This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In the battle over President Donald Trump's Sept. 19 H-1B visa proclamation, a new lawsuit seeks to block Trump's $100,000 H-1B visa fee, intended to defend U.S. workers, restore integrity to the immigration system and stop corporate abuse of cheap foreign labor.
The coalition behind the lawsuit, composed of unions, universities and religious institutions, claims the surcharge is unlawful. But their challenge underscores a deeper problem: Too many American organizations have grown comfortable exploiting the visa system while benefiting from tax breaks, public funding and American freedoms.
The case, filed in California federal court, argues that Trump overstepped his authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Yet the law grants the president explicit power under 8 U.S.C. §1182(f) to restrict or condition the entry of any non-citizens when their admission is "detrimental to the interests of the United States." The proclamation cites precisely that concern: that the H-1B program has been "deliberately exploited" to replace Americans, suppress wages and create dependency on foreign labor.
Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Why the administration says the fee is necessary
For years, law-abiding Americans have watched as tech firms, staffing agencies and academic institutions bypassed domestic workers through complex visa loopholes. Investigations by federal agencies have documented fraud, kickbacks and racketeering tied to outsourcing companies that dominate H-1B hiring. The new $100,000 surcharge functions as both deterrent and filter, discouraging frivolous petitions and forcing employers to justify their hiring decisions.
Under previous rules, companies paid only a few thousand dollars in filing fees, an amount small enough to treat the visa as disposable. Trump's order changes that calculation, ensuring that H-1Bs are used only when no qualified Americans are available – the actual purpose Congress originally intended. It also exempts current visa holders and petitions already in process, focusing solely on new overseas applications.
A system long abused
The proclamation's preamble cites evidence that the program has become a tool for wage suppression and labor displacement. In some industries, "specialty occupation" designations have been stretched so broadly that mid-level coding, accounting or analyst jobs are routinely outsourced to foreign nationals at lower pay. Law enforcement has prosecuted multiple H-1B-reliant firms for visa fraud and money-laundering conspiracies, confirming that such misuse is not rare. Indeed, it is routine.
These practices don't just undercut U.S. workers. They weaken America's national security. The transfer of sensitive data and intellectual property through offshored labor pipelines has already drawn scrutiny from defense and intelligence agencies. Trump's team frames the $100,000 surcharge as a national-interest safeguard, balancing economic policy with security oversight, both legitimate functions of executive power.
The lawsuit's real implication
Opponents argue that the surcharge violates administrative procedure, but their lawsuit exposes another truth: Many U.S. institutions have built their models around low-cost foreign labor instead of training Americans. Universities advertise international recruiting programs while cutting domestic admissions.
Hospitals contract foreign nurses through visa agencies instead of funding local pipeline programs. Tech firms lobby for more visas, even as they conduct mass layoffs of American staff.
Trump's proclamation forces accountability. By raising the cost barrier, it challenges employers to prove necessity, not merely convenience or cost savings. If companies truly face shortages, they can still file. If not, they'll have incentive to invest in apprenticeships, retraining and education in the United States of America. It's a measure meant to rebalance the labor market in favor of American citizens, not global labor brokers.
Can Americans harmed by past abuse seek justice?
Workers who lost jobs to unlawful visa practices may already have recourse under existing law. Claims of discrimination or displacement can fall under 8 U.S.C. §1324b, Title VII, or RICO statutes if fraud or collusion can be proven. Thus, even if Trump's proclamation were to be somehow struck down, which would predictably embolden further abuse, civil or class-action lawsuits would be the only path for Americans to challenge the system that replaced them.
A defining test of sovereignty
Whether courts uphold or block the policy, the stakes go beyond one visa category. The H-1B debate now represents a broader question: Who governs America's labor market – elected leaders accountable to citizens, or corporations accountable to shareholders? President Trump's move asserts that immigration should serve the national interest, not undermine it.
The current lawsuit will proceed through the courts in the coming months. For millions of American workers sidelined by years of outsourcing and offshoring, the outcome will decide whether immigration law protects them … or the companies profiting from their replacement.
