The Claim

Imposed a $100,000 payment to accompany or supplement H-1B petitions.

The Claim, Unpacked

What is literally being asserted?

That the administration imposed a $100,000 payment requirement on H-1B visa petitions. The claim’s language (“accompany or supplement”) mirrors the proclamation’s own text nearly verbatim.

What is being implied but not asserted?

That the fee is a reform measure protecting American workers. That H-1B workers are displacing Americans. That imposing a massive fee on legal immigration is a “win” for the country. That the policy belongs under “Securing America’s Borders” — even though H-1B is a legal immigration program with nothing to do with border security.

What is conspicuously absent?

That the H-1B program is legal immigration — these are workers invited through a statutory framework created by Congress. That the $100,000 fee represents a 1,200-5,200% increase over previous petition costs ($2,000-$7,595). That Trump claimed the fee would generate “more than $100 billion” in revenue, but as of February 2026 it has collected $8.5 million while losing the government $19.5 million in net revenue. That new external H-1B applications dropped 87% — suggesting the fee is designed to be prohibitive, not regulatory. That H-1B households contribute $30,050 in net annual fiscal impact — 2.6 times the typical American household. That the fee is under active legal challenge by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 20 state attorneys general, and a healthcare coalition. That the fee disproportionately harms startups, hospitals, universities, and rural healthcare providers while large tech companies can absorb it. That the proclamation accelerates offshoring, sending jobs overseas rather than to American workers. That placing this claim in the “borders” section conflates legal immigration with illegal border crossing.

Steel-Man Case

The H-1B program has legitimate critics across the political spectrum. The Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank, has documented that “most H-1B employers do pay migrant workers less than market rate salaries.” IT staffing companies have used the program to import lower-cost workers for routine positions that could be filled domestically. Computer science graduates face 6.1% unemployment and computer engineering majors 7.5%, numbers that are above the national average for college graduates. Some companies have infamously laid off American workers and forced them to train their H-1B replacements (Disney, Southern California Edison). A $100,000 fee could, in theory, screen out low-wage program abuse while preserving access for genuinely high-skilled roles where the worker’s value exceeds the fee. The fee also creates a market signal: if a worker is truly worth $100,000 more than any available domestic candidate, the employer will pay it. The proclamation includes exemptions for national interest cases (which has been applied to physicians), and exempts current H-1B holders, renewals, and most F-1-to-H-1B transitions already in the U.S. These exemptions substantially narrow the fee’s real-world impact compared to its headline figure.

Evidence Assessment

Established Facts

The $100,000 fee was imposed through presidential proclamation on September 19, 2025, effective September 21, 2025. The proclamation, titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” cited INA Section 212(f) authority — the same broad presidential power used for the travel bans (Items #18 and #41). It applies to new H-1B petitions for beneficiaries outside the United States who do not hold a valid H-1B visa and require consular processing. The fee must be paid via Pay.gov prior to petition filing. The proclamation expires 12 months after its effective date absent extension. [^043-a1]

The fee does NOT apply to most H-1B cases. Critical exemptions include: current H-1B holders (renewals, extensions, amendments); most F-1-to-H-1B changes of status for individuals already in the U.S.; and case-by-case national interest exceptions. Since the majority of first-time H-1B petitions in each annual lottery are for students already in the U.S. transitioning from F-1 status, the proclamation’s practical scope is narrower than its headline figure suggests. However, it fully applies to workers being recruited from abroad — precisely the pathway that the program was originally designed for. [^043-a2]

Prior H-1B petition costs ranged from approximately $2,000 to $7,595, depending on employer size and supplemental fees. The base filing fee is $460 (small employers/nonprofits) or $780 (larger employers). Mandatory supplemental fees include the ACWIA training fee ($750-$1,500), the $500 fraud prevention fee, the Asylum Program fee ($600), and the $215 lottery registration fee. Premium processing adds $2,965. Total costs ranged from approximately $2,000 for small nonprofits to $7,595 for large employers with premium processing. The $100,000 fee represents a 1,200-5,200% increase depending on employer category. [^043-a3]

