SMARTER Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Schweikert, David [R-AZ-1]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 16, 2026
Bottom line
The SMARTER Act shifts U.S. immigration policy towards a merit-based system focused on economic contributions and away from family reunification and diversity, while also creating a new high-cost visa pathway.
What it actually does
This bill fundamentally overhauls the U.S. immigration system by eliminating the Diversity Visa Program and significantly narrowing family-sponsored immigration to only spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents. It establishes a new skills-based points system for employment-based immigrants, overseen by a new 'SMART Board' that determines annual aggregate and industry-specific numerical limitations for both employment-based visas and H-1B (renamed 'SMARTER') nonimmigrant visas. Additionally, it creates a 'Gold-Card' immigrant visa program for high-net-worth individuals or corporations paying substantial fees.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill will improve real wage growth, stimulate economic growth, foster innovation, and enhance the long-term fiscal outlook of the United States by prioritizing immigrants with skills and high earning potential. They contend that a points-based system ensures the U.S. attracts talent that directly addresses labor market needs and contributes significantly to the economy, without undermining the labor market for American workers. The elimination of the Diversity Visa and narrowing of family-based categories are presented as necessary steps to streamline and modernize the immigration system to meet contemporary economic demands.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill would drastically alter the fabric of American society by dismantling long-standing pillars of family reunification and diversity in immigration. They argue that narrowing family-sponsored visas to exclude adult children and siblings would separate families, while eliminating the Diversity Visa would reduce pathways for individuals from underrepresented countries. Critics also express concern that a purely skills-based system could exacerbate inequalities, favor wealthier applicants, and potentially lead to wage suppression in certain sectors despite the bill's stated intent, while the Gold-Card program creates a 'pay-to-play' system for the rich.
The bill is moderately dense due to numerous technical amendments and the introduction of complex new systems. An informed reader would require significant time to fully grasp its implications, likely exceeding typical legislative review periods.
Section 2
Elimination of Diversity Visa Program
This section repeals subsection (c) of Section 203 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which established the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. It also includes numerous technical and conforming amendments throughout the Act to remove all references to the Diversity Visa Program, ensuring its complete removal from U.S. immigration law. This change takes effect on the first day of the first fiscal year after enactment.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that eliminating the Diversity Visa Program allows the U.S. to reallocate those visas to a more economically beneficial, skills-based system, aligning immigration with national economic priorities rather than random selection.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that the Diversity Visa Program is crucial for maintaining diversity in the immigrant population and providing opportunities for individuals from countries that might otherwise have limited avenues for legal immigration to the U.S.
Tradeoffs
The provision trades off the goal of diversifying immigrant origins with the goal of prioritizing specific economic contributions, reflecting a fundamental shift in immigration philosophy.
Section 3
Focus on Spouses and Minor Children for Family-Sponsored Immigration
This section significantly narrows family-sponsored immigration categories. It redefines 'immediate relative' for new petitions to an unmarried person under 18 (down from 21) and limits immediate relatives of U.S. citizens to only spouses and children (removing parents). For lawful permanent residents, family-sponsored visas are restricted solely to spouses and minor children. All other family-based preference categories (e.g., adult children, siblings) are eliminated. Petitions filed after the bill's introduction for eliminated categories are invalidated.
Section 4
Establishment of the SMART Board and Industrial Need Determination
This section establishes the 'Skilled Migration and Recruitment of Talent Board' (SMART Board) within the Department of Commerce. This five-member, Presidentially-appointed board is tasked with determining annual aggregate numerical limitations for employment-based immigrants and H-1B (SMARTER) nonimmigrants. Starting in the second covered fiscal year, the Board will also allocate these aggregate limits among different industries based on economic factors like unemployment rates, vacancy rates, wage growth, and contributions to GDP and innovation. The Board's decisions are subject to specific annual adjustment limits and are largely exempt from judicial review and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Section 5
Creation of an Immigration Points System for Employment-Based Visas
This section establishes a new points-based system for allocating employment-based immigrant visas, replacing the existing preference categories and eliminating country-specific numerical limitations. Applicants accrue points based on age, educational attainment (with higher points for U.S. STEM degrees from research-intensive institutions), English language proficiency, extraordinary achievement (e.g., Nobel Laureate), and the annual salary of a job offer (higher salary earns more points). Spouses and minor children (under 18) of successful applicants are also granted visas and are not counted against numerical limitations, but a spouse's lower points in certain categories can reduce the applicant's total points. Clergy visas are also subject to a points system, but without salary points, and have a cap per denomination.
Section 6
Reform and Replacement of H-1B Visas with SMARTER Nonimmigrants
This section renames H-1B nonimmigrants to 'SMARTER nonimmigrants' and ties their numerical limitations to the determinations made by the new SMART Board. It eliminates the category for foreign fashion models under this visa type. Crucially, it introduces new portability rules, allowing SMARTER nonimmigrants to accept new employment regardless of industry and providing for continued authorized stay for 120 days if a new petition is denied. It also expands job flexibility for long-delayed applicants for permanent residence. Visas are to be awarded in an order that 'most increase long-term tax revenue,' including adjustments for geographic differences.
Section 7
Revised Computation of Prevailing Wage
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to change how the 'prevailing wage' is computed for certain immigrant and nonimmigrant visas (including employment-based and SMARTER nonimmigrants). The new rule specifies that the prevailing wage must be commensurate with the alien's experience, education, and level of supervision, and must be the *median* compensation received by U.S. workers with the *same* education and experience in the same occupation and area of employment. It also strikes a previous paragraph related to prevailing wage calculations.
