For the past five years, the story of global employment has been written largely in the United States. Venture-backed platforms — financed and headquartered in the U.S. — positioned themselves as the default gateway to hiring anywhere.
They scaled on a mix of technology, delivery capability, and global reach, sustained by the idea that the U.S. would always provide a predictable entry point for international talent.
The recently enacted $100,000 H-1B fee unsettles that assumption. The administration has justified the move as a corrective: targeting widespread use of the H-1B programme by IT outsourcing firms, addressing claims of wage suppression in U.S. STEM roles, and citing national security risks. The official rationale is to curb what it calls “abuse” of the system and to protect domestic workers.
But the effect reaches beyond the U.S. debate. By sharply raising the cost of entry to the American labour market, the measure forces skilled workers and the employers who rely on them to reassess their options. While formally limited to 12 months, with exemptions for cases deemed in the national interest, the possibility of renewal leaves employers facing a new layer of uncertainty.
Beyond its domestic rationale, the fee operates as an economic lever: raising the cost of talent entry into the U.S. much as tariffs raise the cost of goods. For many employers, the question is not only whether they can afford the surcharge, but whether relocating staff to the U.S. remains practical at all. Some will absorb the cost for critical roles; others will keep teams in place or expand in alternative hubs.
The deeper concern is whether U.S. access can still be treated as a reliable foundation for workforce planning, or whether companies must now diversify and weigh immigration policy risk alongside cost, compliance, and talent availability.
Market Distortions and Capital Risk
Market estimates for Global Employer of Record and international PEO services vary, but they point to an industry still measured in the single-digit billions.
One report valued the global EOR market at around USD 5.2 billion in 2024, while a broader definition that includes international PEO services put the figure closer to USD 9.5 billion in the same year, with growth projected to exceed USD 10 billion in 2025.
By comparison, the broader domestic PEO market, covering payroll and HR outsourcing within single countries, is valued at more than USD 66 billion, underlining how much smaller the cross-border segment remains.
Growth is projected to exceed USD 10 billion in 2025, with longer-term forecasts suggesting the sector could reach USD 12.2 billion by 2033.
North America accounts for a significant share of international activity. Some analyses suggest that around one-third of international PEO/EOR revenues are generated in the region, reflecting the central role of the U.S. both as a destination for foreign talent and as the home market for most of the best-funded platforms.
This concentration matters because the enacted $100,000 H-1B fee strikes directly at that revenue base. If inbound hiring into the U.S. slows, the effect will not be limited to individual visa applications. It could unsettle the growth assumptions that underpinned the billions of dollars of U.S. venture funding poured into this sector.
For employers, the effects may be less visible but still significant. If providers face pressure to defend valuations or offset lower U.S. volumes, they could respond by adjusting pricing, narrowing the scope of services, or becoming more selective about complex client cases.
The issue is not collapse, but alignment. Companies operating across borders must now ask whether their chosen vendors are resilient enough to absorb policy shocks or whether their dependence on U.S. capital and U.S. policy makes them more exposed than expected.
The Global Ripple Effect
With the $100,000 H-1B fee now in force for all new petitions filed after 21 September 2025, the cost of moving talent into the U.S. has risen sharply. It does not end hiring, but it forces employers to weigh whether the U.S. remains the most practical location.
Several countries have already prepared for this competition. Canada, the UK, Australia, Singapore, and parts of the EU have widened visa routes in recent years, targeting the same skilled professionals who once would have defaulted to the U.S. Against a six-figure fee, those programmes appear far more attractive.
For employers, the calculation is no longer limited to identifying the right skills. It now includes entry costs, the stability of immigration policy, and the risk that rules may shift mid-stream. A firm that once hired engineers from India into long-term roles in Silicon Valley may now decide those roles belong in Toronto or London. A biotech company in Europe weighing expansion may choose Dublin or Amsterdam rather than Boston.
