US court upholds Trump administration’s $100,000 visa fee for tech workers
A United States federal court has upheld the Trump administration’s controversial $100,000 visa fee for new H-1B tech worker applications, delivering a significant victory for the government amid strong opposition from business groups. The policy, introduced by President Donald Trump in September to curb what the administration described as abuse of the skilled worker visa system, has now been defended in court by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who ruled that the fee falls within the president’s broad authority over immigration policy. The lawsuit against the fee was filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of American Universities, which argued that the steep charge conflicted with federal immigration law and would harm American employers by making it far more expensive to hire highly skilled foreign nationals. Judge Howell’s decision rejected those arguments, maintaining that the executive branch has the legal power to set conditions on entry of noncitizens, including fee requirements, if it determines such actions serve U.S. interests.
The imposition of the $100,000 fee represents a dramatic increase from the previous visa processing costs, which typically ranged only in the low thousands. The Trump administration asserted that the new charge is intended to discourage perceived misuse of the H-1B programme by employers and encourage the hiring of American workers, while critics warned it could severely limit access to global talent for technology, engineering, healthcare and university research sectors. Major companies known to rely on H-1B visas include large technology firms and multinational employers that regularly recruit skilled foreign professionals. Opponents also argued that the fee could force businesses to scale back hiring plans or increase operational costs, potentially affecting innovation and competitiveness in key industries.
The ruling does not mark the end of legal challenges, as the Chamber of Commerce has indicated it may appeal the decision. Despite the court’s current validation of the policy, the case highlights deep tensions between the administration’s immigration priorities and the interests of the business community that depends on the H-1B programme to fill specialised roles. The outcome is likely to influence future debates over immigration reform and the balance between protecting domestic workers and maintaining the United States’ ability to attract international talent.
About the Author
