SMARTER Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill represents a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy, prioritizing economic contributions and skills over diversity and broad family reunification, while also introducing a high-cost investment visa pathway.
What it actually does
This bill fundamentally overhauls the U.S. legal immigration system by eliminating the Diversity Visa Program, severely restricting family-sponsored immigration to spouses and minor children, and establishing a new skills-based points system for employment-based visas. It creates a Skilled Migration and Recruitment of Talent (SMART) Board to determine annual immigration levels based on economic indicators, rebrands H-1B visas as 'SMARTER nonimmigrants' with new rules, and introduces a 'Gold-Card' visa program for high-fee applicants. Additionally, it mandates the use of AI for visa overstay identification and tightens naturalization requirements related to sponsor debts.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill will modernize the U.S. immigration system by focusing on attracting highly skilled individuals who can boost economic growth, innovation, and real wage growth for Americans. They contend that a data-driven approach, guided by the SMART Board, will ensure immigration levels are responsive to industrial needs and improve the nation's long-term fiscal outlook, while also reducing backlogs in the most critical family categories.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill severely curtails long-standing principles of family reunification and diversity, creating a system that prioritizes wealth and specific skills at the expense of humanitarian values and broader societal contributions. They argue that eliminating the Diversity Visa Program and restricting family categories will separate families and reduce the diversity of immigrant flows, while the high cost of the Gold Card visa could create an inequitable 'pay-to-stay' system.
The bill is moderately complex due to its extensive amendments to existing law and the introduction of new, detailed systems. An informed reader would require significant time to fully grasp its implications.
Sec. 2
Elimination of Diversity Visa Program
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to eliminate the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program, which currently allocates 55,000 visas annually to individuals from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States. It also includes numerous technical and conforming amendments throughout the INA to reflect this change.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that eliminating the Diversity Visa Program allows the U.S. to reallocate these visas to a skills-based system, which they believe is more beneficial for the U.S. economy and national interests by prioritizing individuals with specific talents and economic contributions.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that the Diversity Visa Program is crucial for maintaining a diverse immigrant population and offering a pathway to legal immigration for individuals from countries that might otherwise have limited opportunities. Its elimination would reduce diversity and cut off a vital avenue for many.
Tradeoffs
The provision trades off the goal of maintaining a diverse immigrant population against the objective of prioritizing skills-based immigration for perceived economic benefits.
Sec. 3
Restricts Family-Sponsored Immigration Priorities
This section significantly narrows family-sponsored immigration. It redefines 'child' for new petitions from under 21 to under 18 years of age. It also limits 'immediate relatives' of U.S. citizens to only spouses and minor children, explicitly removing parents. Furthermore, it amends the INA to restrict family-sponsored immigrants to only spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents, thereby eliminating all other family preference categories such as adult children and siblings. A new worldwide level of family-sponsored immigrants is set at 88,000, adjusted by the number of certain parolees.
Sec. 4, inserting new Sec. 203A into INA
Establishes Skilled Migration and Recruitment of Talent (SMART) Board
This section establishes a five-member, President-appointed, Senate-confirmed Skilled Migration and Recruitment of Talent (SMART) Board within the Department of Commerce. The Board is tasked with determining annual aggregate and industry-specific numerical limitations for employment-based immigrants and 'SMARTER nonimmigrants' (replacing H-1B visas). These determinations must aim to improve real wage growth, economic growth, innovation, and the long-term fiscal outlook of the U.S., without undermining the labor market for Americans, based on various economic data points like unemployment rates, wage growth, and industry contributions to GDP and R&D. The Board's decisions are subject to specific annual adjustment limits and limited judicial review.
Sec. 5, amending Sec. 201 and 203, adding new Sec. 220 to INA
Creation of Immigration Points System
This section repeals country-specific numerical limitations for immigrants and replaces the existing employment-based visa categories with a comprehensive points-based system (new Sec. 220). Applicants accrue points based on age (max 10 for 26-30), educational attainment (max 7 for U.S. professional/doctorate in STEM from R&D-heavy institutions), English language proficiency (max 12 for 10th decile), extraordinary achievement (25 for Nobel Laureates), and the annual salary of a job offer (max 28 for >=300% of median household income). Spouses and minor children (under 18) of principal applicants are admitted without counting against numerical limits, but dependent adult children are granted only temporary status without work authorization or permanent residence benefits. The system includes tie-breaking factors based on education, English proficiency, and age, and allows for re-application to improve scores.
Sec. 6
Reform and Replace H-1B Nonimmigrants with SMARTER Nonimmigrants
This section renames the H-1B nonimmigrant visa category to 'SMARTER nonimmigrants' and subjects its numerical limitations to the determinations of the new SMART Board. It eliminates foreign fashion models from this visa category. The bill introduces enhanced portability provisions, allowing SMARTER nonimmigrants to accept new employment in any industry and extending their period of authorized stay during petition processing. It also modifies job flexibility for applicants whose adjustment of status to permanent residence has been long delayed. A new criterion for awarding visas for simultaneously filed petitions prioritizes those that 'most increase long-term tax revenue.'
Sec. 7
Reforms Prevailing Wage Calculation
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to revise how prevailing wage levels are computed for occupational classifications in employment-based immigration and nonimmigrant worker programs. It mandates that the prevailing wage must be 'commensurate with experience, education, and the level of supervision' and equal to the 'median compensation received by United States workers with the same education and experience as the alien being hired and seeking admission to work in the same occupation and area of employment.' It also strikes a previous paragraph related to prevailing wage determinations.
