American White-Collar Worker Jobs Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 4, 2026
Bottom line
The bill proposes a comprehensive overhaul of the H-1B visa program, aiming to prioritize U.S. workers by making it substantially more difficult for employers to hire foreign workers and for foreign workers to obtain and maintain H-1B status.
What it actually does
This bill, the "American White-Collar Worker Jobs Act of 2026," significantly reforms the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program by reasserting Congressional authority over immigration, tightening eligibility requirements for both employers and H-1B applicants, increasing wage standards, and strengthening enforcement mechanisms. It repeals provisions that allowed for dual intent and extensions beyond six years, imposes strict hiring and layoff restrictions on employers, and caps the number of H-1B visas at 65,000 annually with a 7% per-country limit.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill protects American jobs by ensuring that H-1B visas are only used when truly necessary, preventing the displacement of U.S. workers, and raising wage standards to eliminate unfair competition. They contend it restores Congress's constitutional authority over immigration and closes loopholes that have allowed the H-1B program to be misused, thereby safeguarding the interests of domestic white-collar professionals.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill's drastic restrictions on H-1B visas would severely limit U.S. companies' access to critical global talent, stifle innovation, and harm economic competitiveness, especially in high-tech sectors. They might contend that the increased wage requirements and strict hiring mandates are impractical and could lead to job outsourcing rather than domestic job creation, while the elimination of dual intent would make the U.S. a less attractive destination for highly skilled foreign professionals.
The bill is relatively short, making it accessible for a quick read, but its dense legal language and numerous amendments to existing immigration law require careful attention to fully grasp its implications.
Section 2(a)-(f)
Reasserting Congressional Authority Over Immigration and Nonimmigrant Status
This section explicitly states that the power to authorize employment for classes of aliens is reserved to Congress. It amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify that "unauthorized alien" refers to those not authorized pursuant to statute. It also limits the Secretary of Homeland Security's authority to prescribe regulations under Section 214(a)(1) to only setting the duration of admission and ensuring aliens leave upon status failure, and requires adjustments of status to comply with new nonimmigrant status requirements.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential to restore the proper balance of power, preventing executive overreach in immigration policy and ensuring that fundamental decisions about alien employment and status are made by the legislative branch as intended by the Constitution.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision unduly restricts the executive branch's necessary flexibility to adapt immigration policies to changing economic and geopolitical realities, potentially hindering efficient administration and responsiveness.
Tradeoffs
Balances legislative control over immigration policy against the executive branch's need for administrative flexibility and responsiveness.
Section 3(a)(1)-(4)
Eliminating Dual Intent and Lengthy Adjudications for H-1B
This section amends the H-1B nonimmigrant definition to explicitly require H-1B holders to have a foreign residence they do not intend to abandon, effectively eliminating "dual intent." It also removes H-1B from the list of nonimmigrant categories exempt from the immigrant presumption (meaning H-1B applicants are presumed to be intending immigrants unless they prove otherwise). Furthermore, it repeals Section 106 of the American Competitiveness Act in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000, which allowed for H-1B extensions beyond six years for those awaiting green cards, and repeals Section 214(h) of the INA, which allowed for certain H-1B admissions.
Section 3(b)(1)
Stricter Labor Condition Application (LCA) Requirements and Employer Certifications
This provision completely rewrites INA 212(n)(1) to impose significantly more stringent requirements for employers filing Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) for H-1B nonimmigrants. Key changes include requiring unique identification (including a photograph) of the potential nonimmigrant, specifying the 75th percentile wage as the minimum (or actual wage, whichever is higher), and adding numerous certifications. These certifications include: no sufficient U.S. workers available, no adverse effect on U.S. wages/conditions, no strike/lockout, prior notice to bargaining reps/employees, no displacement of U.S. workers (direct or indirect), no layoffs within one year, prior advertisement on a DOL website, offering the job to equally or better qualified U.S. workers, good faith recruitment of U.S. workers, no advertisements specifically seeking nonimmigrants, H-1B nonimmigrants not exceeding 5% of the employer's U.S. workforce, nonimmigrant fully qualified with a related bachelor's degree/higher and required licenses, employer not charging fees/expenses to nonimmigrant, employer not charging for services like housing, and no fees/bonds for ceasing employment. It also prohibits employers from restricting employment opportunities to specific third parties. The Secretary of Labor must review and approve LCAs, cannot approve if the unemployment rate exceeds 2% in the occupational classification, must make information public (less PII), and maintain a job posting website. LCAs are valid for 90 days.
