H-1B wage and OPT changes

Summary#

This bill would change rules for two main parts of the U.S. temporary high-skilled worker system: the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program for international students, and the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program. Its main goals are to end OPT, raise H-1B wage requirements, restrict H-1B use for work at third-party worksites, and approve H-1B petitions based on pay levels. The stated policy aim is to protect U.S. workers and raise wages for jobs filled by foreign nationals.

Key changes:

• Ends the OPT program. F-1 student work authorization through OPT would stop and any pending OPT applications would be denied with fees refunded.
• Raises H-1B minimum pay. Employers must pay the H-1B worker at least the higher of (a) the wage paid to a U.S. employee doing identical or similar work in the prior two years, or (b) $150,000 in the first year after enactment, with later years adjusted upward by the Consumer Price Index.
• Limits third-party placements. If any H-1B work will be done at a third-party worksite (for example, a client site), the visa may be valid for no more than one year. The work assignment must be specific, non-speculative, and continue for the entire requested period.
• Prioritizes higher-paid petitions. When issuing H-1B visas in a fiscal year, approvals would be prioritized for petitions that offer higher compensation, regardless of filing order.
• Restricts agency-created work programs. The bill says no federal agency can grant work authorization through a program that was not created by an act of Congress.

What it means for you#

• International students (F-1 visa holders):

  • OPT work authorization would end. Students could not use OPT or any successor program to work after finishing studies.
  • Any OPT application pending when the law starts would be denied and fees refunded.

• Employers who hire OPT workers (including universities, startups, tech companies):

  • Could no longer hire F-1 graduates on OPT.
  • May lose a source of temporary, lower-cost post-graduation labor.

• H-1B applicants and current H-1B workers:

  • Employers must offer at least the higher of a current comparable U.S. employee’s wage (over the prior 2 years) or the $150,000 floor (adjusted later by CPI).
  • Petitions for jobs involving third-party worksites may be limited to one-year visas and must describe a specific, continuous assignment.

• Staffing firms and companies that place workers at client sites (third-party worksites):

  • H-1B use for staff assigned to client sites would face one-year limits and stricter requirements that the assignment be specific and durable.
  • This may make long-term client-site placements harder to use under H-1B.

• U.S. workers:

  • The bill is intended to increase wages and favor hiring U.S. workers by raising H-1B pay floors and ending OPT. The bill itself does not create direct new hiring rules for U.S. workers beyond the H-1B wage and priority changes.

• Government agencies (USCIS, Department of Labor, etc.):

  • Would need to apply the new wage test, enforce third-party assignment rules, process refunds for denied OPT applications, and implement a pay-based prioritization system for H-1B approvals.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Possible fiscal and private costs (inferred from the text):

• This could increase administrative and enforcement work for federal agencies that handle visas and employment verification.
• Employers would likely face higher wage costs for H-1B hires because of the $150,000 floor and the requirement to match similar U.S. employee pay.
• Universities and students would lose OPT-related earnings; employers lose a source of temporary workers.
• Staffing firms and client companies could face higher compliance or restructuring costs to meet the one-year and assignment-specific rules.

Proponents' View#

The bill appears intended to address concerns stated in its findings and to change incentives in the labor market. Possible arguments in favor include:

• The bill appears intended to reduce use of lower-paid foreign labor that the sponsors say displaces U.S. workers.
• Raising the H-1B wage floor could be seen as protecting U.S. wage levels for comparable jobs.
• Ending OPT could be seen as removing what the bill calls an employer subsidy that shifts hiring away from U.S. workers.
• Limiting long-term third-party placements and requiring specific assignments could reduce speculative or outsourcing uses of H-1B visas.
• Prioritizing higher-paid petitions could direct H-1B slots to jobs with higher compensation.

Opponents' View#

The bill’s design raises several practical concerns and trade-offs based on the text:

• One concern is that ending OPT would stop a common path for international students to work in the U.S. after graduation. This could reduce earnings for students and affect employers that rely on that pipeline.
• One concern is that a $150,000 minimum salary could make many H-1B roles unaffordable for small businesses and startups or for occupations that pay less than that figure even for skilled workers.
• The bill does not clearly explain how to calculate the comparable U.S. employee wage in all cases (for example, when identical or similar U.S. employees do not exist), which may create implementation questions.
• One concern is that one-year limits and strict specificity for third-party assignments could disrupt industries that commonly use client-site placements and increase paperwork and contract restructuring.
• Prioritizing petitions strictly by pay might encourage employers to change pay structures or contract terms to gain priority, and could leave lower-paid but still highly skilled roles harder to fill.
• It is unclear how agencies will handle the transition, appeals, or potential legal challenges that could arise from these major changes.