DHS's proposed H-1B fee comes with a table showing where the money would go. About a third to USCIS, another third to the immigration courts, followed by about $1.05 billion to ICE and $1.21 billion to DOL, including $350 million for the Wage and Hour Division.

Read that alongside the fee itself. A charge this size pushes employers toward every cap-independent pathway available. The same rule would fund a significant expansion of the agencies that examine how those pathways get used.

The immediate question isn't "what are the alternatives." It's "which alternatives hold up."

Consider three structural points:

1. The fee attaches at petition filing, not registration. You would pay only on a hire you actually make, so model cost per cap hire, not per candidate considered.

2. The fee only applies to cap-subject petitions. Qualifying universities, affiliated nonprofits, and nonprofit or governmental research organizations wouldn't owe it. That gap is now six figures wide, which makes cap-exempt and concurrent structures both more attractive and more examined. "Works at a university" is not the same as cap-exempt.

3. O-1 is untouched by this rule. No cap, no lottery, no filing window, no LCA.

But O-1 is not a substitute for H-1B, and we would rather say that plainly than let it go unsaid. The population this fee hits hardest, such as capable engineers a few years out of a master's, in Level I or II roles, is precisely the population that usually cannot document sustained acclaim today. "Just do an O-1A" isn't advice.

Proper advice involves pointing out that O-1A eligibility is partly built, not just discovered. Judging and peer-review appointments, published work, selective memberships, and documented remuneration, are examples of the criteria that a strong candidate can be positioned for over twelve to eighteen months. The employers who will have O-1 options two cap seasons from now should be identifying candidates today.

These O-1A petitions often draw RFEs on the “original contributions of major significance” and “critical role” criteria. The fix isn’t about flowery, purple prose writing to describe the awesomeness of the O-1 candidate. You will need better documents and stronger evidence.

Three things to do before the comment window closes on September 24:

1. Comment. Specific, data-supported comments are the ones that carry weight.

2. Audit your sponsored population against the wage-weighted selection matrix, not last year's assumptions.

3. Start building your strongest O-1 candidates, including the ones who aren't there yet.

If you are weighing a cap-exempt structure, document it as though someone well-funded will read it later. Per that table, someone will be.