New external H-1B applications dropped 87% after the fee took effect. Between September 2025 and February 2026, only 85 employers paid the $100,000 fee, generating $8.5 million in revenue. Meanwhile, the collapse in applications cost USCIS approximately $19.5 million in lost filing fee revenue — producing a net loss of $19.5 million for the government rather than the “$100 billion” Trump promised. DHS official Cara M. Selby confirmed that “the loss of new applications… outweighed” the fee revenue collected. Total USCIS collections fell from $524.9 million (Sept 2024-Feb 2025) to $443.4 million (Sept 2025-Feb 2026). [^043-a4]

The fee was upheld by the U.S. District Court for D.C. on December 23, 2025, but remains under active appeal and further litigation. Judge Beryl Howell ruled that “Congress has granted the President broad statutory authority, which he has used to issue the [H-1B] Proclamation addressing, in the manner he sees fit, a problem he perceives to be a matter of economic and national security.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Association of American Universities filed a notice of appeal on December 29, 2025. The D.C. Circuit fast-tracked the case, with oral arguments in February 2026; the appellate panel focused on whether the fee constitutes a tax (which only Congress can impose). Two additional lawsuits are pending: a 20-state attorney general coalition (led by California and Massachusetts, filed December 12, 2025) and a healthcare coalition suit in Northern California. [^043-a5]

Strong Inferences

The fee is designed to be prohibitive, not regulatory. The 87% drop in external applications demonstrates that the fee functions as a near-ban on new H-1B hiring from abroad rather than a revenue measure or quality filter. The median H-1B salary is $92,600; the Richmond Fed estimates the breakeven point for the fee at approximately $225,000 per year, meaning workers earning below that threshold — the vast majority of H-1B holders — are effectively priced out. Trump’s own statement makes the prohibitive intent explicit: “Either the person is very valuable to the company and America, or they’re going to depart and the company is going to hire an American.” The 87% application decline confirms the fee achieves its prohibitive purpose. [^043-a6]

H-1B workers are net economic contributors who generate more fiscal revenue than they cost. The Economic Innovation Group found that the average H-1B household contributes $30,050 in net annual fiscal impact — 2.6 times the $11,530 contribution of a typical American household. At the state level, H-1B households generate a net fiscal gain of $5,040 per household in 49 states. The Richmond Fed found that firms winning H-1B lotteries “expand employment and revenues and are more likely to survive” and that there is “no evidence that hiring H-1B workers displaces native college-educated workers.” Research shows that when a city’s share of foreign tech workers increased by 1 percentage point, wages rose 7-8% for college-educated workers and 3-4% for workers without college education. [^043-a7]

The fee disproportionately harms startups, hospitals, universities, and rural providers while large tech companies absorb it. Y Combinator CEO Gary Tan stated: “This won’t bother big tech” but “it will kneecap startups.” Large companies (Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Apple) can absorb $100,000 per hire; startups hiring 3-5 visa workers cannot. Nearly 30,000 educators and 17,000 medical professionals hold H-1B visas. The U.S. faces a projected 86,000-physician shortage by 2036; rural hospitals already struggling with capacity will face acute shortages. The fee’s structural effect is to consolidate talent at Fortune 500 companies while eliminating access for smaller employers, research institutions, and healthcare providers that serve underserved communities. [^043-a8]

The fee accelerates offshoring rather than creating American jobs. Forrester projects that IT service providers face a “$2 billion cost impact — a ~3% hit on their margins” and will respond by increasing “offshoring, with Indian professionals and major IT vendors likely to intensify hiring and client support from India and other offshore countries.” Rather than hiring Americans to replace deterred H-1B workers, companies are relocating work overseas. The Richmond Fed found that firms facing H-1B restrictions “increasingly shift operations to India and Canada.” The policy’s revealed effect is not to transfer jobs from foreign workers to American workers — it is to transfer jobs from American soil to foreign soil. [^043-a9]

