End H–1B Visa Abuse Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Sheehy, Tim [R-MT]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2026
Bottom line
The bill fundamentally reshapes U.S. temporary immigration policy, aiming to significantly reduce the number of foreign workers and students, increase costs for employers, and prioritize U.S. workers by tightening nearly all aspects of the H-1B and related visa programs.
What it actually does
This bill enacts a comprehensive overhaul of the H-1B visa program and other temporary immigration categories. It imposes a three-year moratorium on H-1B visa issuance, drastically increases fees and wage requirements for employers, eliminates the H-1B lottery in favor of a wage-based selection, and prohibits concurrent or third-party employment. Furthermore, it eliminates the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program for foreign students, bars federal employment of nonimmigrants, and severely restricts pathways for nonimmigrants to adjust or change their immigration status within the United States.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is essential to protect American jobs, prevent wage depression for U.S. workers, and ensure that H-1B visas are used only for truly specialized skills where no qualified U.S. workers are available. They contend that current programs are susceptible to abuse and undermine the domestic workforce, and that these reforms will restore integrity to the immigration system and prioritize the economic well-being of U.S. citizens.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that these sweeping restrictions would severely harm U.S. economic competitiveness, stifle innovation, and make it exceedingly difficult for American businesses to access critical talent. They argue that the bill would drive highly skilled individuals and jobs to other countries, diminish the attractiveness of U.S. higher education, and create immense hardship for foreign workers and their families already contributing to the U.S. economy.
The bill is relatively short, but its numerous and interconnected amendments to existing immigration law require careful reading to grasp the full scope of its impact.
Section 2
H-1B Visa Moratorium
This section imposes a complete pause on the issuance of new H-1B nonimmigrant visas for a period of three years following the bill's enactment. During this time, no new H-1B visas would be granted to foreign workers.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that a moratorium is necessary to allow the U.S. labor market to rebalance, protect domestic jobs, and ensure that American workers are prioritized for available positions.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that a three-year moratorium would severely cripple industries reliant on specialized foreign talent, hinder innovation, and force companies to seek talent or operations overseas.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of protecting U.S. jobs against the potential for economic disruption and reduced access to global talent for U.S. businesses.
Section 3
Eliminating H-4 Dependent Visas
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to remove the provision that allows spouses and minor children of H visa holders to accompany or follow to join them. This effectively eliminates the H-4 dependent visa category, meaning H-1B workers would not be able to bring their families to the U.S. under this visa type.
Section 4(a)
Increased Wage Floor and Enhanced Recruitment Requirements for H-1B
This section significantly amends the H-1B program by requiring employers to attest that no sufficient U.S. workers are available, that the employment will not adversely affect U.S. workers' wages or conditions, and that they have not laid off and will not lay off any workers in the 12 months preceding and following the application. Crucially, it establishes a new minimum wage floor of $200,000 per year for all H-1B workers and removes exemptions for H-1B dependent employers, subjecting all such employers to these stricter rules.
Section 4(b)
Eliminating Dual Intent for H-1B Visas
This section amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to remove the 'dual intent' provision for H-1B visas. This means that H-1B applicants would no longer be able to simultaneously hold an intent to remain in the U.S. permanently while applying for a temporary visa. They would be required to demonstrate a clear intent to return to their home country upon the expiration of their H-1B status.
Section 4(c)
$100,000 H-1B Petition Fee
This section imposes a new, additional fee of $100,000 on each employer filing an H-1B petition, whether for a new visa or for an alien changing employers. This fee would be in effect for fiscal year 2026 and all subsequent fiscal years, and would be deposited into the Treasury.
Section 4(d)
Reduced H-1B Cap and Duration
This section drastically reduces the annual numerical limit for H-1B visas from the current 65,000 (plus an additional 20,000 for those with U.S. master's or higher degrees) to a new cap of 25,000 in any fiscal year. It also reduces the maximum period of admission for an H-1B visa from six years to three years and eliminates the advanced degree exemption entirely.
Section 4(e)
Wage-Based H-1B Selection System
This section eliminates the current H-1B lottery system and replaces it with a new selection process. Under the new system, H-1B visas subject to the numerical cap would be issued in order of the highest wage levels being offered by the petitioning employers, following a registration period of not more than two weeks.
Section 4(f)
Prohibiting Concurrent and Third-Party H-1B Employment
This section introduces two significant prohibitions for H-1B visa holders. First, it prohibits any H-1B alien from being employed by more than one employer at any time. Second, it explicitly prohibits third-party employment or staffing agencies from filing petitions to sponsor H-1B nonimmigrants or from facilitating their recruitment or employment on behalf of another employer.
