Trump’s $100,000 H-1B Extension Reaches Its Effective Date — but a Court Order Still Blocks the Fee

35,000+ smart investors are already getting financial news, market signals, and macro shifts in the economy that could impact their money next with our FREE weekly newsletter. Get ahead of what the crowd finds out too late. Click Here to Subscribe for FREE.

The calendar has caught up with one of the Trump administration’s most closely watched immigration policies, but the courtroom has not. President Donald Trump’s extension of a $100,000 payment requirement tied to certain H-1B petitions took effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time on September 21, 2026, extending the restriction for another year. Yet employers are not simply facing a new six-figure bill today. A federal court previously vacated the agencies’ implementation of the payment, and an appeals court declined to suspend that decision. That creates an unusual split: the White House has formally extended the policy through September 2027, while the government remains blocked from enforcing the proclamation-based charge under the existing court order.

The Extension Is Effective, but the $100,000 Charge Is Still Blocked

Trump signed the new proclamation on September 18, extending the restrictions originally created in September 2025. The new measure became effective at 12:01 a.m. EDT on September 21, 2026, and is scheduled to continue for another 12 months, effectively carrying the policy through September 21, 2027 unless it is changed, extended again or invalidated through litigation.

The important distinction is between the proclamation existing on paper and federal agencies being allowed to enforce its payment mechanism. A Massachusetts federal court vacated the policies DHS and the State Department had used to implement the $100,000 requirement. On July 24, the First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s request to put that ruling on hold while its appeal continues. Immigration-law specialists therefore say USCIS should remain barred from collecting the proclamation-based $100,000 payment despite the extension becoming effective.

The Block Traces Back to a June Ruling in Massachusetts

The legal problem began on June 8, when U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled for a coalition of 20 states challenging the administration’s implementation of the policy. The court vacated the agency actions in their entirety. Sorokin concluded that the $100,000 payment operated more like a tax than an ordinary immigration-processing fee and that the executive branch had not shown that Congress authorized it to impose that kind of charge through the statutes cited by the president.

There was briefly another turn. The district court temporarily paused the effect of its ruling while the administration sought emergency relief from the First Circuit. But on July 24, the appeals court denied the government’s request for a longer stay. The panel said the government had not made the required strong showing that it was likely to succeed on the statutory-authority issue. The underlying appeal has not disappeared; what changed was the government’s ability to enforce the payment while that appeal proceeds.

The Central Legal Fight Is About Who Has Authority to Impose the Charge

The administration based the original proclamation on sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 212(f) gives presidents broad power to suspend or restrict the entry of foreign nationals when their entry is determined to be detrimental to U.S. interests. The administration argues that conditioning certain H-1B entries on a payment is a permissible immigration restriction under that authority.

The challengers—and, so far, the Massachusetts court—see a different problem. Congress has separately written specific H-1B fees into immigration law and has expressly delegated certain fee-setting authority to federal agencies. The First Circuit noted that neither section 212(f) nor 215(a) expressly refers to imposing a payment of this kind. Its July order did not finally decide the administration’s appeal, but it concluded that the government had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of overturning the lower court on that point. That distinction will remain central as the litigation moves forward.

The Policy Was Never Designed to Charge Every H-1B Worker $100,000

The headline figure can make the policy sound broader than its actual text. The proclamation principally targets H-1B cases involving workers outside the United States who need admission to take up the approved employment. It directs employers filing covered petitions to document the $100,000 payment and directs federal agencies to restrict approval or entry when the requirement has not been satisfied.

Earlier USCIS guidance clarified that ordinary amendments, extensions of stay and changes of status approved for eligible workers already inside the United States were generally outside the payment requirement. That distinction is especially important for international graduates moving from F-1 status to H-1B status without leaving the country. The proclamation also gives the Homeland Security secretary discretion to exempt particular individuals, companies or industries when their employment is considered to be in the national interest and not a threat to U.S. security or welfare. Those rules matter if the payment requirement is eventually restored.

