Merit to Money: How Executive Power Has Reshaped Immigration Visas

On September 19, 2025, the cost of bringing a skilled worker into the United States skyrocketed through single strokes of presidential authority. 

What had once been a relatively stable system was abruptly transformed into a network of financial barriers and a victim of the expansion of executive power, boosted through partisanship. Through his executive orders, President Trump implemented vast changes to the H-1B, EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 visas, including entry fees, revisions to wages, and the introduction of a “Gold Card” granting permanent residence to wealthy visaholders. 

Mass deportation, border control, and a visa crackdown were the basis of Trump’s campaign. His commitment to restrictive immigration policies and need to deliver to his supporters serve as the ideological backbone and reasoning to these executive actions. However, the consequences of these actions extend beyond ideology and instead, raise questions of fairness and legality. Do these policies contribute to a balance of powers? These fees harm economic competitiveness and disproportionately affect certain immigrant groups, creating instability within the immigration system. In this context, economic competitiveness refers to the country’s ability to retain skilled labor, innovation, and productivity in the sectors that are under the visas’ jurisdiction.

Presidential authority over immigration has historically been interpreted as broad, a concept that was reinforced in the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii. In 2017, Trump issued an executive order that halted entry for 90 days of immigrants from several Muslim countries that the government deemed to be dangerous, with terrorism related risks. The state of Hawaii argued that President Trump didn’t have the authority to issue a ban and that the Establishment Clause was violated since the travel ban affected only Muslim countries. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that the action was supported by the Immigration and Nationality Act which “vests the President with authority to restrict the entry of aliens whenever he finds that their entry ‘would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.’” Additionally, the court found that the Establishment Clause was not violated.2 In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor brought up the dangers of unchecked executive power, especially when it is discriminatory. The critiques voiced in the opinion are relevant to the new visa fees. The policy avoided Congress, elevating the idea of dangerous executive power, while also being discriminatory financially. Though this decision granted executive authority over aspects of immigration such as border control in order to protect national security, the question of whether or not this extends to visas remains. Visa programs directly affect employment and wages, areas that are typically under legislative control.

An H-1B is a temporary nonimmigrant visa that allows employers in the United States to hire skilled workers from foreign countries in fields such as technology, science, medicine, and engineering (Wald and Mudrick 2025). The visa helps lower costs for technology products and accounts for higher rates of innovation. Altogether, the H-1B system contributes to a reduction in labor costs, in turn, increasing economic productivity. Beyond wages, the H-1B program plays a huge role in uplifting industries that face domestic labor shortage. In September, Donald Trump introduced a new policy through an executive order where he implemented a $100,000 entry fee on H-1B visas, which was put into effect almost immediately. The deeper implications of his plan established a codified system of cost-barriers. The Department of State announced a twelve-month entry restriction on non-Americans entering on H-1B visas without having paid the $100,000 fee, while the Department of Homeland Security signaled intent to restrict decisions on applicants whose employers have not paid the fee for petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025. The Department of Labor expressed plans to revise wages for future applicants, further affecting employer access.

While H-1B visas target temporary workers, EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3, other visa categories, provide pathways to permanent residency and green cards. EB-1 applies to priority workers who harbor outstanding abilities in the sciences, arts, business, and/or athletics. EB-2 and EB-3 apply to second and third preference skilled professionals holding advanced degrees. Historically, these visas have been solely merit-based, focusing on those with exceptional achievements that contribute to national profit. However, in a recent executive order, Trump created a “Gold Card” system, forcing immigrants applying for EB-1, EB-2, and EB- 3 visas to donate a sum of $1 million or more to the Department of Commerce. Trump’s administration justified the pathway as a system for economic gain, an incentive for companies to hire Americans, and a method of prioritizing the best immigrants, equating skill level with wealth. 

The introduction of the Gold Card caused a shift in the definition of these pathways. The EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 were once visas attracting talent in the arts, sciences, and business fields. The process of applying was rigorous, requiring degrees, national recognition, and credibility. The new system replaced merit with money. Skill level no longer determines eligibility, but wealth does. Outstanding applicants that cannot obtain $1 million are disadvantaged compared to more affluent candidates because the program rewards personal finance over the applicant’s accomplishments. Additionally, by prioritizing financial contributions, this system redefines immigration as a whole as a transactional privilege, instead of characterizing the program as a contributor to national development.