Placing this claim in the “borders” section conflates legal immigration with illegal border crossing. The H-1B program is a lawful immigration pathway created by Congress under the Immigration Act of 1990. H-1B workers enter through legal channels, undergo background checks, are sponsored by employers, and pay taxes. Categorizing restrictions on legal immigration under “Securing America’s Borders” frames lawful workers as equivalent to unauthorized border crossers — a rhetorical strategy that obscures the fundamental difference between the two. This framing pattern is consistent with Item #22 (foreign students), which also appeared in the “borders” section despite involving legal visa holders. [^043-a10]

Informed Speculation

The F-1-to-H-1B exemption creates an interesting structural dynamic. By exempting most students already in the U.S. from the $100,000 fee while imposing it on workers recruited from abroad, the proclamation creates a two-tier system: companies can access foreign talent cheaply if the worker is already in America (via the student pipeline) but face a prohibitive barrier if recruiting directly. This may intensify the connection between Item #22’s student enrollment decline and this item’s H-1B restriction — if fewer foreign students come (because of the chilling effects documented in Item #22), the exempt pathway narrows, and the $100,000 fee’s practical impact grows.

The $100 billion revenue claim is revealing. Trump stated the fee would generate “more than $100 billion” for tax cuts and debt reduction. This would require one million employers to pay the fee — roughly 12 times the total annual H-1B cap of 85,000 new visas. The actual result ($8.5 million collected, $19.5 million lost) is approximately 0.0085% of the promised revenue. This gap between the $100 billion promise and the $8.5 million reality suggests the revenue claim was never serious — the fee was designed to deter, not to generate revenue.

The DC Circuit’s focus on whether the fee constitutes a tax is potentially consequential. If the court determines the $100,000 payment is a revenue-raising measure rather than a condition of entry, only Congress has the constitutional power to impose it. The Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning Trump’s tariff regime on similar Taxing Clause grounds creates a potential pathway for invalidation. The appeal’s resolution may determine not only the fee’s survival but also the scope of presidential authority under INA 212(f) to impose financial conditions on visa holders.

Structural Analysis

The claim is technically true and refreshingly specific. Unlike many items on the “365 wins” list, this claim accurately describes what happened: a $100,000 payment was imposed on H-1B petitions. The claim’s language mirrors the proclamation itself. There is no inflated number, no misleading metric, no repackaging of prior administration actions. The factual core is solid.

The “win” framing conceals economic self-harm. The policy has produced a net revenue loss of $19.5 million (against a $100 billion promise), an 87% collapse in new applications, accelerated offshoring, and structural consolidation that benefits large tech companies at the expense of startups, hospitals, and universities. The fee does not transfer jobs from foreign workers to American workers — it transfers jobs from American soil to foreign soil or eliminates them entirely. H-1B households contribute 2.6 times the fiscal impact of typical American households; deterring them reduces tax revenue and economic output.

Cui bono. The primary beneficiaries are: (1) large tech companies that can absorb the fee while their startup competitors cannot, consolidating talent and reducing competition; (2) offshore service providers in India and Canada who gain the work that would have been done onshore; (3) the administration’s political narrative that it is “putting Americans first,” even as the policy’s economic effects harm American communities that depend on H-1B workers (rural hospitals, research universities, tech startups). The populations that bear the cost — American patients in physician-shortage areas, American university researchers, American startup founders who cannot access global talent, American workers whose wages benefit from immigrant complementarity — are diffuse and politically invisible.

Stated vs. revealed preferences. The stated preference is protecting American workers from displacement by lower-paid foreign labor. The revealed preference — visible through the fee’s prohibitive design, the 87% application collapse, the offshoring acceleration, and the revenue-loss reality — is for reducing legal immigration regardless of economic consequences. If the goal were genuinely to improve wages for American workers, the administration would raise prevailing wage requirements (which the proclamation mentions but has not yet implemented) rather than imposing a flat fee that functions as a near-ban. A wage-based reform would target actual underpayment; a flat fee targets the program’s existence.

The denominator problem. The claim presents the $100,000 fee as a standalone reform. But 85,000 new H-1B visas per year serve an economy with 160+ million workers. The H-1B program represents approximately 0.05% of the U.S. labor force. Presenting restrictions on this small program as a major economic policy intervention overstates its labor market significance while understating its concentrated impact on specific sectors (healthcare, STEM research, technology startups) where H-1B workers are essential.

