Presidential Executive Order Imposes New $100,000 Entry Fee on H-1B Workers Abroad: Steps for Employers to Take Now

On Friday, September 19, 2025, the White House issued a Presidential Executive Order (EO) that significantly changes the legal landscape for U.S. employers who rely on H-1B professionals. Beginning at 12:01 a.m. Eastern on Sunday, September 21, 2025, and continuing for 12 months unless extended, the EO bars most H-1B professionals outside the United States from entering the United States unless the sponsoring employer first makes a payment of $100,000 tied to the H-1B petition. Although the measure is styled as a temporary response, the breadth and the uncertainty around its implementation have created significant concern in the business and legal communities.

Who Is Covered and How the Restriction Works

The language of the EO issued on September 19 created significant confusion in the legal and business community, because it appeared to apply immediately to current H-1B beneficiaries who were outside the United States. Over the weekend, the news reported stories of foreign nationals with H1-B visas who were out of country visiting families or on business scrambling to get back into the United States before the midnight deadline on September 21. In response to the chaos caused by the timing and vagueness of the EO, however, the White House issued a press release on the evening of Saturday, September 20, attempting to clarify the EO by stating that the entry fee and other restrictions would only apply to new H1-B visas issued after midnight on September 21, 2025. Immigration experts and employers, however, remain uncertain of the legal impact of both the EO and the subsequent press release.

As of 9:00 am, Monday, September 22, 2025, it appears that the restriction works as follows: For all H1-B visas issued from and after September 21, 2025, any such H-1B visa holder who is outside the United States (and any such H-1B visa holder who leaves the United States and then attempts to return) will be prevented from entering (re-entering) the United States unless and until the sponsoring employer pays a $100,000 re-entry fee. Under the text, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is instructed to “restrict decisions” on petitions for beneficiaries located abroad unless the required $100,000 payment accompanies or supplements the petition. The Department of State (DOS), which handles visa issuance, must verify that the payment has been made by the sponsoring employer before a visa for travel to and entry into the United States can be issued. In addition, both DOS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are directed to deny entry at the border if payment has not been received. In short, unless an employer has paid the new charge, H-1B workers outside the country will not be admitted, and visa issuance will halt.

At least for now, the EO draws a distinction for H-1B employees who obtain their visa after September 21, 2025, while already present in the United States (for example, through an approved change of visa status from another visa status, such as F1 student visas, TN visas, etc.) Petitions for H1-B extensions, amendments, or transfers for these individuals already in the United States may still be approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as usual without the $100,000 payment, because the restriction targets only those seeking entry from abroad. This reprieve, however, is limited: if such an in-country H-1B employee later travels internationally, he or she will be unable to return to the United States in H-1B status unless the employer has paid the $100,000 fee. For many employers, this means international business travel or personal travel by such H-1B employees must be put on hold until the legal landscape clarifies.

Limited “National Interest” Carve-Out

The EO allows DHS to exempt individuals, companies, or even entire industries when it determines that admitting the H-1B professional is “in the national interest” and does not present a security risk. As of the effective date, there are no published standards, criteria, or procedures for seeking such an exemption. Employers with mission-critical roles—such as those in defense, healthcare, critical infrastructure (especially healthcare providers, utilities, data centers, AI), or other sectors central to public safety—should begin preparing supporting evidence now so that they can move quickly to establish entitlement to any “national interest” exemption when DHS announces a process.

Key Unanswered Questions

Several important aspects of the policy remain unsettled. First, the EO simply referred to “a payment of $100,000” connected to the petition, without specifying whether this is a one-time fee or an annual charge. During the announcement on Friday, September 19, senior administration officials publicly described the payment as “annual,” but the press release issued by the White House on September 21 stated this would be a “one time” fee. Confusion on this issue persists. Budgeting and travel decisions will depend heavily on whether this is a recurring obligation (either annually or each time an H1B visa holder attempts entry / re-entry into the U.S.).

Second, the government has not yet clarified how and to whom the payment will be made (i.e., whether payment is to be made to DHS, DOS, or the Department of Commerce, etc.); how proof of payment will be documented; or whether a single payment might cover multiple entries or multiple employers for the same beneficiary or multiple employees for the same employer. The text uses the phrase “accompanied or supplemented by a $100,000 payment,” but provides no instructions for remittance or receipt.

Third, the EO is silent on H-4 visa dependents—the spouses and children of H-1B workers. While the measure technically targets only the principal H-1B holder, in practice, if the principal cannot enter on the H1B, then the family cannot maintain H-4 status. Further guidance from DOS and CBP will determine whether H-4 visas will be issued when the principal has not paid the fee.

