Comment on Proposed Changes to H1B Visa Approvals

Yesterday, I left a comment regarding the Deparment of Homeland Security’s proposechanges to the Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking To File Cap-Subject H–1B Petitions.

November 24, 2025

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

Business and Foreign Workers Division

Office of Policy and Strategy

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

5900 Capitol Gateway Drive

Camp Springs, MD 20746

Re: Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking to File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions, CIS No. 2820-25; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2025-0040

Dear Mr. Good:

On behalf of The Bull Moose Project, I write to discuss the proposed rule change regarding the H-1B selection process. In short, we support the proposed rule change, but do not believe it goes far enough. More significant changes – including stricter limits on income requirements and the elimination of the H-1B lottery – should be pursued.

The H-1B program came about via the Immigration Act of 1990, breaking apart the previous H-1 visa into two sections, H-1A and H-1B. But the creation of H-1B was tucked away deep in the bill, and was not the main focus of the debate over the bill, which more broadly raised the cap on total immigrants to the United States per year to 700,000. In his signing statement, President George H. W. Bush did not mention the new H-1B program at all. Some media discussions did include mention of the new program, though often not by name. A New York Times summation of the bill, while it was still being debated in the House of Representatives, portrayed the new legislation as allowing for skilled workers, with one expert being quoted as saying, “'If you don't do that, what you get is an immigration policy that may be turning away Albert Einsteins.”

The bill itself declared that the new H-1B visa holders would be “coming temporarily to the United States to perform services…in a specialty occupation,” which was defined as “an occupation that requires— (A) theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge, and (B) attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.” An annual cap of 65,000 was instituted as well.

For years, both parties mostly supported the H-1B program; the few opponents it had tended to be pro-labor forces on the left and immigration skeptics on the right. But over the past few years, skepticism has increased. 

This skepticism is likely due to, in part, the fact that the program has not abided by its original sales pitch. For one, H-1B holders overwhelmingly have not come temporarily to the United States. One estimate pegged the total number of H-1B visa holders at over 700,000; when dependents were taken into account, the total number rose to roughly 1.3 million individuals. Those who are on H-1B visas, and who remain long enough, can also apply for green cards, which allow for permanent residency, effectively nullifying the idea that H-1B visas are in any way “temporary.”

The program has also not kept up with the times economically. In 1998, a salary floor of $60,000 was created for the H-1B program. This made sense: at the time, the median US household income was roughly $38,000. Therefore, a salary floor of $60,000 highlighted the fact that H-1B holders were engaged in especially occupations.

But it is not 1998. In 2024, the median household income was significantly higher, reaching nearly $84,000. Because the H-1B salary floor of $60,000 has not been raised, H-1B visa holders are now taking below-average income jobs from Americans.

The Trump administration clearly recognizes this incongruity, and as a result has put forward the proposed rule. Weighing H-1B visas toward higher-income positions will, as laid out in the posting, “better serve the Congressional intent for the H-1B program,” as it was originally intended for high-paying “speciality occupations.”

DHS should also raise the salary floor for H-1B positions. While Congress mandated a floor, they did not mandate that visas must be supplied at that floor. 1998’s $60,000 salary floor was roughly 1.5 times the median household income. As 2024’s median household income was roughly $84,000, the de facto floor should be raised to 1.5 times that amount, which would be around $126,000.

Again, we reiterate that we support this rule change. But to truly match Congressional intent, to ensure that the H-1B visa program is not being misused by companies which prefer to hire cheap, foreign labor, and to ensure that the H-1B visa is indeed for workers “coming temporarily to the United States,” we believe further changes are needed.

Sincerely,

Anthony J. Constantini

Policy Analyst

The Bull Moose Project

Washington, DC