The border-section framing does substantive work. Placing legal immigration restrictions under “Securing America’s Borders and Putting Americans First” performs a category collapse: it equates lawful H-1B workers — who entered through statutory channels, were sponsored by employers, and pay above-average taxes — with unauthorized border crossers. This framing makes it rhetorically difficult to oppose the fee without appearing to oppose border security, even though the two issues are unrelated. The same framing device appears in Item #22 (foreign students).

Connection to Item #22

Item #22 documented the administration’s celebration of a 17% decline in new international student enrollment, noting the F-1 student visa pipeline’s role in feeding the STEM workforce and the H-1B program. The connection is structural:

• F-1 to H-1B pipeline: Most first-time H-1B petitions are for students already in the U.S. on F-1 visas. These are currently exempt from the $100,000 fee. But as Item #22’s enrollment decline reduces the F-1 pipeline, fewer workers will be available through the exempt pathway, expanding the $100,000 fee’s practical impact.
• Combined chilling effect: The student enrollment decline (Item #22), OPT elimination threats (Item #22), the $100,000 H-1B fee (this item), and proposed four-year visa duration limits form an interconnected web of restrictions on the legal talent pipeline from education to employment.
• Same section, same framing: Both items appear under “Securing America’s Borders” despite involving legal immigration. Both celebrate economic losses as policy wins. Both target programs that generate billions in economic activity and support hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

Context the Framing Omits

The H-1B program is legal immigration, not border security. H-1B workers are invited through a statutory framework created by Congress in 1990. They undergo background checks, are sponsored by employers, hold specific job offers, and pay federal and state taxes. Restricting this program has nothing to do with “securing borders.”

H-1B workers are extraordinary fiscal contributors. The Economic Innovation Group found H-1B households generate $30,050 in net annual fiscal impact — 2.6 times the typical American household. In 49 states, they produce positive fiscal balances at the state and local level.

The fee has produced a net revenue loss. The $8.5 million collected is outweighed by $19.5 million in lost application fee revenue, producing a net loss for USCIS operations. Trump’s promise of “$100 billion” in revenue has produced 0.0085% of that figure.

Offshoring, not American hiring, is the result. Forrester and the Richmond Fed document that companies respond to H-1B restrictions by moving jobs offshore to India and Canada, not by hiring American workers to replace them.

Critical sectors face acute harm. Nearly 30,000 educators and 17,000 medical professionals hold H-1B visas. With a projected 86,000-physician shortage by 2036 and 74% of school districts already reporting difficulty filling positions, the fee eliminates a critical talent pipeline for essential services.

Startups bear disproportionate cost. The fee consolidates talent at Fortune 500 companies while eliminating access for startups, research institutions, and smaller employers. This reduces competition and innovation — outcomes that harm American consumers and workers.

Verdict

Factual core: True. The proclamation titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers” (September 19, 2025) imposed a $100,000 payment requirement on new H-1B petitions for beneficiaries abroad requiring consular processing. The claim’s language mirrors the proclamation’s text. The fee is real and in effect.

Framing as “win”: The action occurred and the claim accurately describes it. But the “win” framing conceals that:

1. The fee is designed to be prohibitive, not regulatory. The 87% drop in external applications confirms it functions as a near-ban on new H-1B hiring from abroad. Only 85 employers have paid it.

2. The policy has produced a net revenue loss. Rather than the “$100 billion” Trump promised, the fee generated $8.5 million while costing USCIS $19.5 million in lost filing fees — a net loss.

3. The policy accelerates offshoring. Companies respond by moving jobs to India and Canada, not by hiring American workers. The fee transfers work from American soil to foreign soil.

4. The fee harms the sectors that need H-1B workers most. Startups, hospitals, universities, and rural healthcare providers cannot absorb $100,000 per hire. Large tech companies can. The structural effect is consolidation and reduced competition.

5. H-1B workers are net fiscal contributors. Each H-1B household generates $30,050 in net fiscal impact — 2.6 times the typical American household. Deterring them reduces, not increases, government revenue and economic output.

6. This is legal immigration in the “borders” section. The H-1B program is a lawful congressional creation. Placing restrictions on it under “Securing America’s Borders” conflates invited legal workers with unauthorized border crossers.