The fee does not close the door to U.S. hiring, but it shifts the balance of factors in cross-border workforce planning. Immigration costs and policy risk now sit alongside salaries, taxes, and compliance as part of the decision.
The Future of Global Employment
The new H-1B fee shows how quickly the rules of access to the U.S. labour market can change and how directly those changes can affect global hiring. For years, employers could plan around the idea that while U.S. visas were complex, the basic costs were predictable. That certainty is now gone.
What makes this fee a watershed moment is the precedent it sets. Immigration policy is no longer just an administrative process; it can be deployed as an economic lever.
Today it is a six-figure fee. Tomorrow it could be tighter quotas, new compliance demands, or restrictions on specific sectors. In this environment, mobility planning becomes as much about anticipating policy shifts as about calculating salaries or taxes.
The H-1B fee is also a tangible sign of a broader trend toward deglobalisation, where channels once open to global talent are being reinforced with new barriers.
Global employment providers face the same pressure. Those whose business models rely heavily on U.S. volumes will need to adapt by spreading risk across more markets, building systems resilient enough to cope with sudden changes.
This is the turning point: global employment strategies can no longer rest on the assumption of stable rules in any one market. The companies that succeed will be those that build flexible, distributed workforce models designed to withstand political shocks as well as economic ones.
Targeted Effects: Industries, Roles, and Nationalities
The $100,000 fee will not hit all employers equally. Its weight falls heaviest on industries and roles that have relied most on the H-1B route to move specialised staff into the United States.
Technology and IT services are the most exposed. Large U.S. tech firms and Indian outsourcing companies have used the programme to bring in engineers, data scientists, and developers at scale. A six-figure cost per visa makes bulk transfers uneconomical, forcing many firms to keep larger teams offshore.
Healthcare and life sciences face a different strain. Hospitals and clinics have long recruited doctors, nurses, and technicians from countries such as India and the Philippines to fill persistent shortages. Biotech and pharmaceutical research hubs in Boston and California also depend on international scientists and postdocs. For both, the surcharge adds friction to already tight talent pipelines.
Finance and consulting are also affected, especially at the mid-senior level. Global consultancies and investment firms often rotate staff into U.S. offices for projects or leadership development. The higher fee is likely to make these transfers more selective, reducing opportunities for mid-career mobility.
Engineering and advanced manufacturing employers — from semiconductors to energy — will also be hit. Specialists who were once routinely relocated for project work may now remain in regional centres, with U.S. operations carrying the cost of constrained access.
The nationalities most affected are those most represented in H-1B filings. Employees from India account for more than 70% of all visas, with Chinese professionals making up another significant share. For these groups, the new fee raises the risk of a “brain drain”: rather than waiting for an expensive and uncertain U.S. route, talent will seek alternative destinations such as Canada, the UK, Australia, EMEA where immigration pathways are more accessible.
In the short term, employers are likely to restrict U.S. transfers to only the most critical roles. For workers, particularly from India and China, the medium-term effect may be more decisive: many will redirect their careers toward markets with clearer immigration pathways, accelerating talent redistribution across regions.
The Age of Policy-Driven Global Talent Strategy
The $100,000 H-1B fee has changed how companies think about moving talent. For years, U.S. immigration rules were seen as complicated but predictable. That certainty is gone.
The new fee does more than raise costs. It signals that immigration rules can be used as active policy levers, with overnight consequences for employers. If the U.S. can impose six-figure fees, other countries may follow with their own barriers or incentives.
For employers, this creates a dual reality: more options as alternative hubs compete for talent, but also more volatility as access rules in multiple markets may change without warning. Workforce planning now requires flexibility built into mobility routes, not just attention to skills and salaries.
Providers and investors face the same challenge. Those that diversify exposure, track policy risk, and help clients adjust across jurisdictions will be better placed to retain trust.
Global hiring is not ending, but its geography is being redrawn. Companies that treat policy as a shifting variable and prepare for both new opportunities and new barriers, will be best positioned in the years ahead.