Trump’s visa-fee policy draws sour reaction from tech firms

The White House on Friday rolled out a plan to impose a one-time fee of $100,000 per sponsoring employer for H-1B temporary workers, a move critics said would raise costs for tech firms and could blunt U.S. efforts to attract global talent. Officials specified that the fee is not annual and would not apply to existing holders who are abroad at the time of the announcement, but the idea immediately drew condemnation from executives, investors and researchers who warn it could disproportionately affect startups and slow innovation.

The rollout was chaotic and difficult to parse, with late Friday statements from the White House prompting confusion about who would be charged and when. Analysts and industry advocates said the initial framing left uncertainty about the scope of the fee and its applicability to companies of different sizes. In subsequent days, the administration clarified that the charge would be a one-time assessment for new H-1B sponsorships and would not apply to current visa holders.

Executives and investors offered mixed reactions, with many warning that higher costs could erode the U.S. talent pipeline. Esther Crawford, a former Twitter executive who now works as a Meta product manager and investor, said on LinkedIn that “America’s edge has always been that we attract smart, ambitious people from everywhere.” She added that high-skilled immigrants “don’t take from us, they build with us” and cited colleagues who benefited from H-1B sponsorship.

Andrew Ng, founder of DeepLearning.AI, voiced concern about the impact on families and futures in a post on LinkedIn, saying, “My heart goes out to all the families and individuals anxious over their futures following the abrupt and chaotic announcement.” He argued that the United States should be attracting skilled talent rather than creating uncertainty that could push some researchers to other countries.

Some business voices offered a different perspective. IBM Vice Chairman Gary Cohn told CBS News the fees could be a “good idea” if they help bring in employees with high-value skill sets. Netflix Chairman Reed Hastings, using X, suggested the higher cost would target only “very high value jobs” and provide more certainty for those who hold visas. Still, most executives at major tech firms and investors sought clarifications before publicly commenting on the policy.

Two decades of free-press openness in the tech sector have fed into a perception that high-skilled immigration helps sustain U.S. innovation. The plan arrives as some tech firms have faced pressure to hire domestically while remaining dependent on global talent for specialized roles in software, engineering and research.

Analysts at Berenberg warned that the proposed visa fee hike could further burden a U.S. labor market already weakened by the lingering effects of previous trade policies. While artificial intelligence and automation could mitigate some staffing gaps, the researchers cautioned that higher costs could constrain hiring, raise project budgets and ultimately affect client pricing.

The policy comes amid broader immigration and enforcement dynamics. The administration has stepped up border security and enforcement actions in recent years, including a high-profile Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid at a Georgia battery plant owned by Hyundai Motor that drew a protest from Seoul and underscored tensions in U.S.-Korean relations over immigration and labor policy.

David Seidman, head of platform security at fintech firm Plaid, told LinkedIn that the impact could extend beyond the cost announcements: “at least one of the Big Tech names will stop hiring for these jobs in the United States and build out their footprint in India or Canada.” His warning reflected a common concern among industry observers that the policy could accelerate offshoring of critical tech roles.

Despite the confusion surrounding the rollout, a portion of the tech ecosystem signaled openness to a more selective approach to visas. Netflix Chairman Reed Hastings wrote that a higher price tag might ensure visas are used for “very high value jobs” and could bring more certainty for those who hold them. Yet, the lack of a coordinated industry response underscored how pivotal, yet unsettled, the policy remains for the technology sector.

At the time this report was prepared, Meta, Microsoft and Amazon had not immediately commented on the policy, and several other industry leaders were still evaluating how or whether to respond publicly as details continued to emerge. Critics urged the administration to clarify the policy’s scope, its rationale, and how it would interact with existing visa programs that support global talent pipelines essential to U.S. technology development and entrepreneurship.

The policy’s implications extend beyond a single visa proposal. Advocates said it could influence startup talent strategies, research collaborations and the broader climate for foreign-born engineers, data scientists and researchers who help drive U.S. innovation. Opponents argued that the fee could deter skilled workers from considering the United States, potentially slowing the development of cutting-edge technologies and research projects that rely on international collaboration.

As the debate continues, industry observers say any final rule will need to address practical questions about the fee’s scope, exemptions for startups, treatment of students transitioning to work visas, and how the government will monitor compliance. The federal government has not provided a detailed implementation timetable, leaving many companies to weigh the potential costs against their longer-term hiring and growth plans.

The episode illustrates the volatility that can accompany shifts in U.S. immigration policy, especially in a climate where the technology sector is a major driver of economic activity and campaign finance. While the White House framed the proposal as a tool to prioritize high-value talent, administrators and industry groups alike acknowledged that the policy’s real-world impact would hinge on the final rules, the exceptions afforded to startups and research institutions, and how aggressively the administration enforces the new fees.