White House Extends Controversial $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee, but Court Injunction Still Blocks Collection

In a late-evening proclamation signed on September 18, President Donald Trump renewed for one more year the 2025 order that imposed a US $100,000 “supplemental payment” on many H-1B petitions filed for workers who are outside the United States. The extension means the fee—as well as the related restriction on the admission of H-1B beneficiaries who have not paid it—now nominally runs through 12:01 a.m. EDT on September 21 2027. Yet employers do **not** currently have to write a six-figure check. In June a federal district court vacated the fee as an unlawful tax, and on July 24 the First Circuit denied the government’s request for a stay, leaving U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) legally barred from collecting the money. Immigration attorneys say the extender proclamation inherits that injunction, so the fee remains unenforceable until the litigation is resolved or a higher court intervenes. For now, employers may continue to file H-1B petitions under pre-2025 rules, but they should expect USCIS to reject any attempt to tender the $100,000 payment. The proclamation is accompanied by a separate executive order directing the Departments of Labor, Homeland Security and State to factor an employer’s lay-off history into H-1B adjudications. That signal—combined with a Department of Homeland Security proposal last month for a US $103,265 rulemaking fee on *all* cap-subject H-1Bs—confirms the administration’s multi-pronged strategy to deter high-volume filers and push U.S. companies toward higher domestic wages. From a business-mobility perspective, the biggest practical takeaway is continued uncertainty. The fee’s legal status could change quickly if the First Circuit—or ultimately the Supreme Court—rules for the government. Multinationals that rely on overseas talent pipelines, especially in information technology and engineering, should budget for possible retroactive assessments, accelerate any time-sensitive transfers before new rules take effect, and monitor forthcoming agency guidance on the new lay-off review. In the broader policy debate, opponents argue the fee is a de-facto tax on innovation that disadvantages universities, hospitals and start-ups with limited cash flow. Supporters counter that it disincentivises body-shopping and frees visa numbers for truly specialized, higher-paid roles. Either way, the next round of court filings—expected within weeks—will determine whether the $100,000 price tag ever becomes more than symbolic.