Trump proposes a $103,265 fee for each new H-1B skilled-worker visa

Political Guyentist · August 25, 20262 min read

The employer charge would rise from $2,000-$5,000 today to at least 20 times that amount.

The Department of Homeland Security proposed the rule on Monday, Aug. 24, 2026. Employers would pay $103,265 for each H-1B skilled-worker visa application covered by the annual limits, up from $2,000-$5,000 today. The increase is $98,265-$101,265 per application. Revenue would support the legal immigration system, including $1 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Business and immigration advocates said the charge would hurt U.S. employers seeking skilled foreign workers in health care, drug development and engineering.

Across 85,000 slots, the fee could approach $8.8 billion

What we’re less sure of2 of 8 claims

Medium
The proposed charge would increase the current employer fee of roughly $2,000-$5,000 by at least twentyfold.
The comparison is mathematically plausible, but the applicable current fee varies by employer and filing circumstances.
Medium
A federal judge rejected a similar $100,000 H-1B fee from the administration in 2025, making the new proposal its second attempt after that defeat.
The claim describes a specific prior ruling but provides no court, judge, case name, or primary legal source in the story.

Red take

Across the 85,000 general and advanced-degree slots under the annual limits, raising the employer charge from $2,000-$5,000 to $103,265 would force firms to reserve visas for hires whose value clearly exceeds the cost and make beneficiaries fund the system. The fee will exclude some worthy smaller employers, so targeted exemptions for genuine health and research shortages are necessary to keep the price test from becoming a balance-sheet test.

Blue take

A $103,265 fee across the 85,000 general and advanced-degree slots under the annual limits would ration skilled-worker access by employer wealth, not by whether hospitals, research firms or engineering companies face genuine shortages. Deterring low-value or wage-cutting applications is legitimate, but a charge implying as much as $8.8 billion before exemptions is too blunt when narrower selection rules could protect domestic workers without pricing out smaller employers.