The bill that has every international worker panicking — what it actually proposes, who it affects, and why most of the fear is overblown
Social media is flooded with claims that H-1B workers must now earn $100,000 or lose their visa. This is a dramatic oversimplification of what is actually a proposed minimum salary floor in certain legislative bills — not a current law, not a USCIS rule, and not something that retroactively affects existing H-1B holders. Here is exactly what is happening, who would be affected if it passes, and what you should actually worry about.
Quick Answer: There is no current law requiring H-1B workers to earn $100,000. Several bills in Congress (including the H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act) propose raising minimum salary thresholds to $100K-$125K. As of March 2026, none have been signed into law. Current H-1B holders on approved petitions are NOT affected by any pending bill. The existing prevailing wage system remains in effect.
| Company | H-1B Filings | Median Salary | Above $100K? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon | 55,150 | $158,000 | Yes — most roles |
| Microsoft | 34,626 | $167,000 | Yes — most roles |
| 33,416 | $179,000 | Yes — virtually all | |
| Infosys | 32,840 | $87,000 | Many below $100K |
| Tata Consultancy Services | 28,950 | $82,000 | Majority below $100K |
| Cognizant | 26,700 | $85,000 | Many below $100K |
| Deloitte | 18,200 | $125,000 | Yes — most roles |
| Apple | 15,800 | $175,000 | Yes — virtually all |
The push for a $100K salary floor is driven by concerns that some employers use the H-1B program to hire workers at below-market wages, particularly in IT consulting. DOL data shows that while the median H-1B salary has risen to approximately $115,000 nationally, a significant portion of H-1B filings — especially from IT staffing companies — fall in the $70,000-$90,000 range at Level 1 prevailing wages.
Proponents argue a $100K floor would eliminate below-market H-1B use. Critics counter that it would devastate H-1B hiring in lower-cost-of-living areas where $100K exceeds even local Level 4 wages for many occupations. Teachers, nurses, researchers, and nonprofit workers in smaller cities would be priced out entirely.
The current prevailing wage system already requires employers to pay at least the Level 1 wage for the occupation and area. The question is whether a flat national floor makes more sense than the location-adjusted prevailing wage system.
If you already hold an approved H-1B, no pending bill would retroactively change your salary requirement. Your petition was approved under the prevailing wage at the time of filing. Extensions and amendments would follow the rules in effect at filing time. Even if a $100K floor passes, it would apply to new petitions, not existing approvals.
For new petitions, any salary floor bill would need to pass both chambers of Congress and be signed by the President. Congressional immigration legislation has a near-zero passage rate — no major H-1B reform bill has been enacted since 2004.
Search Wisa's database of 45,000+ verified H-1B sponsors with salary data.
Search H-1B Salaries →Search thousands of verified H-1B sponsors by company, industry, and location.
Search H-1B Sponsors on Wisa →No. As of March 2026, there is no law requiring a $100K minimum salary for H-1B workers. The current system uses prevailing wages set by the DOL for each specific occupation and geographic area. Several congressional bills propose a $100K floor, but none have been enacted.
Almost certainly not. Immigration legislation applies to new petitions filed after the effective date. Your existing approved H-1B petition would continue under the terms it was approved. However, if you file a new petition (transfer, amendment, or extension after expiration), the new rules could apply.
IT staffing and consulting companies like Infosys, TCS, Cognizant, and Wipro would be most impacted, as a significant portion of their H-1B filings are at wages below $100K. Universities and nonprofits would also be devastated, as many postdoc and research positions pay $55K-$75K.
As proposed in most bills, yes — it would be a flat national floor. This is controversial because $100K means very different things in San Francisco vs. rural Iowa. The current prevailing wage system adjusts for local cost of living, which many economists consider more rational.