$100,000 H-1B Fee Leaves Biopharma Grappling With Impact

A proclamation requiring a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visa petitions will make it harder for foreign-born biopharma professionals to work in the U.S., based on BioSpace interviews with attorneys and talent acquisition experts.

The new fee is meant to restrict entry into the U.S. by nonimmigrants seeking jobs in specialty occupations through the H-1B program, according to the proclamation. The Trump administration is looking to curb what it sees as abuses that displace American workers and undermine national security, according to a White House fact sheet. The $100,000 fee expires in September 2026, unless it’s extended.

In fiscal year 2024, 1.9% of approved H-1B beneficiaries—7,393 people—worked in life sciences, according to a report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Of those beneficiaries, 53% sought visas for initial employment.

Because of the new petition fee, employers will reconsider hiring people who need H-1Bs, according to Maria Kallmeyer, partner and national chair of the immigration and mobility practice group at Quarles. She told BioSpace that $100,000 “is a completely unreasonable fee” that’s out of line with previous H-1B costs. This type of visa sponsorship has typically cost companies a few thousand dollars.

Kallmeyer noted that although there’s no clarity on who’ll pay the $100,000 fee, it’s a fair assumption it would be employers. However, that doesn’t mean they will.

“I think that companies are going to think twice about it, because a fee that high is going to be very difficult for them to pay for,” Kallmeyer said. “Maybe some companies will pay for it for some very particular people that they need, but I think it’s cost prohibitive for sure.”

Sandra Feist, founding attorney at Feist Law & Advocacy, had a similar viewpoint. She told BioSpace she works with a biomedical employer that hasn’t sponsored as many H-1B employees over the past year in part because of constant changes to policy and law related to sponsorships.

“So, I do think that employers are reconsidering how much they want to invest in international talent, and I think that’s a loss for our country, it’s a loss for these companies, but I understand why they feel just worn down by it all,” Feist said.

Bryan Blair, vice president of life sciences at talent solutions firm GQR, also commented on the H-1B sponsorship process, telling BioSpace it was already a pain for companies even before the $100,000 fee.

“A lot of times, the ones who are educated on the process are the most hesitant to hire somebody who is in the midst of it,” he said.

Blair expects that only large pharmas will consider paying the $100,000 fee and predicted that jobs requiring H-1B sponsorships could get outsourced to countries that have lower fees. For example, he said, if a European country makes application fees free, positions could move there.

That tactic could become a reality. According to the Financial Times, the British prime minister’s global talent task force is considering abolishing visa charges for top-level professionals to lure the world’s best scientists, among others, to the U.K.

Regarding the H-1B program, Blair noted that the U.S. biopharma industry benefits tremendously from it because of the economic concept of brain drain.

“When we globalize, we get the best talent, and those people aren’t going to other economies in China, Europe, places like that,” he said.

Leslie Loveless, co-chief executive officer and managing partner at Slone Partners, a life sciences and healthcare executive and fractional talent search firm, shared how the fee could affect smaller companies, such as Slone’s clients. Loveless told BioSpace that two midsize clients said that because of the fee, they expect they’ll hire few to no candidates who require H-1B sponsorship. She also shared that she thinks the fee will be completely cost prohibitive for Slone’s smaller clients. Loveless expects that they’ll tell her firm from the outset that they’re not open to visa sponsorships.

Overall, she said the fee will make it extremely hard to tap into foreign-born talent.

“I feel like there’s going to be a conversation for the next year where clients are saying to us, ‘We really can’t do that. We really can’t do the sponsorship,’” Loveless said. “And it’s unfortunate.”

The proclamation has sparked confusion since its Sept. 19 announcement. For example, it did not specify if the $100,000 fee for a new H-1B petition was a one-time cost or an annual payment for each year the visa is valid. A Sept. 21 USCIS fact sheet clarified that it was a one-time fee.

However, questions remain. Feist noted that her practice is still trying to understand the proclamation’s impact, as what it says is at odds with much of the guidance her firm is receiving. Kallmeyer said that what’s considered a new petition is unclear. She noted, for example, that she would consider a petition for someone who already has an H-1B and is changing employers to be a new petition but isn’t sure it would be classified that way when it comes to the fee.

Without the right guidance, according to Kallmeyer, the proclamation creates a lot of unrest and uncertainty.

“Clearly, I don’t agree with this policy at all, but at least if you’re going to put out a policy, some clarification around it and some clear guidance on what it means and what you want people to do would be helpful,” she said. “And that is very much not what we have seen here, and it’s hurting business. It’s going to hurt the U.S. There’s no question about that.”

Feist also criticized how the proclamation was rolled out, pointing out the ways the Trump administration followed up after the announcement to communicate additional information.

“It’s just so frustrating because they wrote a proclamation, and then they issue tweets and memos, and they are directly contradictory to the proclamation,” she said. “And so, it’s very hard if you are a biopharma employer, if you are a researcher to make informed decisions about how to proceed when there’s just so much conflicting guidance out there.”

Both Feist and Kallmeyer—who previously shared concerns with BioSpace about how Trump’s immigration policies could affect work visas—expect legal challenges to the proclamation. Feist noted, “There is not a law that permits you to create a new filing fee by proclamation. There is a process for this.”

As to the fee’s effect on biopharma moving forward, Kallmeyer said it could result in innovation moving away from the U.S. She noted that companies, especially large ones, may set up labs outside of the country rather than pay the $100,000 fee.

Feist expressed concern as well, sharing that she’s worried about the fee’s impact on research in the U.S. and doesn’t want to see international talent cut off. She also called for U.S. immigration systems that are more policy driven and less arbitrary.

“Our immigration laws have atrophied over the years because we haven’t updated them to address the modern realities of a global workforce and the emerging technologies like AI,” Feist said. “And so, our systems are not great, and they could be better, but taking a sledgehammer to them is not the way forward.”

Want more job market insights? Subscribe to Career Insider to receive our quarterly life sciences job market reports, career advice and more.