Immigration policy has long been a polarizing issue, especially within the current administration. While most Republicans agree with the President on these barrier policies, three Republican lawmakers joined Democrats in writing a letter advocating against the fees. The letter argued that the H-1B policy specifically would strain smaller technology firms and startups as the fee is too expensive. This bipartisan effort does not change the fact that these orders came directly from the executive branch, representing an expansion of authority regarding immigration issues. 

The Trump Administration hoped to tackle wage disparity with the H-1B visa fee by increasing the cost to hire an employee, assuming firms would raise wages to meet this. However, as the bipartisan letter noted, smaller firms that rely on lower wage positions are victims of this policy because they must pay the fee  and cannot absorb the costs the way that larger firms can. There are additional consequences for universities and nonprofits. Employees that both institutions and nonprofits bring in typically play a large role in progressing research and innovation, but their wages are much lower than the private sector, meaning these barriers will hit them hard. Underpayment by certain employers and wage inequality stem from regulatory problems in the United States, not from a lack of fees such as this one. The intended goal of the policy will not be addressed by imposing fees. Instead, large firms and wealthy applicants thrive, while smaller firms are punished.6

In October, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit against the administration’s H-1B visa fee. In doing so, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Department of State as whole were served alongside Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security. In order for the government to process visas, costs and fees are involved, which according to the chamber, unlawfully overrides sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The chamber released a statement in which they acknowledged the administration’s ambitious agenda regarding immigration. Despite similar efforts to attract investments, the disagreement lies in the principle, with the chamber making the argument that, “our economy will require more workers not fewer.”

Aside from the United States economy, these fees disproportionately affect Indian immigrants. In 2024, India overtook China as the biggest source of foreign students entering startups in the U.S. in fields such as artificial intelligence and robotics, as 71% of H-1B visa holders were Indian born. This pathway has uplifted the American dream for millions of skilled Indian workers, but those who are limited in wealth are more likely to lose opportunities because employers will likely avoid paying the extreme fee in exchange for someone that lacks elite credentials and/or money. Immediately following President Trump’s announcement of the executive order, foreign leaders from Germany, the United Kingdom, and China all made their own public announcements expressing their acceptance of any and all foreign-born skilled workers. With Trump previously imposing harsh tariffs on India, not only will this affect Indian workers, but relations between the two countries as a whole. An attempt to help with American economic gain has in reality pushed vital components to other foreign competitors. Countries with more accessible immigration systems can absorb potential skilled workers who were trained for U.S. industries, but blocked due to the barriers. In that instance, American education and research benefit those countries. Evidently, this policy contradicts its own goal of economic gain as innovation migrates rather than remaining domestically. 

Despite evidence that these fees will halt economic growth and diminish pathways for small creators and business success, many Republicans follow party lines to support the policy. Supporters argue that high fees deter foreign competition and create more jobs for Americans. They allege that outsourcing companies exploit the visa system, in turn driving down wages. Advocates of the Gold Card contend that wealthy immigrants will bring assets into the United States economy. Reducing visa abuse is the overall reason as some claim that fee barriers help to prevent mass application spam.9

In response to arguments with the basis of creating opportunities for Americans, research consistently shows that skilled immigration creates jobs and contributes to the economy. Many American workers fill roles alongside visaholders when immigration increases.6 Regarding the Gold Card program, investment-based immigration already exists in the form of the EB-5 program. The visa was created in the Immigration Act of 1990 to generate revenue through foreign investment, granting green cards to immigrants who invest at least $1,050,000, or $800,000 in a Targeted Employment Area, which is a targeted area that has a high rate of unemployment. Unlike EB-5, the Gold Card lacks transparency and economic logic, which amplifies risks of corruption and inefficiency. Growth for the Department of Commerce does not justify undermining merit-based entry pathways. With 85,000 H-1B visas available each year, the government could theoretically raise 8.5 billion per year if every employer paid the $100,000 fee. However this number would drop as small firms withdraw from hiring applicants. Large firms have the money to absorb the costs of mass application spam while smaller firms do not. Creating a fee actually harms more legitimate users than it harms offenders.6

