The Shifting Sands of Global Talent

Few policy choices made in Washington, D.C., have the ability to send shockwaves through the world's tech hotspots, fill trade groups with trepidation, move stock prices in Mumbai, Silicon Valley and Hyderabad, and trigger crisis internal memos at companies like Microsoft, Amazon and JPMorgan. But that is exactly what has occurred since President Donald Trump signed an executive order mandating new H-1B visa petitions to include a supplemental fee of $100,000. The fee becomes effective on September 21, 2025, and will only apply to new H-1B visa applications — not renewals or current holders. Since its inception many years ago, the H-1B visa has enabled U.S. businesses to hire foreign nationals in speciality occupations (like computer science, engineering, data science, and sometimes modelling or defence work), who typically possess advanced degrees.

It initially provides a three-year residency, which can be extended to six years, with additional extensions available under specific green-card pathway milestones. A yearly fixed quota (65,000 regular and 20,000 master's-degree exemptions) restricts the number admitted yearly. Sponsorship, employer salary requirements and degree comparabilities are some of the main eligibility factors. India has been the largest beneficiary of that program. In the latest full data, nearly 71% of approved H-1B beneficiaries were from India. The Indian information technology sector, whose revenues are closely tied to American demand, has thus become highly dependent upon the capacity to move high-skilled workers on H-1B visas. What this fee hike threatens, critics say, is a paradigm shift in how tech firms do business, how work globally is dispatched, and where and how talent moves. And while numerous of the worst short-term impacts are unknown, the outlines of harm are materialising, especially for Indian IT businesses, for Big Tech in the U.S., for smaller businesses, for individual experts, and for the worldwide marketplace of tech services.

From Indian boardrooms to U.S. stock exchanges, distress signs are evident. Indian industry body Nasscom has alerted that the charge could "disrupt operations," "turn business models on their head," and "tax company finances." Experts refer to the staggering cost blow: for each fresh H-1B petition, employers now have to account for an additional one-time fee of $100,000 in case the petition is submitted after September 21. This is over and above the current application processing fees.

The new charge is not meant to cover annually (officials explained it's only on the first petition) nor to current H-1B holders or renewals. But even with these exceptions, the bar of disruption is high. Numerous companies had an initial strong response: Big Tech and banks directed workers on H-1B status overseas currently to come back before the deadline, or lose their ability to re-enter without paying the fee.

For Indian IT majors, the fee represents a new burden in addition to a trend already in progress: weaning away from H-1B visas, focusing on offshore delivery, expanding local presence in the U.S., and establishing global capability centres (GCCs) closer to clients. As one CEO noted, the industry has been preparing itself for immigration reform for a while now; most companies have already established models that are immune to visa policy changes.

Yet, the magnitude of change suggested by $100,000 for each new petition is enormous. Assuming everything else remains constant, the arithmetic of underwriting dozens or hundreds of H-1Bs in a year becomes economically daunting. Margins in other service contracts are thin; cost escalation to such an extent risks nibbling away at profitability or requiring service to be priced higher, at the risk of deterring competitiveness.

And then there is the issue of timing and unpredictability. The announcement is happening now, with minimal runway for companies to make changes. Within companies, some firms are panicking — posting travel warnings, re-verifying hiring pipelines, holding or cancelling plans to bring in foreign skilled talent. Some are redirecting work abroad; others are speeding up automation or localisation.

On the American side, the argument that this policy shift is to safeguard American workers by discouraging companies from employing foreign labour at lower wages appeals to a political base that has been complaining about job loss, stagnant wages, and outsourcing.

