US Vice President J D Vance has strongly criticised the H-1B visa programme, calling it 'completely broken' and advocating for its abolition due to alleged corporate exploitation that displaces American workers.
Key Points
- US Vice President J D Vance advocates for the complete abolition of the H-1B visa programme, deeming it "completely broken."
- Vance asserts that corporations exploit the H-1B system to replace American workers with cheaper foreign labour, rather than attracting high-skilled talent.
- He defends the White House's controversial $100,000 levy on certain H-1B petitions as a deterrent against using the visa for low-cost labour.
- The current administration is implementing reforms, including evaluating layoffs by sponsoring firms and prioritising higher-salaried roles.
- Despite reforms, Vance believes these adjustments may not address core systemic flaws, reiterating his call for elimination to protect American workers.
United States Vice President J D Vance has branded the H-1B visa programme as 'completely broken', indicating he would back its total abolition on the grounds that corporations exploit the framework to substitute American personnel with cheaper international staff.
Vance's Stance on H-1B Exploitation
Sharing his stance via a video on the social media platform X, Vance asserted that the system has been 'totally taken advantage of' across technology firms, accounting practices and various other sectors.
He drew a distinct line between recruiting elite international talent and utilising H-1B permits merely to cut labour expenditures.
"If you're going to bring in an accountant making $45,000 a year to replace an accountant who is an American making $60,000 a year, that's not you using the programme to bring in a genius," Vance said.
"That's you destroying American jobs and defrauding the American people," he said.
Defending the $100,000 H-1B Levy
Furthermore, Vance defended the White House's controversial $100,000 levy applied to certain H-1B petitions.
This financial requirement originated in September 2025, targeting applicable submissions for personnel located overseas.
The administration subsequently prolonged the policy in September 2026, extending its duration through September 21, 2027, subject to narrow carve-outs encompassing situations deemed vital to national interests.
According to Vance, the executive branch regards this charge as a deterrent to stop businesses from leveraging H-1B permits simply to acquire low-cost labour.
"If you're just trying to replace an American accountant with a cheaper foreign accountant, then you're not going to pay $100,000," he said.
Officials maintain that the policy aims to realign recruitment towards positions demanding higher skill sets and offering elevated remuneration.
Administration's Reform Efforts
Vance's observations arrive as the current administration implements extensive reforms targeting the system.
An executive directive issued on September 18 instructs the Departments of State, Labour and Homeland Security to evaluate whether a sponsoring firm has recently executed, or intends to execute, layoffs affecting comparable domestic employees during the application review process.
Additionally, the directive mandates that the Labour Department scrutinise previously filed labour-condition applications to identify potential regulatory violations.
Simultaneously, the administration has established a tiered selection mechanism that prioritises higher-salaried roles.
Nevertheless, Vance intimated that these adjustments might still fall short of addressing core systemic flaws.
"My view is the H-1B programme is completely broken, and I'd be very supportive of just eliminating it," he said.
"But while we have it, what we have to do is protect American workers."
Judicial Challenges to the Fee
These statements arrive amidst persistent judicial challenges targeting the $100,000 fee.
On October 1, a federal magistrate enjoined the charge after determining that the administration failed to adhere to mandatory administrative rulemaking protocols, compounding an earlier judicial injunction issued earlier in the year.
