Representative Ro Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley—a region synonymous with technological innovation and entrepreneurship—has emphasized that reforms to the H-1B visa program cannot be approached with a uniform, one-size-fits-all framework. During a recent episode of the *All In* podcast released on Thursday, Khanna explained that although the system is undeniably in need of serious restructuring, he does not believe that the measures proposed by President Donald Trump’s administration offer the most constructive or balanced pathway to achieve effective reform.
Just last month, the Trump administration revealed a set of changes that significantly alter the practical and financial landscape of the H-1B visa program, which has long served as one of the most important channels through which highly skilled foreign professionals enter the United States to work at major multinational corporations. Among the proposals was the staggering introduction of a $100,000 application fee for each new visa petition. Paired with this unprecedented financial requirement, the administration also announced its intent to dismantle the existing lottery-based selection mechanism, replacing it with a system grounded in prioritizing applicants based on their skill levels and proposed wage offers. According to the White House, such policy shifts were designed under the banner of protecting American workers and preserving jobs for U.S. citizens.
Khanna, however, expressed deep reservations during the podcast. He made clear that he strongly opposes the concept of a blanket $100,000 fee for every new H-1B visa, arguing that such a measure does not represent a thoughtful or equitable strategy for reform. In particular, he pointed out that imposing such a steep barrier to entry would disproportionately disadvantage startups and early-stage companies, many of which operate on limited financial resources. Instead of granting them access to the diverse pool of global talent they desperately need to compete, these young firms would find themselves shut out, while larger and wealthier corporations would absorb the costs without major disruption.
While Khanna did not reject the idea of reform entirely, he stressed the importance of ensuring changes are rooted in fairness and attuned to economic realities. He suggested that revisions centered on prevailing wage requirements or other targeted adjustments could offer a more nuanced and constructive direction. By aligning reforms with clear labor standards rather than blunt financial instruments, policymakers could protect American workers while still enabling smaller innovators to thrive.
For many entrepreneurs in the startup ecosystem, the administration’s proposed fee has been received with alarm. Founders have voiced concern that such a financial hurdle would force them into a vulnerable position, unable to compete with technology giants that have vast budgets and already dominate the H-1B visa landscape. Indeed, data shows that last year, the companies with the highest numbers of H-1B holders were among the biggest names in the tech sector, further exacerbating fears that reforms could unintentionally entrench incumbents while suffocating competition from smaller firms.
Khanna also acknowledged the existence of genuine abuses within the H-1B system, pointing to problematic practices such as multiple lottery entries or the use of shell companies to increase applicants’ odds. Addressing these loopholes, he argued, is important for safeguarding the program’s integrity. Nevertheless, he cautioned that misuse should not become the rationale for overcorrection that inadvertently undermines the program’s legitimate and strategically important functions.
During the same discussion, Khanna referenced insights from his recent trip to China, noting reports that roughly one-third of the world’s artificial intelligence talent resides there. He proposed that the United States must actively attract a share of these individuals through programs like the H-1B in order to maintain its competitive edge in emerging fields such as AI. Without such forward-looking immigration policies, the U.S. could risk falling behind in technological leadership.
Khanna’s viewpoint has been echoed by influential figures within the technology ecosystem. Earlier in the week, LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman expressed nearly identical concerns about the detrimental impact of imposing a uniform $100,000 fee on startups. Hoffman went further to suggest that while he supported a fee-based system for visa access—possibly involving either a singular large payment or recurring annual charges—there must be explicit carve-outs or accommodations for smaller, resource-constrained businesses. Startups, he argued, are indispensable drivers of innovation, yet they are also least capable of absorbing extraordinary costs compared to their larger, cash-rich counterparts.
Interestingly, Hoffman even noted that the Trump administration’s idea resembled a version of a policy proposal he had personally been advocating for over eight years. However, he underscored that for such a reform to succeed, it must be executed comprehensively and coherently, rather than piecemeal or selectively. Without careful implementation, he warned, the program risks becoming not only ineffective but potentially catastrophic for the very sectors it is intended to empower.
Together, these reflections from Khanna and Hoffman underscore the urgent need for a balanced recalibration of U.S. immigration policy. While the objective of protecting American workers remains valid, any reform must also safeguard the ability of startups to recruit top global talent and continue fostering the culture of innovation that has long defined Silicon Valley and the United States more broadly.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/ro-khanna-blanket-100k-fee-on-h1b-not-the-solution-2025-10
