Don’t price out global talent

WHEN Washington unveiled a $100,000 payment requirement for all new H-1B petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025, markets in Mumbai shuddered. IT services stocks shed nearly $10 billion in value in a single day, the rupee slipped, and analysts rushed to reassess earnings forecasts for India’s most globalised sector.

Within hours, US officials clarified: the rule applies only to new petitions, not to renewals or existing H-1B holders. Nor is it an annual levy. This spared tens of thousands of Indian engineers already working in America—and their employers—from a devastating surprise. Yet the relief was only partial. For a country whose citizens account for about 71% of H-1B approvals, the new cost still lands like a body blow.

Indian IT firms rely heavily on rotating engineers through client projects in the United States. A six-figure fee per new worker alters the arithmetic. Companies must either absorb the cost—squeezing margins already pressured by automation and global competition—or pass it along to clients, risking lost contracts. The fee also fuels fears of reduced labor mobility. Fewer visas issued could mean fewer remittances flowing back to India, denting household incomes and complicating the balance of payments. While immediate remittance losses are speculative, investor sentiment has already priced in the risk. And for tens of thousands of Indian graduates, the H-1B has long been a ticket to Silicon Valley dreams. That lottery just became dramatically more expensive—and more uncertain.

For Washington, the case for reform is program integrity. The beneficiary-centric lottery, introduced in 2024, already curtailed abuse by eliminating duplicate entries for the same applicant. The new $100,000 charge is meant to further deter mass filings and restore credibility. But integrity is not the same as competitiveness. America’s tech economy depends on a steady inflow of skilled immigrants in AI, semiconductors, and biotech. If even a fraction of brilliant engineers decide the upfront cost and lottery odds make the US. unattractive, the policy will have undercut the very innovation advantage it seeks to protect. The White House was right to clarify that existing H-1Bs are untouched. The bigger test will be whether the U.S. can preserve credibility without pricing itself out of the global talent market.

The UK presents a more complicated picture. On one hand, Britain will raise the Skilled Worker salary threshold to £41,700 starting July 22, 2025. This makes the route more restrictive for mid-level professionals and narrows opportunities for many Indians who previously saw the UK as a backup option. On the other hand, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is actively exploring plans to abolish visa fees for top global talent. A “Global Talent Taskforce,” chaired by business adviser Varun Chandra and backed by Science Minister Lord Patrick Vallance, is weighing proposals to waive costs altogether for those who have graduated from elite universities or won prestigious prizes. With the Global Talent Visa currently charging £766 per applicant plus a £1,035 annual health surcharge, such a move would mark a dramatic shift. These proposals remain under discussion, but the timing is telling. Insiders admit that America’s H-1B fee hike has “put wind in the sails” of those advocating for reforms in London. If Britain follows through, it could offset its higher salary bar by opening a no-cost fast lane for scientists, engineers, and digital experts.

The most surprising entrant to this contest is China. Starting October 1, 2025, Beijing will launch a new “K visa” designed to attract young foreign STEM professionals. Reports suggest the visa will allow multiple entries, longer stays, and fewer sponsorship hurdles. Skeptics point out the challenges of relocating to China—language, culture, and politics remain formidable barriers. Yet symbolism matters. At the very moment America and Britain are making entry harder or more expensive for most migrants, China is advertising itself as more open, at least for targeted talent pools. Even modest uptake would signal a shift in the global geography of opportunity.

These moves reveal a new geopolitics of talent. The United States enforces integrity but risks undercutting its innovation magnetism. The United Kingdom raises the bar for most, but may soon court the elite with zero-cost visas. China sees its chance to lure young scientists and engineers into its ecosystem. India sits uncomfortably at the intersection—its talent in demand globally, but its most reliable pathway suddenly far costlier. Mobility has become strategy. Whoever attracts the best minds in AI, clean energy, and life sciences will set the pace of the 21st century.

India cannot afford to treat the H-1B shock as merely America’s problem. It must diversify pathways by securing labor mobility agreements with Canada, the EU, and Australia to reduce overreliance on the U.S. route. It must invest at home by scaling R&D funding, improving startup ecosystems, and building cities that compete with Silicon Valley not as back-offices but as innovation hubs. It must encourage reverse aspiration by creating conditions under which staying in Bangalore or Hyderabad feels as rewarding as moving to California. The crisis can thus become a spur for India to reduce vulnerability to any single visa regime.

India has already absorbed the shock—billions lost in IT market value, margin pressures looming, and young professionals suddenly priced out of their dream corridor. America has insulated existing workers but must reckon with a longer-term competitiveness risk. Britain is hedging—raising salary thresholds while flirting with a no-fee elite visa. China, meanwhile, is seizing the moment to market itself as open.

The H-1B shock is not just a bureaucratic tweak. It is a test of how nations value talent in an age when talent is the ultimate currency of power. For India, the losses are immediate. For America, the gamble is strategic. For Britain and China, the opportunity is real. The question now is not whether the world will compete for brains—it already does—but whether America’s gamble and India’s response will strengthen or weaken their place on the global talent chessboard.