Trump administration cites mass layoffs by firms with thousands of H-1B approvals; India warns of disruption for families
The U.S. government has defended its decision to impose an annual fee of US$100,000 on new H-1B visa applications, releasing a fact sheet highlighting companies that secured large numbers of visa approvals while cutting thousands of American jobs.
President
Donald Trump’s administration stressed that the measure is designed to curb misuse of the visa system and prioritize American workers.
According to official figures, one company received 5,189 H-1B approvals in fiscal year 2025 while laying off roughly 16,000 U.S. employees.
Another obtained 1,698 approvals but dismissed 2,400 workers in Oregon.
A third firm reduced its American workforce by 27,000 since 2022 while receiving 25,075 H-1B approvals.
Yet another reportedly cut 1,000 jobs in February despite securing more than 1,100 new visa approvals.
The administration argued that unchecked expansion of the H-1B program had allowed U.S. employers to replace higher-paid domestic workers with foreign labor.
The share of IT jobs held by H-1B workers has risen to more than 65 percent, up from 32 percent in 2003.
Officials noted that unemployment among computer science graduates has reached 6.1 percent and 7.5 percent for computer engineering graduates, more than double the rates for fields such as biology and art history.
India, which accounts for around 71 percent of H-1B visas, has voiced concern about the implications.
The Indian government said the steep fee could disrupt families and impact remittances, while Indian industry leaders warned of potential setbacks to bilateral innovation and collaboration.
Companies in India have already begun exploring ways to absorb displaced professionals through remote work or domestic expansion.
The White House emphasized that the new annual fee does not apply to existing H-1B holders, whose visa renewals remain unaffected.
Supporters of the move argue it delivers on Trump’s pledge to put American workers first, while opponents caution that it could restrict access to global talent and undermine U.S. competitiveness in high-skill sectors.