Will H-1B restrictions cost the US its next Satya Nadella or Sundar Pichai?
For decades, the United States has relied on a steady influx of highly skilled international talent to fuel its technology sector. Engineers, researchers, and innovators from around the world have been central to the rise of Silicon Valley , driving breakthroughs from search engines to electric vehicles. But the recent decision by the Trump administration to hike the H-1B visa fee to $100,000 has sent shockwaves through global tech circles, raising urgent questions: Could restrictive immigration policies force the next generation of visionaries to build elsewhere?
Michael Moritz: A warning from Silicon Valley
Billionaire investor Michael Moritz, whose early-stage investments in Google, PayPal, LinkedIn, and YouTube helped shape the modern internet, has been one of the loudest voices warning against the policy. Writing in the Financial Times, Moritz described the fee increase as a “caper” that will backfire, arguing that the administration fundamentally misunderstands the drivers of American tech success.
Moritz emphasised that US companies hire H-1B workers not to replace American employees or reduce costs, but because these foreign professionals possess specific skills critical to innovation. “Engineers with undergraduate degrees from the better eastern Europe, Turkish and Indian universities are every bit as well qualified as their American counterparts,” he wrote, underlining the depth of talent at risk.
He warned that prohibitive fees could push innovation overseas, with cities like Istanbul, Tallinn, Warsaw, Prague, or Bengaluru benefiting from expertise that would otherwise have contributed to the US economy. “Companies fearful of the next move by the administration may shift operations abroad, depriving America of a fresh generation of entrepreneurs,” Moritz noted, citing examples of immigrant leaders who became industry titans, including Satya Nadella of Microsoft and Sundar Pichai of Google.
Indian engineers: A global asset
The focus on Indian talent is particularly pronounced. Indian nationals account for 71% of all H-1B visas, a reflection of the country’s deep reservoir of engineers trained in premier institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs). Yale University scholar Gautam Mukunda described the fee hike as “counterproductive” and warned it could undermine America’s ability to attract the world’s top engineers.
“Every country in the world would compete fiercely to secure the best IIT graduates, but America is effectively throwing this asset away,” Mukunda told the Bloomberg Radio. He highlighted the global impact of these graduates, noting that their problem-solving skills, technical competence, and entrepreneurial potential have historically contributed to the growth of US technology companies, startups, and research institutions.
Skills over cost: The rationale for H-1B
The administration has argued that H-1B visas are being exploited to replace American workers. Moritz and other tech leaders dispute this. H-1B programs require companies to demonstrate that they cannot fill roles domestically and prohibit discrimination against foreign nationals performing the same tasks as American employees.
Moritz argued that foreign engineers are hired for their specialized expertise, not cost savings, and that the policy risks reducing US competitiveness rather than protecting jobs. “Large tech companies hire foreign nationals because they possess particular skills and to perform tasks in areas where the US has labour shortages,” he explained.
India’s response and the global implications
The fee increase has prompted reactions from India’s political leadership. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal highlighted the country’s contribution to global innovation, noting that Indian engineers and graduates help corporations worldwide focus on research, development, and new ideas. He also pointed to India’s growing startup ecosystem, which continues to produce innovative solutions capable of transforming industries.
By creating barriers to US entry, the policy could accelerate a shift of talent and investment towards India, Europe, and other emerging tech hubs. Countries with more flexible immigration frameworks may soon become the preferred destinations for highly skilled professionals who might once have chosen Silicon Valley.
The cost of restricting talent mobility
Raising visa fees does more than limit access to engineers; it risks long-term damage to the US innovation ecosystem. Countries that embrace global talent see growth in technology, entrepreneurship, and research. In contrast, policies that make it harder for foreign nationals to work in the US threaten to slow economic growth and diminish America’s competitive edge.
Moritz suggests an alternative approach: expanding the H-1B program and prioritizing those with advanced STEM degrees from top American universities, potentially even offering citizenship to high-achieving candidates. Such policies would ensure that America retains access to the very minds capable of creating the next Google, Microsoft, or Tesla.
