The H-1B visa program lets American companies hire foreign workers for specialized, high-skilled jobs — like software engineers, doctors, or accountants — when they say they can’t find enough qualified Americans.
Question: Who actually decides whether these visas get approved?
Answer: The federal government, not your state governor, city council, or local school board.
Even though states like Texas are fighting over hiring foreign workers for public jobs and in companies, the real power — from approving applications to issuing visas — sits almost entirely in Washington, D.C.
Under U.S. law, the temporary work visa program is administered largely by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a component of the Department of Homeland Security. Other federal agencies, including the Department of Labor and the Department of State, play supporting roles in wage certification and visa issuance abroad.
That federal structure has led Texas officials to argue that criticism directed at state leaders is misplaced. In an April 7 statement previously reported by The Dallas Express, a spokesperson for Gov. Greg Abbott said, “the federal government has exclusive purview and is solely responsible over immigration visa policy, including H-1B visas.”
Local officials have echoed this view. Frisco City Councilman Burt Thakur previously told The Dallas Express that H-1B policy is “a USCIS issue,” underscoring the limited authority municipalities have over the program.
Federal agencies drive the process
Since the visa was created by Congress in 1990, each stage of the H-1B pipeline is controlled in Washington.
The Department of Labor first requires employers to file a Labor Condition Application, attesting to wages and working conditions. Once certified, employers submit petitions to USCIS, which adjudicates whether a position qualifies as a “specialty occupation” and whether the applicant meets eligibility criteria.
For workers outside the United States, the State Department conducts interviews and issues visas through consulates. In cases involving fraud or criminal conduct, prosecutions are typically handled by the Department of Justice, though state authorities may assist depending on the facts.
In Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton has sent Civil Investigative Demands to businesses suspected of H-1B abuse, The Dallas Express previously reported.
Recent federal actions further illustrate centralized control. As previously reported by The Dallas Express, the administration of President Donald Trump expanded social media vetting for H-1B applicants, raised acceptable wage levels for workers, imposed a 100k supplementary payment on new visa applications for most overseas aliens without legal status, and increased enforcement through Department of Labor investigations.
State and local limits — and narrow levers
While states cannot approve or deny visas, they do control their own hiring.
Abbott’s January directive freezing new H-1B petitions at state agencies and public universities demonstrates one of the clearest areas of authority: public-sector employment. Because many government and university positions are exempt from the annual 85,000-visa cap applied to private employers, state entities have comparatively broad latitude to sponsor foreign workers — or to halt doing so.
Yet Abbott’s order is not boundless and does not apply to local governments, such as public school districts. Records previously reported by The Dallas Express show the Dallas Independent School District spent more than $2.5 million on H-1B-related legal services and employed over 1,200 visa workers in recent years.
States can also attempt indirect influence, and these jurisdictions have not yet used every tool at their disposal. Officials may use public pressure, set contracting preferences, or structure tax incentives to encourage hiring practices that favor domestic workers. However, those tools are limited.
Some in the state legislature have proposed contracting requirements that minimize a company’s reliance on foreign labor. House Bill 4935, introduced by State Representative Tony Tinderholt (R-Arlington) in 2025, was designed to withhold state contracts without written verification from the contractor that no more than 5% of its workforce was non-permanent residents, including H-1B visa holders. The bill ultimately failed to pass.
It is unclear what the total value of state contracts in Texas is; however, Deloitte and its subsidiaries were reported to have over $2 billion in active state contracts, while Oracle America had over $268 million, according to a KXAN report. Both companies are major H-1B employers, per USCIS data.
Private sector decisions remain federal
Even when state or local governments successfully attract companies through subsidies or economic development deals, the decision to hire H-1B workers — and whether those workers are approved — remains largely in federal hands.
Federal data consistently show that the vast majority of H-1B workers are employed by private companies, particularly in the technology and consulting sectors.
Why is the program debated?
The H-1B visa has played a role in America’s post-1990 demographic shift. Nationwide USCIS figures show approximately 72% of H-1B visas are granted to workers from India and about 12% to workers from China.
Hiring a single H-1B worker can also create a longer-term pipeline, as visa holders may later transition to permanent residency or sponsor family members under separate immigration categories, DX reported.
Some research has suggested the program undermines domestic wages. “On average, H-1B workers earn 16 percent less than comparable natives,” Harvard economist George J. Borjas wrote in a recent paper reported by DX.
However, supporters of the H-1B visa argue that there are deficiencies in America’s workforce that the program must address. Former Republican presidential contender Vivek Ramaswamy wrote in 2024, “Our American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long (at least since the 90s and likely longer)…. “Normalcy” doesn’t cut it in a hyper-competitive global market for technical talent. And if we pretend like it does, we’ll have our asses handed to us by China.”
A shift from local control to federal dominance
The modern system marks a sharp departure from early American practices.
In colonial times, many communities enforced so-called “warning out” laws, allowing local governments to exclude newcomers, including citizens of other colonies and foreign-born aliens, if they did not share the religious/political values of the community or if they were deemed likely to become a public burden, amongst other grounds for exclusion, according to historian Josiah Benton in a 1911 book titled Warning Out In New England.
Today, that localized authority has largely disappeared. Immigration policy, particularly employment-based visas such as the H-1B, is primarily set at the federal level.
The ongoing debate in Texas reflects that tension: state and local leaders can shape how their own institutions hire and spend public funds, but the ultimate gatekeeper for foreign labor remains Washington.