Sec. 8
Naturalization Bar for Outstanding Debts from Affidavits of Support
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to add a new prerequisite for naturalization. It states that no person may be naturalized if the individual who executed an affidavit of support on their behalf has failed to reimburse the Federal Government for all means-tested public benefits received by the sponsored person, in accordance with existing law.
Sec. 9
Use of Artificial Intelligence to Identify Visa Overstays
This section directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and implement a process that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze Department of Homeland Security records, alien travel records, and other relevant data. The purpose of this AI system is to identify aliens who were admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant visa, whose authorized periods of stay have ended, but who have remained unlawfully in the country.
Sec. 10
Establishes Gold-Card Immigrant Visa Program
This section creates a new 'Gold-Card Immigrant Visa Program' for fiscal years 2026 through 2035. Under this program, 25,000 immigrant visas will be made available annually for individuals who pay a fee of $1,000,000 (or $2,000,000 if paid by a corporation on their behalf) to the Secretary of Commerce, plus a $15,000 processing fee. These visas are explicitly not subject to the worldwide levels or numerical limitations of other immigration laws. Applicants must undergo background checks and will receive employment authorization upon admission.
Sec. 11
Reporting Requirements on Immigration System
This section mandates two types of reports to Congress. Annually, the Secretary of Homeland Security must report on the number of employment-based visas issued under the new points system and Gold Card visas, including detailed characteristics of recipients (state of residence, education, English proficiency, initial employer, salary) and countries of nationality for Gold Card recipients. Quadrennially, DHS, in consultation with the Secretaries of Labor, Commerce, and State, must submit recommendations for revisions to the points system, aiming to increase U.S. GDP per capita, enhance immigrant economic success, improve fiscal health, and protect American wages.
For new petitions, the definition of 'child' is changed from under 21 to under 18 years of age. 'Immediate relatives' of U.S. citizens are restricted to spouses and minor children, explicitly removing parents from this category.
Sec. 3(a)(1) and (2)(A)(i)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative practice for amending existing statutes, but the specific changes to age and eligible family members are highly consequential and could be seen as an attempt to implement a major policy shift through definitional changes rather than a more direct, prominent statement.
Case for: Proponents argue this streamlines family immigration, focusing on the most immediate family unit (spouses and minor children) and reducing backlogs in other categories. It aligns with the bill's overall goal of shifting away from broad family reunification.
Case against: Opponents contend this is a drastic reduction in family reunification, severing pathways for adult children and parents to join their U.S. citizen family members, which has been a cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy for decades.
Estimated impact: Significantly reduces the scope of family-based immigration, impacting potentially hundreds of thousands of individuals annually by eliminating pathways for parents and adult children of U.S. citizens.
For employment-based immigrants under the new points system, any adult child who is unable to care for themselves may be admitted into the United States on a temporary basis, but 'may not be authorized to work in the United States or to receive any other benefits of permanent residence.'
Sec. 5(c)(1), adding new Sec. 203(b)(6)(C)
Why it matters:This is a highly restrictive provision for a vulnerable group, potentially included to limit the perceived 'burden' of family members accompanying skilled immigrants without explicitly barring them, thus avoiding more prominent scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents might argue this ensures that only truly dependent adult children are allowed entry, and that their presence does not create an additional burden on the U.S. labor market or public benefits system, aligning with the bill's economic focus.
Case against: Opponents would argue this is an inhumane provision that creates a second-class status for vulnerable individuals, denying them basic rights and the ability to contribute to society, even if they are part of a highly skilled immigrant family, and could lead to significant hardship.
Estimated impact: Creates a highly precarious and limited status for dependent adult children of skilled immigrants, potentially affecting a small but significant number of families by denying them work authorization and permanent residency benefits.
An alien who has been issued an employment-based immigrant visa under the new system, and 'every member of the household of such alien,' shall not be eligible for any Federal means-tested public benefit (as defined and implemented in section 403 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996).
Sec. 5(c)(1), adding new Sec. 203(b)(8)
Why it matters:This is a common tactic to limit access to public benefits for new immigrants, often included to address concerns about fiscal impact without being a central policy discussion point, thereby potentially avoiding broader debate on its social consequences.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that immigrants are self-sufficient and do not become a burden on public resources, aligning with the economic focus of the bill and reinforcing the idea that immigrants should contribute fiscally.
Case against: Opponents contend this creates a harsh environment for new immigrants and their families, potentially denying essential support during times of unexpected need (e.g., job loss, illness), even for those contributing significantly to the economy through their skills and taxes.
Estimated impact: Broadly restricts access to federal means-tested public benefits for all employment-based immigrants and their household members, potentially affecting thousands of individuals by denying them access to programs like Medicaid, SNAP, and TANF.
For special immigrants described as clergy, 'Notwithstanding section 101(a)(27), the spouse and children of a special immigrant admitted under this subsection may not accompany or follow to join the immigrant.'
Sec. 5(c)(1), adding new Sec. 203(b)(9)(B)
Why it matters:This is a highly restrictive and unusual provision, potentially included to limit the number of family members accompanying clergy without explicitly eliminating the clergy visa category, thus avoiding direct accusations of being anti-religious worker while still limiting overall immigration numbers.
Case for: Proponents might argue this limits the overall number of immigrants and ensures that the clergy visa program is strictly for religious workers, not a pathway for broader family reunification, aligning with the bill's overall restrictive stance on family immigration.
Case against: Opponents would argue this is an extreme measure that separates clergy from their families, making it difficult for religious organizations to attract and retain essential workers and violating principles of family unity, particularly for a group often serving communities.
Estimated impact: Prevents spouses and children of clergy from joining them in the U.S., affecting a specific group of religious workers and their families by forcing family separation.