The White House Says the First Year Dramatically Changed H-1B Filings

The administration argues that extending the policy is justified by what happened after the original September 2025 proclamation. The White House says more than 700 petitions made the $100,000 payment while the requirement was enforceable. It also reports that combined registrations from the largest IT staffing and outsourcing companies dropped from 24,946 to 2,055, a decline of roughly 92%.

Other filing patterns changed as well. According to the September 18 proclamation, consular-processing requests fell nearly 97% between the FY2025 and FY2027 cap seasons, while the share of registrations involving beneficiaries with at least a U.S. master’s degree rose from 45.1% for FY2026 to 66.1% for FY2027. Those are administration figures, and the White House attributes the changes to a combination of the payment and a new weighted selection system that favours higher-wage applications. Because both policies changed during the period, the figures do not isolate the independent effect of the $100,000 requirement.

The Economic Debate Around H-1B Workers Remains More Complicated

Research does not produce one simple answer about how H-1B hiring affects American workers. An August 2026 revision of an NBER working paper by economist George Borjas estimated that H-1B workers earned about 16% less, on average, than statistically comparable U.S.-born workers in the data he studied. His modelling also suggested that very large fees could change which workers employers choose to sponsor.

Other research finds broader economic benefits from high-skilled immigration. A July 2026 NBER working paper examining an earlier expansion of the H-1B program found greater H-1B exposure increased incomes for native workers and pre-existing immigrants in affected industries, with gains spreading through downstream supply chains. Congressional Research Service analyses have similarly noted that the debate involves competing concerns about labour displacement, wages, skills shortages, productivity and innovation. The evidence comes from different time periods and methodologies, so none of those findings alone establishes the effect of Trump’s current fee policy.

A Separate $103,265 H-1B Fee Proposal Could Become Even More Important

The blocked proclamation is not the administration’s only attempt to impose a six-figure H-1B charge. DHS published a proposed rule on August 25 that would establish a separate $103,265 fee on all cap-subject H-1B petitions, including petitions qualifying for the U.S. advanced-degree exemption. The government estimates that applying the fee to 85,000 petitions annually could generate about $8.8 billion.

That proposal is legally and procedurally separate from Trump’s $100,000 proclamation. DHS describes the proposed $103,265 amount as a cost-recovery fee based on statutory fee-setting authorities, rather than an entry restriction imposed under presidential powers. Crucially, it is still only a proposed rule as of September 21. The public-comment period remains open until September 24, 2026, and a final rule would have to be issued before the new charge could take effect. The Federal Register itself distinguishes the proposed fee from the proclamation payment currently caught in litigation.

Employers Now Have to Separate Three Different H-1B Changes

For companies recruiting internationally, the biggest challenge may be keeping several developments separate. The first is Trump’s renewed $100,000 proclamation requirement, which has reached its effective date but remains blocked by the Massachusetts judgment while litigation continues. The second is the proposed $103,265 DHS fee, which is not yet a final rule. Neither should be confused with the ordinary statutory and USCIS filing fees that already exist for H-1B petitions.

There is also a third change. Trump signed a separate executive order on September 18 directing State, Labor and Homeland Security officials to consider whether an H-1B sponsor recently laid off—or plans to lay off—similarly situated American workers. That order is separate from the six-figure payment litigation and could affect agency scrutiny even while the fee remains blocked. For an employer deciding whether to sponsor a worker overseas, the result is an unusually fluid environment: a presidential policy has begun its second year, a court prevents its central payment mechanism from operating, another fee proposal is advancing through rulemaking, and multiple appeals remain unresolved.

This Options Discord Chat is The Real Deal

While the internet is scoured with trading chat rooms, many of which even charge upwards of thousands of dollars to join, this smaller options trading discord chatroom is the real deal and actually providing valuable trade setups, education, and community without the noise and spam of the larger more expensive rooms. With a incredibly low-cost monthly fee, Options Trading Club (click here to see their reviews) requires an application to join ensuring that every member is dedicated and serious about taking their trading to the next level. If you are looking for a change in your trading strategies, then click here to apply for a membership.