High-Skilled Immigration: Firm-Level Complementarity, Offshoring, and H-1B Program Changes
A long-standing debate in labor economics centers on how high-skilled immigration, particularly through the H-1B visa program, impacts native-born workers and firm performance. While critics argue that H-1B visas are used to replace domestic tech workers with lower-paid foreign labor, empirical research increasingly shows that high-skilled foreign workers act as complements to native workers, driving firm expansion, patenting, and productivity, while restricting them can trigger offshoring.
The $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee Struck Down in Federal Court
In a major legal and economic development, on June 8, 2026, a federal judge struck down the Trump administration's proposed $100,000 processing fee on new H-1B visas. The fee, first announced in September 2025, had dramatically raised the cost of obtaining H-1B visas from the traditional range of $2,000 to $5,000.
U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston ruled in a multi-state lawsuit led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta that the fee constituted an unlawful tax that Congress had never authorized, rejecting the administration's argument that it was a valid "monetary penalty" under executive immigration authority.
According to the Reuters report:
"A federal judge on Monday struck down a $100,000 fee U.S. President Donald Trump imposed on new H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers, concluding that it constituted an unlawful tax Congress never authorized."
"Here, the substance and application of the $100,000 payment reveal that it is a tax, regardless of what the payment is called,' wrote Sorokin..."
The court cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 2026 ruling striking down Trump's global tariffs, establishing that executive authority under immigration law does not extend to levying unauthorized taxes.
Economic Implications: Offshoring vs. Domestic Expansion
The imposition of the $100,000 fee had sparked significant concerns about Silicon Valley hiring turmoil and accelerated offshoring. Because the fee did not apply to foreign students already in the United States on student visas transitioning to H-1B status, its primary impact was on direct international hires.
In practice, very few employers paid the fee before it was voided. As Reuters noted:
"Few employers have paid Trump's fee since it was instituted. As of February 15, USCIS had received just 85 payments of the $100,000 fee, an agency official said in a March filing."
California Attorney General Rob Bonta hailed the ruling as a victory for the broader economy:
"'This tax was an attack on America's ability to attract and retain the high-skilled talent that strengthens our economy and helps us meet critical workforce needs,' he said."
This ruling prevents a massive structural shift in how multinational and tech firms allocate high-skilled engineering talent. The economic literature suggests that when H-1B entry is severely restricted or cost-prohibitive, firms do not simply hire native workers; instead, they offshore high-skilled jobs to multinational affiliates1 in countries like Canada, India, and China, which ultimately reduces local knowledge spillovers and complementary native employment in the United States.
-
An instance of Restricting foreign labor fails to protect domestic workers as firms simply offshore or contract capacity. — It illustrates that restricting high-skilled foreign talent does not spur domestic employment, but instead induces firms to relocate engineering operations abroad. ↩︎