Blog: You, us, everyone

Friday 19.09.2025 started in a very ordinary manner, until …. the White House sent shockwaves through the world of professional immigration. By announcing that a $100,000 fee would now be required for every new H-1B visa application, the Trump administration threw companies, foreign employees, and HR departments of the largest U.S. multinationals into confusion.

The H-1B visa, a cornerstone of the knowledge economy, has long been vital to filling domestic talent gaps in high-tech sectors. While tighter regulation had been anticipated, the sudden scale of the announcement took everyone by surprise. The immediate fallout: employees rushed home, trips canceled, legal teams overwhelmed, and the ripple effects extended far beyond Silicon Valley.

A tool turned into a luxury

The H-1B visa is not a privilege; it is a lever. Each year, it allows roughly 85,000 highly skilled professionals to join the U.S. workforce in software engineering, AI, biotech, cybersecurity, and medical research.

With a $100,000 entry fee, the visa is now effectively a luxury item. Big corporations, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon, can absorb the cost, but for startups and innovative SMEs, the impact is much harsher. How can a biotech startup in Boston or a fintech in San Francisco, already strapped for funding, afford to pay for a data scientist from India or a robotics engineer from Europe?

The result: only the largest companies, already dominant, retain access to the global talent pool. Smaller players are forced to scale back hiring or outsource.

Immediate effects: confusion and chaos

The announcement initially triggered widespread panic. HR teams scrambled to locate employees, some of whom were abroad, and rushed to book flights back to the U.S., fearing they might be unable to re-enter.

The White House soon clarified that the measure does not affect visa renewals, current holders, or 2025 lottery winners, and that the $100,000 is a one-time fee. But the damage was done: perceptions of instability, unpredictability, and disregard for operational realities are now deeply embedded.

For employees and their families, the human cost is real: separation anxiety, canceled family trips, and heightened stress over uncertain futures. For thousands of engineers and researchers, the H-1B visa represents years of effort, sacrifice, and investment. Suddenly seeing these achievements threatened creates a climate of fear and distrust.

Political objectives over economic logic

Beneath the economic rationale lies an essentially political goal: signaling to the electorate with the “America First” mantra. The $100,000 fee is not only meant to deter H-1B system abuse or generate revenue, it is a demonstration of protecting American workers.

Yet this symbolic gesture risks backfiring. By limiting access to foreign talent, the U.S. undermines its own attractiveness, weakens its innovation ecosystem, and strains international relations. A short-term political win could impose a long-term economic cost.

Protectionist parallels abroad

This policy echoes similar protectionist measures elsewhere, notably South Africa’s “check-run,” which strictly enforces work permits to prioritize local employment. In both contexts, governments aim to reduce dependence on foreign labor and safeguard domestic jobs. The parallels are striking: the measures appeal to short-term political or social objectives, yet risk disrupting industries reliant on highly skilled foreigners, tech, biotech, and research in the U.S.; mining, construction, and specialized services in South Africa. The lesson is clear: protectionist labor policies may yield immediate political gains but can constrain innovation, slow project delivery, and erode global competitiveness.

A fragile competitiveness

Beyond individual anecdotes, the structural consequences are already visible. The U.S. built its global tech leadership largely through skilled immigration. Founders of Google and Tesla were immigrants. In Silicon Valley, more than half of startups valued over $1 billion were founded by at least one foreign-born entrepreneur.

By imposing such a high entry cost, Washington diminishes the country’s ability to attract top talent. Engineers who once dreamed of Silicon Valley may now turn to Toronto, London, Berlin, or Singapore, ecosystems eager to attract disappointed talent.

The move also slows innovation pipelines. AI, cybersecurity, and medical research operate in a global talent-scarce environment; restricting access slows innovation, undermining U.S. competitiveness.

Startups: collateral victims

While Big Tech can weather the storm, startups are most exposed. Their survival often depends on hiring specialized talent quickly. Without the budget for expensive H-1B visas, they may have to forego critical hires or relocate key operations overseas.

The result: less “Made in USA” innovation, increased outsourcing to India, Eastern Europe, or Latin America. Over time, the U.S. risks losing its status as a global startup powerhouse.

Short-Term gains, long-term opportunities

The administration frames the move as a way to prioritize American workers. Yet foreign talent does not steal jobs, it creates them. Every AI engineer hired enables new products, opens markets, and generates complementary employment for Americans.

Shutting the door weakens the ecosystem and limits growth potential, but what if the policy could also act as a catalyst? By forcing companies to rethink hiring, invest in domestic pipelines, and expand training programs, the U.S. could emerge stronger, more self-reliant, and more innovative at home. Protectionist measures, painful in the short term, may serve as the impetus for long-overdue structural change.

Looking ahead

Legal questions abound: can such a fee be imposed by presidential decree without Congressional approval? Lawyers are already examining the policy’s legality.

Regardless of legal outcomes, one certainty remains: U.S. companies must rethink their talent strategies. Building domestic pipelines, forging university partnerships, and developing internal training programs take years, yet the need for skilled workers is immediate.

The United States now stands at a crossroads: continue to be the global destination for tomorrow’s talent, or use this disruption as a wake-up call. What if the Trump administration is, in an unexpected way, pushing America to finally invest seriously in its own workforce? A short-term shock could catalyze upskilling, strengthen STEM education, and reduce over-reliance on imported talent. In this light, the $100,000 fee might not just be a barrier, it could be the push that spurs meaningful, long-term transformation.

Conclusion: building a stronger future

By making the H-1B visa more expensive, the U.S. undeniably risks losing some global talent. But it also opens a window of opportunity. If companies, universities, and policymakers seize the moment, America can emerge more self-reliant, more innovative at home, and better prepared for the challenges of the future.

Rather than a fatal blow, this policy could be a catalyst: a chance to rethink how talent is developed, nurtured, and retained domestically. The true cost of inaction is far higher than the discomfort of adaptation. With bold vision and strategic investment, America need not see walls, it can build bridges that strengthen its workforce, its economy, and its global leadership for decades to come.