H-1B Visa Fee Hike Challenged: Washington State Leads Legal Battle Against Trump Administration
In a significant move that underscores the ongoing tensions over immigration policy, Washington state has joined 19 other states in filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s dramatic increase in H-1B visa fees. The legal challenge targets the recently imposed $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas—a staggering increase from the previous range of $960 to $7,595. This visa program, designed to allow highly-skilled foreign professionals to work temporarily in the United States, has become a critical pipeline for talent in tech, healthcare, research, and education sectors. The attorneys general spearheading this lawsuit argue that the Department of Homeland Security established this fee arbitrarily, failing to demonstrate how the amount correlates to actual administrative costs and bypassing the legally required notice-and-comment process that would have allowed public input before implementation.
The impact of this fee increase reaches far beyond government budgets and corporate balance sheets—it strikes at the heart of American innovation and competitiveness. In Washington state alone, tech giants like Amazon and Microsoft employ thousands of H-1B visa holders—approximately 19,100 and 6,200 respectively. Public institutions, including universities and state agencies, collectively employ nearly 500 workers through this visa program. These numbers represent not just statistics but real people contributing to breakthrough research, technological advancement, and economic growth. Washington State Attorney General Nick Brown’s office has expressed grave concern that such prohibitive fees will empty university laboratories and push scientific discoveries overseas, warning that “these institutions will lose their competitive edge, particularly in the areas of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and medical fields.” The lawsuit reflects a growing worry that America’s position as a global leader in innovation could be compromised by policies that severely restrict access to international talent.
The Trump administration has defended the dramatic fee increase by claiming the H-1B program has been “abused” by employers seeking to replace American workers with “lower-paid, lower-skilled labor.” A White House memo addressing the restrictions stated that “large-scale replacement of American workers through systemic abuse of the program has undermined both our economic and national security.” The administration has specifically targeted tech companies, accusing them of having “prominently manipulated the H-1B system, significantly harming American workers in computer-related fields.” This characterization frames the visa program as a threat to American jobs rather than as a complement to the domestic workforce—a perspective that forms the foundation of the administration’s restrictive approach to skilled immigration.
Industry experts and immigration advocates have pushed back strongly against these characterizations. Priyanka Kulkarni, CEO of immigration tech startup Casium, points out that H-1B workers are far from low-paid, noting that “the median salary for visa holders was about $120,000 last year.” She emphasized that “engineers, scientists, healthcare specialists, and educators recruited from abroad often fill critical gaps that enable companies and institutions to grow, invest, and create jobs locally.” This perspective highlights the complementary rather than competitive relationship between foreign talent and domestic employment opportunities—suggesting that restricting the H-1B program could actually harm job creation and economic growth in the United States rather than protect American workers as the administration claims.
The implications of the fee increase extend well beyond the tech sector, affecting crucial services like healthcare and education. Xiao Wang, CEO of Boundless Immigration, noted that while tech giants often receive the most attention in discussions about H-1B visas, the program also enables doctors, nurses, and researchers to work in the United States. Wang warned that “adding a $100K fee for all foreign talent trying to enter Washington to work in these fields would all but eliminate this pathway for anyone outside of the most valuable companies in the world and would leave the state with a significant shortage of important roles.” This observation underscores a key concern of the lawsuit: that the excessive fee would effectively restrict the program to only the wealthiest employers, creating critical personnel shortages in essential sectors and potentially harming public health and education systems that rely on specialized foreign talent to fill crucial positions.
The lawsuit represents more than a dispute over visa fees—it highlights fundamental questions about America’s approach to global talent and immigration in the 21st century. Wang points to a broader issue: the need for comprehensive immigration reform that better distinguishes between different types of skilled workers rather than applying blanket policies. “Putting a nurse and an AI engineer in the same visa category,” he noted, emphasizes the outdated nature of current immigration frameworks. His call for Americans to “demand that Congress pass new immigration regulations to stay competitive as a country” speaks to concerns that restrictive policies could diminish America’s standing as a global destination for talent and innovation. As this legal challenge progresses through the courts, it may serve as a catalyst for a national conversation about how immigration policy shapes America’s economic future, scientific advancement, and position in an increasingly competitive global landscape.