Section 3(c)
Enhanced Enforcement and Private Right of Action for Displaced Workers
This section completely rewrites INA 212(n)(2) to grant the Secretary of Labor broad enforcement powers, including investigation, document review, subpoena, and audit authority. It mandates a complaint process, allowing the Secretary to act on complaints within one year. It authorizes sanctions of up to $100,000 (inflation-adjusted) per violation and bans from employing H-1B nonimmigrants for up to 10 years. Importantly, it creates a new federal tort cause of action for U.S. workers displaced by nonimmigrant workers, allowing them to sue employers directly or indirectly causing displacement.
Section 3(g)(1)-(4)
H-1B Cap, Priority, and Duration Limits
This section amends INA 214(g) to set the annual H-1B cap at 65,000, removing any previous exemptions or higher caps. It changes the visa issuance priority from "order of filing" to "higher salaries." Most significantly, it limits the duration of H-1B status to a maximum of "2 calendar years," starting from the earlier of admission, change of status, or 90 days after visa issuance. It also strikes paragraphs (5) through (7) of INA 214(g) and inserts a new paragraph (5) establishing a 7% per-country limit on H-1B nonimmigrants.
Section 3(h)
Repeal of H-1B Portability (New Employment)
This section repeals INA 214(n), which allowed H-1B nonimmigrants to begin new employment upon the filing of a new H-1B petition, commonly known as "H-1B portability."
Amends Section 214(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit the authority to prescribe regulations to only setting the duration of admission and ensuring aliens leave upon failure to maintain status.
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to modify existing law without creating a new, standalone section, but its impact on executive power is substantial.
Case for: Supporters argue this reasserts Congressional authority over immigration policy, preventing executive agencies from creating rules that expand or alter the intent of immigration statutes.
Case against: Critics might argue it removes necessary flexibility for agencies to adapt regulations to evolving circumstances or to address unforeseen issues in immigration administration.
Estimated impact: Significantly reduces the regulatory discretion of the Department of Homeland Security regarding nonimmigrant classifications and employment authorization.
States that the Secretary of Labor "shall not approve an application for an occupational classification where the unemployment rate exceeds 2 percent."
Section 3(b)(1)(B)
Why it matters:While a critical condition, it's placed within the administrative process details rather than a standalone "cap" section.
Case for: Proponents would argue this is a vital safeguard to ensure H-1B visas are only issued when there is a genuine shortage of domestic workers, directly linking visa approvals to labor market conditions and protecting U.S. jobs.
Case against: Opponents would contend that a 2% unemployment rate threshold is extremely low and unrealistic for many occupational classifications, effectively creating a near-total ban on H-1B visas in all but the most niche or rapidly growing fields, regardless of specific skill shortages.
Estimated impact: Could drastically reduce the number of H-1B visas approved, potentially more so than the explicit 65,000 cap, by making approval contingent on extremely tight labor markets.
Amends INA 214(g)(3) to strike "in the order in which petitions are filed for such visas or status" and insert ", with priority given to petitions with higher salaries".
Section 3(g)(3)
Why it matters:It's a technical change to a lottery system, rather than a new, explicit policy statement.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures that H-1B visas are allocated to the highest-skilled and highest-paid positions, preventing employers from using the program to hire cheaper foreign labor and ensuring H-1B workers are genuinely filling high-value roles.
Case against: Critics might argue that prioritizing salary could disadvantage smaller companies or startups that may not be able to offer top-tier salaries but still have legitimate needs for specialized talent, and could lead to a bidding war for visas rather than a focus on skills.
Estimated impact: Shifts the H-1B allocation mechanism from a random lottery to a merit-based system primarily driven by salary, favoring employers who can offer the highest wages.