Government Rewrites H-1B Visa Rules – Could This Finally Put Americans First?

In a recent episode of The Excerpt, USA TODAY’s Dana Taylor kicks off the conversation with a blunt summary: President Donald Trump’s new executive order slaps a $100,000 fee per H-1B application on the table and calls it a jobs protection measure for Americans. 

Taylor frames the core questions – who benefits, who pays, and what it means for the economy – before turning to her guest, Daniel Costa of the Economic Policy Institute, to sort through the noise.

Costa immediately narrows the scope. The fee, as clarified by the administration, applies only to new H-1B applicants who are outside the United States, not to those already here changing status or extending. That’s a crucial limit many headlines missed, he notes. 

And there’s another twist: there’s no working process yet – no form, no payment pipeline – even though the proclamation says the fee is “in effect.” 

My view: that gap between proclamation and implementation isn’t a footnote. It’s policy uncertainty – catnip for loopholes, panic planning, and short-term gaming by big firms that can afford to wait it out.

How Big Is H-1B – And Who Uses It?

Taylor asks for the 30,000-foot view. Costa lays out the numbers: roughly 50,000 employers in the program and about 600,000 H-1B workers in total – making it the nation’s largest temporary work visa pipeline. 

The annual numerical limit is well known – 85,000 new H-1Bs for most for-profit employers – while universities and nonprofit research organizations are cap-exempt. 

That’s why 141,000 new H-1Bs were issued last year despite the cap; cap-exempt petitions stack on top. Extensions can push stays to six years or longer, especially for workers stuck in green-card backlogs.

Costa’s bottom line: the fee is big enough to reshape behavior, not kill demand. Deep-pocketed tech giants and multinational IT outsourcers will likely absorb or route around the fee. Hospitals, universities, and smaller employers may not.

This is where policy design bites. If you tax the on-ramp but exempt those already inside, you tilt the playing field toward incumbents and away from scrappier employers, especially outside the coasts. 

That doesn’t necessarily “put Americans first” – it may just consolidate hiring power.

Will It Protect U.S. Jobs – or Just Change Who Pays?

Taylor presses the jobs question. Costa doesn’t mince words: the H-1B program does not require employers to recruit U.S. workers first. 

That’s a real rule, not a myth, he says – and something he believes Congress should fix. He points to longstanding bipartisan proposals (Durbin-Grassley’s H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act) that would add recruitment and anti-displacement protections.

Costa also pokes holes in the “H-1Bs create far more jobs than they take” talking point. On H-1B status, workers can’t found companies; they’re tied to an employer. There are famous exceptions – after a green card – but, in practice, most H-1Bs are certified at the lowest prevailing wage levels. 

He cites Department of Labor and DHS data indicating about 85% have been approved at the lowest two wage tiers, often below the local median, which looks a lot like entry-level IT work that new U.S. grads need to launch their careers.

Taylor brings data on those grads: recent computer science and computer engineering graduates face 6.1% and 7.5% unemployment, respectively – double some other majors, per the New York Fed. 

Costa links that pain to how H-1B is used: when the program skews to entry-level roles at low wages, it directly squeezes the market where U.S. grads compete.

Here’s my take. If the aim is to prioritize Americans, the cleanest path isn’t a flat $100,000 gate fee. It’s tightening wage floors, enforcing real recruitment, and rewarding employers who pay top-quartile market rates. 

Price signals work – but the right price signal is the wage, not an indiscriminate toll.

Follow The Money, Not The Slogans

Costa predicts the fee won’t crater recruitment, but it will reallocate it. Expect Big Tech and global outsourcers to carry on, while smaller hospitals, labs, and mid-market firms cut back. 

He also expects substitution: companies may shift toward candidates already in the U.S. (for example, former international students on F-1/OPT) to avoid the fee, because the fee targets only new entrants from abroad.

That means roughly 45% of new H-1Bs, Costa’s estimate of how many are filed from abroad, are in the fee’s crosshairs, while the rest slip past the toll booth. If you’re designing incentives, that’s a big, visible hole. 

Taylor pushes on innovation risk and brain drain. Costa’s nuanced. The H-1B program is important and needs reform, he says. But a blanket fee won’t fix its core flaws. 

He’d rather see higher wage requirements, a lottery redesign that prioritizes higher offers, and a path to green cards for truly high-skill graduates of U.S. universities – ideas embedded in bills like the Keep STEM Talent Act. 

I’d add a market reality check. If you crank up H-1B friction without fixing domestic training pipelines and K-12 to college STEM throughput, firms will adapt – by offshoring, expanding nearshore hubs, or pivoting to other visas (L-1s, TN, bilateral pathways) and remote work. 

The question isn’t whether labor demand disappears. It’s whether that demand lands in Austin – or Ahmedabad.

The Enforcement That Isn’t There Yet

A striking thread in Taylor’s interview is implementation limbo. Costa says no payment process exists for the fee, even as the White House says it’s active. 

Without forms, guidance, and payment rails, employers can’t comply – and agencies can’t enforce.

Policy in name only has consequences. Employers freeze offers. Candidates stay put. Universities hesitate on post-doc roles. 

Meanwhile, legal teams hunt for pathways around the ambiguity. That’s not good governance; it’s policy theater that imposes real economic costs.

Costa also casts doubt on the administration’s broader worker-rights record, noting that recent moves have tended to lower labor standards, not raise them. He supports a true wage-floor rulemaking at the Labor Department, but he’s skeptical it will arrive as advertised.

My read: If the administration wants credibility on “Americans first,” it should publish a clear, workable rule, raise wage levels decisively, and mandate good-faith U.S. recruitment – then invest in domestic training so employers actually have qualified Americans to hire.

What To Watch Next

Taylor asks for a leading indicator. Costa’s is refreshingly concrete: watch who actually gets H-1Bs once the dust settles. If startups, smaller firms, hospitals, and universities see their share drop, the fee didn’t protect Americans – it protected incumbents. If the occupational mix shifts upward – more genuinely high-skill, high-wage roles – then reform worked as intended. 

He also cautions: since the fee only hits a slice of cases and isn’t being collected yet, early readings will be noisy. The true effect will show up in petition data, wage levels, and employer distribution over 12–18 months.

One more indicator to track: entry-level wages and unemployment for U.S. computer science and computer engineering grads. 

If those numbers improve while H-1B wages move up the distribution, we’ll have evidence that policy is nudging the market in the right direction.

Dana Taylor keeps the focus where it belongs: what’s changed, who pays, and whether Americans actually get a fairer shot. 

Daniel Costa’s analysis is clear: the $100,000 fee is blunt, partial, and poorly implemented – unlikely to fix the real, known problems of H-1B on its own.

If Washington truly wants to “put Americans first,” it needs targeted, enforceable rules: higher H-1B wage floors, real U.S. recruitment requirements, lottery priorities for top-wage offers, and green-card paths for the genuinely exceptional – paired with serious investment in U.S. talent.

Fees make headlines. Standards make markets.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.