Key Facts

- On September 18, 2026 President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order and a Proclamation aimed at protecting American jobs and national security by tightening the H‑1B visa program [1].

- The Executive Order directs the Secretaries of State, Labor, and Homeland Security to consult with the Secretaries of Commerce and Education, and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, to obtain data on wages, industrial conditions, and employment specialization when reviewing H‑1B petitions [1].

- The Order also requires those three lead Secretaries to consider any recent or planned layoffs of similarly situated U.S. workers by the petitioner employer before approving an H‑1B petition [1].

- The Proclamation reinstates a $100,000 fee for certain alien H‑1B applications, a fee first imposed on September 19, 2025 [1].

- According to the fact sheet, registrations filed by the largest IT outsourcing firms fell 92% after the 2025 Proclamation, and consular processing requests dropped nearly 97% [1].

- The fact sheet notes a shift toward higher‑skill, higher‑wage H‑1B workers following the 2025 Proclamation [1].

- The document cites broader economic outcomes, including the addition of over one million jobs since President Trump returned to office, with nearly 100,000 factory‑construction jobs and 58,000 manufacturing jobs added since January 2026 [1].

Executive Order Expands Inter‑Agency Review

The September 18, 2026 fact sheet outlines the administration’s rationale for the new Executive Order: to improve program integrity and reduce perceived abuses of the H‑1B visa system that could affect American workers and national security [1]. The Order introduces a formal inter‑agency coordination mechanism. In addition to the traditional lead agencies—State, Labor, and Homeland Security—each petition will trigger a data request to the Departments of Commerce and Education and to the Small Business Administration. The fact sheet specifies that the additional data will cover:

- Prevailing wage information for the occupation in question;

- Sector‑specific industrial conditions that may affect labor demand;

- Details on the specialization and skill level required for the job [1].

By embedding these data points into the petition review, the administration signals an intent to ground decisions in a broader evidence base rather than relying solely on employer‑provided documentation.

Mechanics of the New H‑1B Scrutiny

The Order creates a two‑step review process. First, the lead Secretaries must obtain the quantitative inputs described above from Commerce, Education, and the SBA. Second, they must qualitatively assess whether the petitioner has recently laid off— or plans to lay off—U.S. workers in comparable roles. The fact sheet does not enumerate thresholds, timelines, or reporting formats for the layoff consideration; it simply states that the factor must be taken into account during the petition evaluation [1].

The Proclamation’s fee component applies to “certain alien H‑1B visa applications.” While the fact sheet does not list the precise categories, it reiterates that the $100,000 fee was originally introduced in 2025 to deter filings that were viewed as displacing U.S. workers or raising national‑security concerns [1]. The fee is therefore reinstated as part of the broader strategy to increase the cost of petitions that may be perceived as low‑skill or abusive.

Impact on Employers and Workers

The fact sheet provides several quantitative observations that help gauge the policy’s early impact. After the 2025 Proclamation, the largest IT outsourcing firms reduced H‑1B registrations by 92%, and requests for consular processing of H‑1B visas fell by nearly 97% [1]. The same document notes a shift in the composition of H‑1B hires toward workers with higher skill levels and higher wages [1].

The reinstated $100,000 fee applies to certain applications, but the fact sheet does not detail which categories are covered nor how the fee will be collected. Consequently, the record does not provide an analysis of the fee’s effect on employer behavior, especially for small or mid‑size firms.

The Order’s requirement to consider recent layoffs introduces a new qualitative filter. While the fact sheet confirms that the consideration of layoffs is now part of the review, it does not specify how agencies will verify layoff claims or what evidentiary standards will be applied.

From a worker‑impact perspective, the fact sheet frames the measures as safeguards against wage pressure that could arise from “cheaper foreign labor” [1]. It also links the H‑1B tightening to the administration’s broader job‑creation narrative, citing over one million jobs added since President Trump’s return to office, including significant gains in factory construction and manufacturing [1]. However, the document does not present direct causal evidence linking the H‑1B policy changes to those job‑creation figures.

What to Watch

- **Fee reinstatement** – The Proclamation restores a $100,000 fee for certain H‑1B applications. The fact sheet does not specify a grace period or implementation timetable.

- **Inter‑agency data sharing** – The Executive Order directs State, Labor, and Homeland Security to seek wage, industrial‑condition, and specialization data from Commerce, Education, and the SBA. The fact sheet does not provide a start‑date for these consultations.

- **Layoff consideration** – Agencies must factor recent or planned layoffs of similarly situated U.S. workers into petition decisions. The record does not outline reporting deadlines or documentation formats.

- **Registration trends** – Monitoring whether the 92% reduction in registrations from large IT outsourcing firms persists under the new Order will be a key indicator of policy impact.

- **Consular processing volumes** – The nearly 97% decline in consular processing requests after the 2025 Proclamation offers a baseline for future comparison.

- **Job‑creation narrative** – The administration continues to cite broad employment gains; analysts may examine how, if at all, tighter H‑1B scrutiny correlates with those macro‑economic trends.