and-comment rulemaking for cap-subject H-1B petitions. It is a separate proposal and is not yet a final fee. Comments are due Sept. 24, 2026.
What did the new executive order change about layoffs?
It directs State, Labor and Homeland Security to take into account whether a sponsoring employer engaged in layoffs during the previous year or plans layoffs that negatively affect similarly situated U.S. workers. It also orders new interagency coordination and a Labor Department data review.
What is the existing H-1B wage requirement?
The Labor Department states that employers must pay at least the higher of the actual wage paid to similarly qualified workers at the employer or the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of employment, along with other working-condition obligations.
Primary documents and reporting
White House, Sept. 18, 2026: Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers — the renewed proclamation and its stated scope, effective date, payment language and national-interest exception.
White House, Sept. 18, 2026: Enhancing Program Integrity and Interagency Coordination in the Administration of the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Program — the executive order on layoffs, agency coordination and Labor Department review.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, July 24, 2026: State of California v. Mullin, No. 26-1699 — order denying the government’s motion to stay the Massachusetts district-court judgment while the appeal proceeds.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce case page: Chamber of Commerce v. DHS, D.C. Circuit No. 25-5473 — docket status and appellate filings in the separate business-and-university challenge.
Federal Register, Aug. 25, 2026: Fee for Certain H-1B Petitions — proposed rule — DHS proposal for a $103,265 cap-subject H-1B filing fee and the Sept. 24 comment deadline.
Federal Register correction, Sept. 10, 2026: Fee for Certain H-1B Petitions — Correction — corrected FY2021-FY2025 receipt data for the proposed rule.
U.S. Department of Labor: H-1B Labor Condition Application requirements — statutory wage and working-condition obligations.
USCIS: Characteristics of H-1B Specialty Occupation Workers, FY2024 report to Congress — data on initial-employment approvals, consular notification and in-country changes of status.
Reuters, Sept. 18, 2026: Trump extends push for $100,000 H-1B visas by another year — independent reporting on the extension, business response and pending litigation.
Comments
Post a Comment