A crossroads for American innovation
The H-1B debate is more than a policy dispute; it is a test of America’s commitment to remaining a global leader in technology. By placing high costs on skilled international workers, the United States risks losing engineers whose contributions have historically driven innovation, from the launch of startups to the growth of multinational tech giants.
As Moritz cautioned, “Two of the finest chief executives in the US, Satya Nadella of Microsoft and Sundar Pichai of Google, are here because of the attitudes of prior administrations.” The question now is whether the current administration’s approach will nurture or stifle the next generation of innovators, and whether those innovators will choose to build their futures elsewhere.
Michael Moritz: A warning from Silicon Valley
Billionaire investor Michael Moritz, whose early-stage investments in Google, PayPal, LinkedIn, and YouTube helped shape the modern internet, has been one of the loudest voices warning against the policy. Writing in the Financial Times, Moritz described the fee increase as a “caper” that will backfire, arguing that the administration fundamentally misunderstands the drivers of American tech success.
Moritz emphasised that US companies hire H-1B workers not to replace American employees or reduce costs, but because these foreign professionals possess specific skills critical to innovation. “Engineers with undergraduate degrees from the better eastern Europe, Turkish and Indian universities are every bit as well qualified as their American counterparts,” he wrote, underlining the depth of talent at risk.
He warned that prohibitive fees could push innovation overseas, with cities like Istanbul, Tallinn, Warsaw, Prague, or Bengaluru benefiting from expertise that would otherwise have contributed to the US economy. “Companies fearful of the next move by the administration may shift operations abroad, depriving America of a fresh generation of entrepreneurs,” Moritz noted, citing examples of immigrant leaders who became industry titans, including Satya Nadella of Microsoft and Sundar Pichai of Google.
Indian engineers: A global asset
The focus on Indian talent is particularly pronounced. Indian nationals account for 71% of all H-1B visas, a reflection of the country’s deep reservoir of engineers trained in premier institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs). Yale University scholar Gautam Mukunda described the fee hike as “counterproductive” and warned it could undermine America’s ability to attract the world’s top engineers.
“Every country in the world would compete fiercely to secure the best IIT graduates, but America is effectively throwing this asset away,” Mukunda told the Bloomberg Radio. He highlighted the global impact of these graduates, noting that their problem-solving skills, technical competence, and entrepreneurial potential have historically contributed to the growth of US technology companies, startups, and research institutions.
Skills over cost: The rationale for H-1B
The administration has argued that H-1B visas are being exploited to replace American workers. Moritz and other tech leaders dispute this. H-1B programs require companies to demonstrate that they cannot fill roles domestically and prohibit discrimination against foreign nationals performing the same tasks as American employees.
Moritz argued that foreign engineers are hired for their specialized expertise, not cost savings, and that the policy risks reducing US competitiveness rather than protecting jobs. “Large tech companies hire foreign nationals because they possess particular skills and to perform tasks in areas where the US has labour shortages,” he explained.
India’s response and the global implications
By creating barriers to US entry, the policy could accelerate a shift of talent and investment towards India, Europe, and other emerging tech hubs. Countries with more flexible immigration frameworks may soon become the preferred destinations for highly skilled professionals who might once have chosen Silicon Valley.
The cost of restricting talent mobility
Moritz suggests an alternative approach: expanding the H-1B program and prioritizing those with advanced STEM degrees from top American universities, potentially even offering citizenship to high-achieving candidates. Such policies would ensure that America retains access to the very minds capable of creating the next Google, Microsoft, or Tesla.
A crossroads for American innovation
The H-1B debate is more than a policy dispute; it is a test of America’s commitment to remaining a global leader in technology. By placing high costs on skilled international workers, the United States risks losing engineers whose contributions have historically driven innovation, from the launch of startups to the growth of multinational tech giants.
As Moritz cautioned, “Two of the finest chief executives in the US, Satya Nadella of Microsoft and Sundar Pichai of Google, are here because of the attitudes of prior administrations.” The question now is whether the current administration’s approach will nurture or stifle the next generation of innovators, and whether those innovators will choose to build their futures elsewhere.
Next Story