What a reader should understand: The administration did impose a $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions. That much is true and clearly stated. But the fee functions as a near-prohibition on new H-1B hiring from abroad — applications dropped 87%, only 85 employers have paid it, and the government has lost $19.5 million in net revenue rather than gaining the “$100 billion” Trump promised. The fee disproportionately harms startups, hospitals, universities, and rural healthcare providers while large tech companies absorb it easily. Companies respond by offshoring jobs to India and Canada, not by hiring Americans. H-1B workers contribute 2.6 times the fiscal impact of typical American households; deterring them is an economic loss, not a gain. The fee is under active legal challenge by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 20 state attorneys general, and healthcare organizations, with the DC Circuit appeal pending. And the claim’s placement in the “borders” section performs a category collapse — the H-1B program is lawful immigration created by Congress, not a border security issue.

Cross-References

• Item #22: “Cut the number of new foreign students in the U.S. by 17%” — the upstream pipeline. F-1 students transition to H-1B workers through OPT. The enrollment decline shrinks the pool of workers exempt from the $100,000 fee, compounding both items’ effects. Both are legal immigration programs placed under “borders” framing.

Sources

The White House. “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers.” Presidential Proclamation. September 19, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/restriction-on-entry-of-certain-nonimmigrant-workers/

The White House. “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Suspends the Entry of Certain Alien Nonimmigrant Workers.” September 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/09/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-suspends-the-entry-of-certain-alien-nonimmigrant-workers/

USCIS. “H-1B FAQ.” 2025. https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/h-1b-faq

USCIS. “Presidential Proclamation on Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers.” 2025. https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/presidential-proclamation-on-restriction-on-entry-of-certain-nonimmigrant-workers

NPR. “Trump adds $100,000 fee for high-skilled foreign workers in major visa overhaul.” September 19, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/09/19/g-s1-89680/trump-adds-100-000-fee-for-high-skilled-foreign-workers-in-major-visa-overhaul

Economic Innovation Group. “The Near-Term Fiscal Impact of H-1B Workers at the Federal and State-and-Local Levels.” 2025. https://eig.org/fiscal-impacts-h1bs/

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. “Understanding the Potential Impact of H-1B Visa Program Changes.” Economic Brief No. 25-39. 2025. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2025/eb_25-39

Newsweek. “H-1B Visa Update: Trump’s New Fee Is Losing US Money.” 2026. https://www.newsweek.com/h1b-visa-trump-new-fee-losing-us-money-11675909

Forrester. “The Long-Term Impact Of The $100,000 H-1B Fee: Higher IT Service Prices And More Offshore.” 2025. https://www.forrester.com/blogs/the-long-term-impact-of-the-100000-h-1b-fee-higher-it-service-prices-and-more-offshore/

Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy LLP. “United States: District Court Judge Issues Opinion Upholding $100,000 H-1B Fee.” December 2025. https://www.fragomen.com/insights/united-states-district-court-judge-issues-opinion-upholding-dollar100000-h-1b-fee.html

California Office of the Attorney General. “Attorney General Bonta Sues Over Trump Administration’s Unlawful New $100K Fee for H-1B Visa.” December 12, 2025. https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-sues-over-trump-administration%E2%80%99s-unlawful-new-100k-fee-h

Fisher Phillips. “What’s the Status of Lawsuits Challenging H-1B Visa Overhaul?” 2026. https://www.fisherphillips.com/en/news-insights/whats-the-status-of-lawsuits-challenging-h-1b-visa-overhaul.html

Pew Research Center. “What we know about the US H-1B visa program.” March 4, 2025. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/04/what-we-know-about-the-us-h-1b-visa-program/

CNBC. “How Trump’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee is already changing the job market search for skilled workers.” October 15, 2025. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/15/trump-h1b-visa-fee-startups-jobs-recruit-hire-workers.html

U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “U.S. Chamber Files Lawsuit to Support Businesses’ Use of H-1B Visas.” 2025. https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/u-s-chamber-files-lawsuit-to-support-businesses-use-of-h-1b-visas