$100,000 US Visa Fee Could Block Indian Talent. What Comes Next?

As US Doors Narrow, India’s Lack of Long-Term Planning Comes into Focus

September 25, 2025

The U.S. has introduced a $100,000 fee for every H-1B visa, making it far too costly for most companies to hire Indian professionals. This puts at risk the kinds of jobs that once built careers, brought in foreign income and helped Indian firms deliver global projects.  So, what we see here is that India has spent years building a workforce geared for international jobs, yet access to those jobs still depends on rules set by other countries. Could India have done more to prepare for this?

First, let’s look at how this will affect families, companies and colleges in India.

Many Indian families put everything on the line for a shot at an overseas job. They borrow for engineering degrees, pay for coaching classes, and cover the costs of English tests, applications and visa processing. Students train for interviews and pick up skills aimed at global roles. A single job abroad can repay years of debt and effort.

The new visa fee now makes that path too expensive for most. The drop in opportunities will hit families hard and lower remittance flows that support local economies and boost India’s dollar reserves.

Similarly, Indian service firms depend heavily on short-term U.S. assignments. These roles help manage projects and keep overseas clients satisfied. The new costs will make those assignments harder to justify. Some projects may get delayed or relocated, while others could be scrapped. Fewer overseas roles also mean fewer jobs within India.

As far as higher education is concerned, degrees in engineering or medicine may no longer guarantee access to global work. Families might stop investing in them, and colleges could struggle to explain their high fees. India will also miss the knowledge that professionals usually bring home, like exposure to advanced systems, better management methods and global training. That absence will affect startups, hiring quality and future leadership.

What India Needed to Do

India needed a two-part plan: train its people for international work and reduce dependence on any one country’s visa policies. That plan would have required stronger negotiating power, more job pathways abroad and better options at home for skilled workers. With time, it would have protected India from sudden policy shifts in other countries.

Labour mobility agreements with more nations could have been a key step. Countries like the Philippines and Vietnam have done this well. Their workers now have legal entry into job markets in Japan, Canada and the UAE. India stayed focused on the U.S. Wider agreements would have created more choices and eased the pressure on a single system.

India also needed to build a stronger domestic services ecosystem. Instead of relying on outbound migration, the government could have created incentives for foreign firms to set up delivery hubs within India. Some cities like Bengaluru and Hyderabad have seen progress, but the scale has not been enough to hold back the outflow of talent.

Trade policy offered another opening. Countries such as the U.K. have included worker mobility in their trade agreements. India has mostly kept trade and migration separate. Linking worker access to trade deals could have improved visa processing and raised skilled worker quotas abroad.

A big gap still exists in getting Indian qualifications recognised in other countries. Many Indian professionals struggle to enter markets outside the English-speaking world because their degrees or training are not accepted. India could have partnered with more countries to standardise qualifications and improve access to European and Southeast Asian labour markets.

The most important change would have been creating better job opportunities within India. Jobs with global-level pay, better work conditions and strong career paths could have kept skilled workers within the country. This would have required investment in research, technology and innovation-based industries, like fields that reward engineering and technical skills.

What Other Countries Got Right

Several countries have handled foreign labour dependence with more foresight and better planning.

The Philippines created a national system to manage overseas jobs, especially in healthcare and domestic work. The government signs agreements that set rules for pay, recruitment and worker safety. It also runs pre-departure training, provides legal support during foreign assignments and helps workers return smoothly to local jobs. Labour migration is part of state policy, not left to individuals to figure out on their own.

Vietnam has built a similarly structured system. The government places workers in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Germany through quota-based agreements. Public agencies handle recruitment to ensure quality and fair conditions. This spreads risk across countries and gives the state more oversight.

Countries like Poland and Romania have used education to open doors. They help students study in other EU countries, where clear post-study work rights give them a legal way into the job market and make it easier to get around tough immigration rules.

India can’t control U.S. visa rules, of course. But this risk didn’t come out of nowhere. Other countries saw it coming and prepared. India apparently didn’t. Across several governments, there was little effort to create more options or backup plans. This crisis is the result of long-term neglect.

You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.