New Fees and Rules: A Shock to the System
In September 2025, the U.S. government (under President Donald Trump) unveiled an aggressive H-1B visa overhaul. The headline change is a new $100,000 fee for each new H-1B visa application – a staggering increase meant to discourage all but the highest-paying jobs from using foreign skilled workers. Administration officials argue the move will ensure visas go to “higher-skilled and better-paid workers” and prevent companies from using the program to undercut wages. They also claim it could free up jobs for American tech workers.
Alongside the fee, there’s a proposal to overhaul the lottery system into a merit-based selection favoring higher salaries and advanced degrees. This policy shift “caught everyone off guard,” according to JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who noted the announcement was unexpected. Companies had little warning and now face a drastically altered talent landscape if the changes take effect fully.
It’s important to note the $100k charge would be a one-time fee for new visas (not applied to renewals). Still, $100k is an enormous cost per hire, which fundamentally changes the calculus for hiring foreign talent. For context, the average salary of an H-1B worker at big banks is around $130k–$160k/year. This fee would effectively be like paying an additional 60–75% of a salary upfront for an H-1B hire, making it almost prohibitive for junior or mid-level roles.
Impact on Big Banks and Finance Firms
The finance industry is especially exposed to these changes. In 2025, after the tech sector, banks were among the top H-1B employers – the 10 largest U.S. financial firms received roughly 12,000 visas combined. JPMorgan alone had 2,440 H-1B approvals, the most of any bank. These positions often include software engineers, quantitative analysts, and other tech-heavy roles in banking that are hard to fill domestically.
With the new fee, banks face tough choices. An equity analyst, David Wagner, observed that “Banks may have the highest hurdle to overcome with the new H-1B visas, as many tech firms report record profitability”. In other words, Silicon Valley giants might afford the fee as a cost of doing business, but banks (despite being profitable) operate with stricter budget oversight in IT departments. Their margins for taking on an extra $100k per hire are thinner, especially for entry-level positions. Meridith Dennes, a managing partner at a financial recruitment firm, stated bluntly that “Hiring for entry-level jobs using H-1B becomes nearly impossible” with a $100k surcharger.
Financial companies might respond by shifting more roles overseas. If they can’t bring the talent to the U.S. cost-effectively, they’ll take the work to where the talent is. “Banks may hire more offshore workers if skills can’t be found in the U.S.”, said Tim O’Brien of Morningstar. Canada, for instance, could attract more of these jobs – it’s mentioned that global experts might end up in places like Canada as an unintended consequence. We could see banks expanding hubs in Toronto, London, or Singapore for tech and analytics roles that would have been U.S.-based.
There’s also a concern about project delays and uncertainties. Jamie Dimon indicated JPMorgan would be discussing the issue with policymakers, implying potential lobbying or requests for exceptions. In the meantime, some banks have frozen certain hiring or are re-evaluating offers made to foreign candidates. This policy change came in abruptly – “caught off guard” – causing immediate confusion for ongoing hiring cycles.
Startup and Tech Sector Fallout
It’s not just big banks – tech startups and smaller companies are arguably even harder hit. Unlike Google or Amazon (which each hire thousands of H-1B workers and can absorb the cost), a 10-person startup can’t pay $100k to sponsor a single engineer. “For Apple, Microsoft or Google, $100,000 is peanuts... But for a small company in Raleigh or Denver, it’s like doubling the cost of an engineer,” notes entrepreneur Brian Hamilton.
Business Insider reported that many startups are in “scramble mode” – some have frozen hiring or put international candidates on hold entirely. Founders are seeking clarification, but also contingency plans: if this holds, they might only hire locally or shift to remote workers abroad. One startup CEO said they paused a hire who was about to relocate under H-1B until they “get more clarification”, for fear the person might not be allowed in under the new rules. The uncertainty alone is disruptive.
Interestingly, a few tech founders support parts of the reform, hoping it could reduce competition from Big Tech for talent by limiting the giants’ intake of foreign workers. But by and large, startups feel outgunned. If a visa now effectively costs $100k, startups worry they “won’t be able to compete with well-funded companies” for international talent. In the long run, this could widen the gap between large tech firms and newcomers, as the former can pay the premium while the latter cannot. One founder mused about the opportunity cost, saying what if these rules had existed when OpenAI or Anthropic were just small startups? It might have “prevented future OpenAIs and Anthropics from happening”.
Some are turning to alternatives: employing people on remote work contracts from their home country (avoiding U.S. visa issues altogether), or using other visa categories like O-1 (for individuals of extraordinary ability) if possible. However, those are niche solutions. The general sentiment is that this policy, if it stands, raises the bar significantly for hiring foreign talent, effectively reserving it for only critical senior hires (where a $100k fee might be justified for a one-of-a-kind expert).
Response and Outlook
Legal challenges may emerge. Immigration policy changes of this magnitude often get litigated. As noted in the Business Insider piece, the new H-1B rules and fees “could eventually be overturned by courts”, especially if businesses and universities argue the administration overstepped its authority or didn’t follow proper procedures. But court processes take time, and companies must make decisions in the near term with the rules as they are. This regulatory whiplash – rules announced, possibly changed by courts later – creates a planning nightmare for HR departments.
In the political arena, the move plays to an “American jobs first” base. It’s an extension of Trump’s long-standing stance on tightening immigration, now specifically targeting the high-skilled sector. There’s debate on whether it will achieve its intended effect. Proponents say it will push companies to invest more in domestic STEM talent and wages. Critics counter that it might simply drive talent and innovation offshore, doing long-term damage to U.S. competitiveness (the brain drain concern).
For now, businesses are urgently assessing their talent pipelines:
Big banks and consultancies are auditing how many employees are on H-1Bs and modeling the cost if they had to renew or replace them under the new fee structure
They’re also considering accelerating green card sponsorship for key employees (since the $100k fee doesn’t apply to green cards)
Startup investors are advising portfolio companies to budget for higher hiring costs or prioritize U.S. hires for now. Some VC firms worry that promising startups might slow down product development due to talent gaps.
In summary, the $100k visa fee and associated changes represent a seismic shift in the hiring economics for skilled immigrants. Sectors like finance and tech – which have long relied on global talent – feel uniquely targeted and potentially harmed by this. The coming months will reveal if this policy actually gets implemented fully, modified, or blocked. In the meantime, companies large and small are bracing for a world where hiring the best person for the job might come with a six-figure surcharge – a tough pill to swallow in any business language.
