JD Vance Warns Tech Firms: H-1B Visas Will Not Replace Laid-Off American Workers

US Vice President JD Vance has defended the administration's $100,000 fee on certain H-1B visa petitions, saying the programme should bring in highly skilled workers who add to the American economy rather than let companies hire cheaper foreign labour in place of Americans. Vance made the remarks on the All-In Podcast, in an episode released on September 15. He said the programme should exist to "enrich the American economy" and should not be used to swap out domestic employees. The $100,000 fee has become one of the administration's most significant immigration-related measures affecting employers, and it faces continuing court challenges and new regulatory proposals. 

To illustrate his concern, Vance described an American accountant earning $60,000 being replaced by a foreign worker earning $45,000, and said that is not what the visa is for. He said a technology company seeking an H-1B worker should be looking for "an actual genius" who can significantly strengthen the tech ecosystem. The $100,000 fee, he said, grew out of that thinking. He added that the administration is also examining ways to stop companies that use H-1B visas from laying off large numbers of American workers. Vance framed the aim as ensuring that H-1B visas go to workers whose skills add clear value to the US economy, rather than to roles where an employer could simply hire someone at a lower wage. Vance pointed to what he called a contradiction in some corporate behaviour.

A company may say it is desperate for workers and cannot find them, he said, yet its record may show it laid off 5,000 people. In his view, a firm cutting American jobs should not then look abroad for replacements. He said the administration is acting within what it is legally allowed to do. His stance closely echoes a position long pushed by Elon Musk, that the visa should be reserved for top talent rather than used to bring in lower-paid replacements. 

Explaining why the administration has used executive action, Vance said Congress lacks the political will to change the system by law and that officials had identified fraud they wanted to address. He acknowledged that the administration has been sued over some of these measures, but said he believes it is on solid ground on both the law and the policy. The fee's legal status remains unsettled. It was created by a presidential proclamation issued on September 19, 2025, and applied to new petitions for workers outside the United States who require consular processing.

Also Read: LPU Suspends Classes For 10 Days After Violent Protests, CM Bhagwant Mann Vows Strict Action

On June 8, 2026, a federal court in Massachusetts vacated the policy, finding it was a tax the president lacked authority to impose. Twenty states, led by California and Massachusetts, brought that challenge, and on July 24 the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government's request to reinstate the fee while the appeal proceeds. The ruling therefore remains in effect. Other lawsuits are still pending, and in one of them a district court found that the fee fell within presidential authority.

The administration has said the fee is meant to curb perceived abuse of the programme and protect US workers, with a particular focus on science, technology, engineering and mathematics jobs. The administration has nonetheless signalled it is not backing away. On September 18, President Donald Trump extended the payment requirement through September 21, 2027, and signed a separate executive order directing greater consideration of employer layoffs in H-1B decisions.

Legal analysts say the fee itself remains blocked by the court ruling. Separately, the Department of Homeland Security has proposed a new $103,265 fee on cap-subject H-1B petitions. Comments were due by September 24, and the fee is not currently in effect. The outcome matters especially in India, whose nationals accounted for 71% of approved H-1B petitions in fiscal 2024, according to US Citizenship and Immigration Services data.

Employers and prospective applicants are watching the courts and the rulemaking closely, and further tightening of the programme appears likely. Critics, including the states that sued, argue the fee exceeds executive power and burdens the universities and hospitals that rely on skilled foreign hires. How the appeal is decided, and whether the new DHS fee is finalised, will shape the programme for the next hiring cycle.

Also Read: China, US Extend Trade Truce to January 10, 2027 After Xi Jinping's Washington Summit With Trump