-
Original Date Announced
August 25, 2026The Department of Homeland Security proposed a rule imposing a $103,265 fee on employers filing H-1B petitions subject to the annual 85,000-visa cap, including petitions for workers with advanced degrees but excluding cap-exempt petitions. DHS characterizes the fee as a revenue mechanism authorized by the INA that would generate an estimated $8.8 billion annually to fund immigration adjudication and naturalization services across USCIS, ICE, EOIR, and the Department of Labor, rather than merely covering the cost of adjudicating the individual petition. The proposed fee would operate separately from President Trump’s $100,000 H-1B fee, which is currently subject to litigation. The rule also incorporates the Department of Labor’s proposed changes to prevailing-wage calculations, further increasing the regulatory costs associated with employing H-1B workers. Comments are due by September 24, 2026.
Trump 2.0 [ID #2380]
2026.08.25 DHS - 8 CFR Pt 106 NRPMCurrent Status
NoneOriginal Trump Policy Status
Status: ProposedTrump Administration Action: RuleSubject Matter: Non-Immigrant Visas: Employment-BasedAssociated or Derivative Policies
Documents
Trump-Era Policy Documents
-
New Policy
Original Source:
2026.08.25 DHS - 8 CFR Pt 106 NRPM
-
Commentary
Original Source:
2026.09.04 Institute for Progress - Commentary on H-1B Fee
To provide information, corrections, or feedback, please email IPTP.feedback@gmail.com
Commentary
2026.09.04 - Institute for Progress - Commentary on H-1B Fee
The Institute for Progress suggests that USCIS’s proposed $103,265 fee for each cap-subject H-1B petition would sharply reduce demand for H-1B visas and could leave the annual 85,000-visa cap undersubscribed, thereby reducing the economic and fiscal contributions associated with the H-1B program. It argues that the fee is also unlawful because the INA authorizes USCIS to recover the costs of immigration adjudication and naturalization services, but the proposal would use H-1B fees to fund a much broader range of activities by USCIS, ICE, CBP, EOIR, the Department of State, and the Department of Labor. Those transfers, IFP argues, would improperly augment agencies’ appropriations and circumvent other federal fiscal-law limits.
Go to article