The September 2025 visa changes represent a profound shift in U.S. immigration policy, driven by executive authority rather than legislative lawmaking. These barriers on the H-1B program, and the introduction of a wealth-based Gold Card system reshape skilled immigration pathways and undermine merit. Real consequences exist: declining economic competitiveness, weakened innovation in STEM fields, strained foreign relations, and the discrimination of skilled workers based on wealth and nationality. Regardless of whether or not these help protect American workers, the policies fail to address the source of system abuse, and instead harm universities, nonprofits, hospitals, and small tech firms, the very industries that help the American economy flourish. In the end, these orders raise questions regarding the appropriate limits of executive power. The United States must choose whether its immigration system will reflect merit and national interest, or whether it will put wealth above all.

References

Aggarwal, Mithil, Jay Ganglani, and Peter Guo. 2025. “H-1B visa shake-up crushes the American dream for Indian students.” NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/world/asia/h1-b-visa-fee-crushes-american-dream-indian-students-rcna234640.

Bound, John, Gaurav Khanna, and Nicolas Morales. 2017. “Winners and Losers from the H-1B Visa Program.” National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/digest/apr17/winners-and-losers-h-1b-visa-program?page=1&perPage=50.

Cerullo, Megan, and Alain Sherter. 2025. “USCIS clarifies who must pay $100000 fee for H-1B visas.” CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/100000-h-1b-visa-fee-who-pays/.

Chowdhury, Shubhangi. 2025. “Republican representatives join Democrats to oppose $100,000 H-1B visa fee.” The American Bazaar. https://americanbazaaronline.com/2025/10/27/republican-representatives-join-democrats-to-oppose-100000-h-1b-visa-fee-469206/.

Dellon, Leslie. 2024. “H-1B Modernization Rule Provides Some Comfort But Also Raises Concerns.” American Immigration Council. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/h1b-modernization-rule-provides-some-comfort-but-also-raises-concerns/.

Dyer, Owen. 2025. “What does Trump’s H-1B visa ban mean for doctors in the US?” thebmj. https://www.bmj.com/content/390/bmj.r2055.full.

Morales, Nicolas. 2025. “Understanding the Potential Impact of H-1B Visa Program Changes.” Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2025/eb_25-39.

Niedzwiadek, Nick, Alice M. Ollstein, and Simon J. Levien. 2025. “Trump's new $100K visa fee could pummel red state hospitals.” Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/02/trump-h1b-visa-fee-hospitals-doctors-red-states-00592194.

Roberts, John G. 2018. “Trump v. Hawaii.” Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/17-965.

Trump v. Hawaii. 2018. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 2025. “U.S. Chamber Files Lawsuit to Support Businesses' Use of H-1B Visas.” U.S. Chamber of Commerce. https://www.uschamber.com/workforce/u-s-chamber-files-lawsuit-to-support-businesses-use-of-h-1b-visas.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce. 2025. Amended H-1B Complaint. https://www.uschamber.com/assets/documents/Amended-H%E2%80%931B-Complaint.pdf.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 2023. “EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program.” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/permanent-workers/eb-5-immigrant-investor-program.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 2025. “Green Card for Employment-Based Immigrants.” USCIS. https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility/green-card-for-employment-based-immigrants.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. 2025. “H-1B Specialty Occupations.” USCIS. https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/h-1b-specialty-occupations.

Wald, Gregory A., and Samuel Mudrick. 2025. “Understanding the New $100000 H-1B Fee and its Effect on U.S. Employers.” Employment Law Worldview. https://www.employmentlawworldview.com/understanding-the-new-100000-h-1b-fee-and-its-effect-on-u-s-employers/.

The White House. 2025. “Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Launches the Gold Card Program.” The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/09/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-launches-the-gold-card-program/.

The White House. 2025. “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers – The White House.” The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/restriction-on-entry-of-certain-nonimmigrant-workers/.