The administration's message is that the H-1B programme has been "exploited" to replace and not complement American talent.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has also underscored the point of making sure that H-1B visas are utilised for individuals who offer "very highly skilled" value and not to undercut U.S. workers. But the argument against is strong too: American innovation is greatly reliant on world talent; many specialised positions—especially for growing fields like AI, advanced algorithms, and machine learning—are perennially short in the United States. Fewer H-1B workers may discourage innovation, increase the cost of doing business for companies, dampen entrepreneurial energy, and, in the longer run, damage U.S. competitiveness. There is also the potential for legal challenge: opponents claim that imposing fees this high may be more than Congress has mandated in terms of cost-recovery through fees, or otherwise could be arbitrary or harmful to sectors.

For individual workers—particularly from India, but also elsewhere—this policy presents a new risk calculus. Countless have already been on long waiting lists for the green-card process, changing life plans, family choices, and financial investments on the basis of expected career paths. Those planning to come to the U.S. on H-1B in new jobs will now encounter hiring managers questioning whether the expense and visa sponsorship make the job viable. Some will perceive fewer opportunities, particularly in smaller businesses or start-ups which are unable to absorb high visa expenses.

Others will prefer remaining in their domestic markets or taking up other alternatives like Canada, Australia, or Europe which possess more readily available skilled worker immigration schemes. Already, some of these changes are visible: Indian IT professionals thinking "come back home," both due to the policy but also due to India's own startup economy, capital markets, infra, and R&D growing rapidly. Offshoring is being reconsidered, "near-shore" hubs are being deepened, and a few companies are stepping up their investments in domestic talent pipelines.  The Times of India The global IT services model, especially the variant built on rotating talent, sending engineers to client sites, often onshore in the U.S., now faces a turning point. Where once onsite work was a given part of service delivery, new costs may force a rebalancing: more offshore work, greater reliance on local hires in U.S., re-negotiated contracts, higher pricing or tighter scopes. For U.S. clients, this could translate to delays, increased expense, or simply fewer options for providers.

For the Indian IT companies that earn some 57% of their income from U.S. deals, the threat is not hypothetical—it's at the core of their business model. Geopolitically, the policy could also redefine migration flows. India has already warned its diaspora, while the U.S. Foreign Ministry has complained, citing the shift as a risk of "disrupting families."

The potential "brain gain" for India would be immense: talent that previously moved for work elsewhere in the world can instead remain, work domestically, start companies locally, or develop global skills from India itself. This would, over time, alter where technological innovation is focused—not away from the U.S., perhaps, but widely dispersed. All that being said, the future is not clear and not easy. The details of implementation are still riddled with holes: how the renewals will be accommodated (though White House and USCIS have made it clear renewals are exempted), how precisely the fee is charged, how many petitioners will attempt to make national-interest exceptions, how courts will perceive this, and what Congress will do about it. Large companies have more cushioning; startups may be disproportionately impacted. Bargaining leverage for contract negotiation may shift: clients can challenge rate cards, demand higher offshore delivery, or cut onsite activities. Service contracts are likely to be renegotiated. Some projects could be cancelled or outsourced. There's also reputational risk: U.S. companies that are highly dependent on international talent might struggle to attract the best candidates who perceive America as less open. Others that have more stable visa regimes could become relatively more attractive. Overall, the $100,000 H-1B charge is more than a numerical increase; it represents a change in the way America is deciding to weigh protectionism, domestic labour interests, and international competition for highly skilled labour.

For the Indian IT sector, international technology companies, and individual professionals, it is compelling a re-write of plans and assumptions.

The days of sending engineers freely to U.S. work locations may be over.

The winners could be those who can transition the fastest: those with robust offshore delivery models, those significantly investing in local recruitment in the U.S., and those with infrastructure and funds to absorb more expensive upfront labour costs.

The losers could be those who constructed their business on the convenience of global talent mobility, those who survived on thin margins, and people whose career strategies rested upon visa mobility.

America’s economy has long benefited from drawing on skills globally. Whether this new policy will hurt more than it helps—whether the U.S. economy slows and innovation lags, or whether domestic talent fills the gap without loss of momentum—remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the global IT industry has entered a new phase in which the cost of cross-border labour is no longer a small technical term—it is a central strategic variable.