‘Cheap labour’: JD Vance pushes anti-immigrant line even as Trump defends need for specialised H-1B skills

The H-1B visa — long a bridge connecting Indian talent to the American dream — has erupted once again into a political battleground in the United States. With Indian technology workers, engineers, and physicians forming the largest cohort of H-1B holders, every shift in US immigration policy sends ripples across India’s skilled workforce and its $150-billion IT services industry. 

Now, the debate has reignited with a new force. US Vice President JD Vance has sharpened his rhetoric against foreign workers, dismissing them as “cheap workers” and arguing that America no longer needs immigrant labour to sustain its economy. His comments, delivered in a conversation with conservative host Sean Hannity, signal a deepening ideological divide at the highest levels of the American government. 

Vance vs Trump 

While Vance criticised what he called a “Democrat model” of importing “low-wage immigrants,” he also framed the upcoming election as a choice between “low-wage immigrants” and “America’s citizens empowered by technology.” 

But Vance’s stance sits uncomfortably beside President Donald Trump’s own recent admission: that America does, in fact, lack certain specialised skills. 

During an interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, Trump pointed to a battery plant in Georgia — where he personally ordered a raid — as evidence that US workers cannot simply be pulled “off an unemployment line” and trained overnight in advanced manufacturing or defence production. 

“You don’t have certain talents. And people have to learn,” Trump insisted, rejecting the notion that domestic labour could instantly replace skilled foreign workers. 

A mixed message  

These conflicting viewpoints illustrate confusion within the administration: should the US eliminate dependence on foreign workers, or does the economy urgently need their specialised expertise? 

Vance argues that America must pivot toward empowering blue-collar workers with technology rather than relying on migrant labour. But Trump counters that US industry — especially in high-tech sectors — cannot function without certain foreign skill sets, at least in the short term. 

For Indian workers, who receive nearly three out of every four H-1B visas, this policy tug-of-war has become a source of anxiety. 

Sudden regulatory shock 

In September, Trump signed a sweeping proclamation titled “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers”, introducing a stunning new requirement: Any H-1B petition filed after September 21, 2025, must include an additional $100,000 payment to be eligible. 

Industry bodies have warned that such a fee could shut out smaller companies and drastically reduce the number of H-1B applications, even from large Indian IT firms that have long depended on the programme. 

The move is seen as the opening salvo in a larger restructuring of high-skilled immigration. 

Bill to end H-1B programme 

Adding to the uncertainty, a US lawmaker announced plans to introduce a bill to completely eliminate the H-1B visa programme and dismantle its pathway to permanent residency — a system that allows employers to sponsor a Green Card, eventually leading to US citizenship after five years. 

If passed, the bill would force all H-1B workers to return home once their visas expire, ending decades of migration trends that have shaped Silicon Valley’s workforce. 

For India, the stakes could not be higher. The country’s tech ecosystem — built around talent mobility, onsite client work, and deep linkages with US corporations — depends heavily on the H-1B pipeline. Any disruption threatens not just individual careers but also billions of dollars in service exports, innovation collaboration, and startup ecosystems. 

Indian doctors, who fill critical shortages across rural and urban America, could also face new hurdles under a blanket ban. 

The clash between Vance’s “no more cheap labour” stance and Trump’s “we lack certain talents” admission captures a paradox at the heart of the American immigration debate: Can the US maintain technological leadership while cutting off the foreign talent that fuels it?