Section 5
Prohibiting Federal Employment of Nonimmigrant Visa Holders
This section adds new provisions to the Immigration and Nationality Act that explicitly prohibit any agency, department, or instrumentality of the Federal Government from filing a petition for any nonimmigrant visa holder. Furthermore, it bars any federal agency, department, or instrument from employing, either directly or through a contract, any nonimmigrant visa holder.
Section 6
Eliminating the Optional Practical Training (OPT) Program and Other Student Employment Authorization
This section adds a new subsection to the Immigration and Nationality Act that explicitly prohibits employment authorization for aliens present in the United States as F-1 (academic) or M-1 (vocational) nonimmigrants. It also prohibits employment authorization for J-1 (exchange visitor) nonimmigrants admitted for educational or training purposes. This effectively eliminates the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program and other forms of work authorization for foreign students.
Section 7
Restricting Adjustment of Status for Nonimmigrants and Parolees
This section completely rewrites Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, making most nonimmigrants, parolees, and other aliens with temporary authorized presence ineligible to adjust their status to permanent residence while residing in the United States. It also immediately rescinds all existing employment authorizations granted to aliens based on pending adjustment of status applications and denies any pending applications. Limited exceptions apply for refugees, asylum applicants and adjustment petitioners who filed before the bill's enactment (with a one-year adjudication deadline), and those granted conditional permanent resident status.
Section 8
Prohibiting Change of Nonimmigrant Classification
This section completely rewrites Section 248 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, prohibiting the Secretary of Homeland Security from authorizing a change from any nonimmigrant classification to any other nonimmigrant classification. This means, for example, an individual on a student visa (F-1) could not change to a temporary worker visa (H-1B) or any other nonimmigrant category while remaining in the U.S.
These subsections remove the 'nonexempt' distinction for H-1B dependent employers. This means that all H-1B dependent employers, regardless of whether they employ 'exempt' H-1B nonimmigrants (those with master's degrees or earning over a certain amount), will be subject to the stricter attestation requirements, including the new $200,000 wage floor and no-layoff rules.
Section 4(a)(1)(B) and (2)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique for making existing rules more stringent by broadening their applicability through the removal of exceptions, rather than explicitly stating a new, broader rule. It's technically phrased but substantively significant.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this ensures all H-1B dependent employers are held to the highest standards, preventing loopholes that allowed some employers to avoid stricter requirements based on the type of H-1B worker they hired, thus better protecting U.S. workers.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this broadens the impact of already stringent rules, potentially harming a wider range of employers, including those who genuinely hire highly skilled individuals who were previously considered 'exempt' and did not pose a threat to U.S. workers.
Estimated impact: This change significantly expands the number of employers subject to the most stringent H-1B requirements, including the new $200,000 wage floor and no-layoff attestations.
This subsection strikes paragraph (5) of Section 214(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Paragraph (5) is the statutory provision that currently provides an exemption from the H-1B cap for 20,000 H-1B visas for aliens who have earned a U.S. master's degree or higher. Striking this paragraph eliminates the advanced degree exemption.
Section 4(d)(3)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative drafting technique for removing existing provisions. While technically correct, it requires knowledge of the underlying statute to fully appreciate the policy change, which is to remove a key pathway for highly educated foreign graduates.
Case for: Proponents would argue that eliminating the advanced degree exemption further reduces the overall number of H-1B visas and ensures that all H-1B workers, regardless of education level, are subject to the same strict cap, prioritizing U.S. workers.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this removes a critical pathway for U.S.-educated foreign graduates, particularly in STEM fields, to remain and contribute to the U.S. economy, potentially leading to a loss of talent and innovation.
Estimated impact: Eliminates 20,000 H-1B visas annually that were previously reserved for advanced degree holders, further reducing the overall H-1B cap.
This subsection mandates the immediate rescission of all employment authorizations (EADs) granted to aliens pursuant to 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(9) and declares all such documents invalid, effective on the date of enactment. This specific regulatory citation refers to EADs issued to individuals with pending applications for adjustment of status to permanent residence.
Section 7(b)(2)
Why it matters:Referencing specific regulatory citations is common in legislative drafting but can obscure the direct policy impact for those not intimately familiar with the regulations. The immediate effective date makes this a particularly aggressive change, designed for rapid implementation.
Case for: Proponents would argue that this ensures that only those with a clear path to permanent residency, or those who are refugees/asylees, are authorized to work, reinforcing the temporary nature of other statuses and preventing individuals from working indefinitely while their adjustment applications are pending.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this provision would cause immediate and widespread job loss for potentially hundreds of thousands of individuals who are legally working and contributing to the U.S. economy, creating immense economic and social disruption for families and employers, and likely leading to significant legal challenges.
Estimated impact: Potentially hundreds of thousands of individuals with pending adjustment of status applications would immediately lose their legal authorization to work in the U.S., leading to widespread job displacement and economic hardship.