Section 10
Gold-Card Immigrant Visa Program
This section establishes a 'Gold-Card' immigrant visa program, making 25,000 visas available annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2035. Individuals can obtain these visas by paying a fee of $1,000,000 (plus a $15,000 processing fee) to the Secretary of Commerce, or corporations can pay $2,000,000 (plus $15,000) on behalf of an immigrant. These visas are not subject to worldwide or numerical limitations under existing immigration laws. Applicants must pass background checks and receive employment authorization. Fees are subject to inflation adjustments every two years.
Redefines 'child' for immigration purposes. For individuals with a petition pending before enactment, a child is an unmarried person under 21. For new petitions, a child is an unmarried person under 18.
Section 3(a)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for managing transitions between old and new legal frameworks, ensuring that existing applications are not retroactively invalidated while new rules apply to future cases.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides a clear cutoff, preventing a sudden invalidation of existing petitions while implementing the new, narrower definition of a child for future immigration.
Case against: Critics might argue that even with the grandfathering clause, the reduction of the age limit to 18 for new petitions significantly restricts family reunification for adult children who are still dependents in many cultures.
Estimated impact: Affects the eligibility of thousands of prospective immigrants who would have qualified as 'children' under the previous age 21 definition for new petitions.
Invalidates any family-sponsored immigration petition filed after the bill's introduction date if it falls under a category eliminated by the Act.
Section 3(d)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to prevent a rush of applications in anticipation of a law's enactment, ensuring that the new rules are applied as intended from the outset.
Case for: Proponents would argue this prevents a backlog of applications under categories that are intended to be eliminated, ensuring a clean transition to the new system.
Case against: Critics would argue this creates an unfair retroactive effect, penalizing individuals who filed petitions in good faith under existing law before the bill's passage, even if after its introduction.
Estimated impact: Potentially invalidates thousands of petitions, causing significant disruption and disappointment for affected families.
States that an alien issued an employment-based immigrant visa under the new system, and every member of their household, shall not be eligible for any Federal means-tested public benefit.
Section 5(c)(8)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative tactic to address concerns about immigrants' potential reliance on public assistance, often included in broader immigration reform to garner support from fiscal conservatives.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that new employment-based immigrants are self-sufficient and do not become a burden on public resources, aligning with the bill's goal of improving the fiscal outlook.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this provision could create hardship for immigrant families, especially during economic downturns or unforeseen circumstances, and could lead to negative public health or social outcomes.
Estimated impact: Affects the financial safety net for all new employment-based immigrants and their families, potentially impacting thousands of households.
Establishes special rules for clergy visas, including a requirement for the sponsoring religious organization to certify the salary will prevent the alien from qualifying for means-tested public benefits, explicitly stating no family members may accompany or follow to join, and imposing a limitation per religious denomination.
Section 5(c)(9)
Why it matters:This is likely a compromise or specific carve-out to address concerns about potential abuses or fiscal impacts related to religious worker visas, while still allowing a pathway for clergy.
Case for: Proponents argue these rules prevent potential abuse of the clergy visa category, ensure self-sufficiency, and manage the flow of religious workers, addressing concerns about the integrity of the program.
Case against: Opponents, particularly religious organizations, would argue that the exclusion of family members and the strict salary certification requirements are unduly harsh and could make it difficult to bring essential religious workers to the U.S.
Estimated impact: Significantly alters the conditions for clergy immigration, potentially reducing the number of religious workers and impacting religious communities' ability to staff their institutions.
Amends the awarding of H-1B (now SMARTER) visas, stating that in cases of simultaneous petitions (e.g., during initial registration periods), visas or status shall be provided in the order that will 'most increase long-term tax revenue,' including adjustments for geographic differences.
Section 6(f)
Why it matters:This is a substantively significant policy shift presented as a technical adjustment to visa allocation, potentially to avoid direct scrutiny of its implications.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that the most economically beneficial applicants, those projected to contribute the most to the tax base, are prioritized, aligning with the bill's fiscal goals.
Case against: Critics would argue that 'long-term tax revenue' is a highly speculative and potentially discriminatory criterion, difficult to measure accurately, and could lead to biases against certain occupations, demographics, or regions.
Estimated impact: Could significantly alter the composition of SMARTER nonimmigrants, prioritizing higher-earning individuals and potentially influencing where they settle.
Adds a new prerequisite for naturalization: no person may be naturalized if the individual who executed an affidavit of support for them has failed to reimburse the Federal Government for all means-tested public benefits received by the person.
Section 8(c)
Why it matters:This is a substantively important change to naturalization eligibility, placed in a section that is not typically the focus of major policy debates, potentially to avoid drawing immediate attention to its impact.
Case for: Proponents argue this strengthens the affidavit of support requirement, ensuring that sponsors fulfill their financial obligations and that immigrants do not become a burden on public funds, thereby protecting taxpayers.
Case against: Opponents would argue this creates an additional, potentially insurmountable barrier to naturalization for immigrants, especially if their sponsors are unable or unwilling to reimburse the government, regardless of the immigrant's own qualifications.
Estimated impact: Could prevent thousands of otherwise eligible immigrants from naturalizing, creating a permanent underclass of legal residents without full citizenship rights.