Relationship to Other H-1B Rules

It is important to note what the EO does not do. It leaves unchanged the annual H-1B cap numbers and lottery process typically conducted in the spring each year, the definition of “specialty occupation,” and the current USCIS filing fee schedule. However, it does direct the Department of Labor (DOL) and DHS to pursue future rulemakings designed to raise prevailing wage levels and to prioritize the admission of high-paid, high-skill H-1B workers. Those proposals must move through the ordinary notice-and-comment rulemaking process and are not yet in force.

Anticipated Court Challenges

Immigration attorneys and industry associations are preparing to challenge the EO in federal court. Observers expect lawsuits to argue that a $100,000 “condition on entry” exceeds the fee authority granted by the Immigration and Nationality Act, even though the President does possess broad authority under Section 212(f) to suspend or restrict entry of foreign nationals. Plaintiffs are likely to seek temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions to halt implementation while the merits are litigated. If such relief is granted, the policy could be delayed or suspended, at least temporarily. Employers must follow these developments closely; the timing of any injunction could determine whether it is prudent to remit payment or wait for a court ruling.

Practical Effects Across Common H-1B Situations

The immediate consequences vary depending on the type of H-1B petition and the location of the beneficiary. For new petitions for beneficiaries abroad, consular processing will stall unless the sponsoring employer remits the $100,000 and can prove payment to DOS. Visa issuance and subsequent admission at the border will be denied if the payment is not verified.

For change-of-status petitions, extensions, or amendments filed for employees who are already physically present in the United States, USCIS can continue to approve petitions without the $100,000 payment. But these workers should avoid international travel until there is more certainty about the EO.

Even cap-exempt employers — including universities, nonprofit organizations, and research institutions — are not categorically exempt. They face the same entry restriction and fee payment obligation unless granted a national-interest waiver.

Compliance and Wage Considerations

Employers should be aware that under existing DOL regulations, the $100,000 payment is considered an employer business expense. Companies may not recoup this cost from the employee — for example, through wage deductions or side agreements — if doing so would reduce the net worker’s pay below the required wage. Violations can trigger liability for back wages and civil penalties. Even if an employer decides to pay the charge to maintain business operations, it must absorb the cost itself.

Recommended Steps for Employers and Management Teams

Given the sweeping nature of the EO, its immediate impact, and the uncertainty surrounding its implementation, employers should take several steps immediately.

First, examine all discretionary international travel for H-1B workers and for candidates selected in the FY-2026 lottery who are outside the United States. In-country H-1B employees should be advised to avoid international travel until there is greater clarity or until courts have ruled on the legality of the measure.

Second, inventory all H-1B matters, noting the date the H1-B visa was approved (confirm it was before or after September 21, 2025); note which employees are in the United States and which are abroad; whether their cases are consular or change-of-status petitions to USCIS while in the United States; and what their employment start dates are. This assessment will help identify roles for which a national interest waiver may be most defensible—such as positions in critical infrastructure, defense, or healthcare.

Third, management teams should decide whether to budget and pay the $100,000 when travel or entry is essential, or whether to seek alternatives. Where possible, employers should consider converting consular processing cases to change-of-status filings so that workers can begin or continue employment inside the United States without traveling abroad. For candidates who remain overseas, companies should explore alternative classifications—for example O-1, TN, E-3, J-1, or L-1 visas—or remote offshore work arrangements to bridge the next 12 months.

Fourth, employers should prepare evidence files now, including proof of payment and documentation of the critical nature of the worker’s role. DOS is required to verify payment and CBP to deny entry if the payment is not proven.

Fifth, companies that believe they qualify for the national interest carve-out should draft justifications early. While DHS has not yet announced criteria, preparing detailed evidence of mission-critical projects, public safety needs, or other compelling factors will help when the process opens.

Sixth, employers should update budgets, offer letters, and master service agreements to account for the possibility of a $100,000 per-H-1B cost exposure. Care must be taken not to shift these costs in ways that violate H-1B wage regulations.

Finally, HR and legal teams should monitor both litigation and future rulemaking. Rapid court challenges are expected, and a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction could be issued quickly. The proclamation also orders DOL and DHS to propose regulations to raise H-1B prevailing wage levels and to reprioritize H-1B admissions toward higher-paid, higher-skilled workers. Those changes will take time but could significantly affect long-term workforce planning.

Unless and until a federal court blocks the measure or agencies issue contrary guidance, employers should act now. Immediate steps include imposing travel holds on H-1B employees; evaluating which roles may justify national-interest waivers; budgeting for potential payments; and closely tracking fast-moving litigation and agency rulemaking. These actions will help protect workforce continuity and ensure compliance during a period of significant immigration policy uncertainty.