H-1B Prevailing Wage Rule: The $14,000 Increase Ahead

The $100,000 Fee Was Blocked. The Rule That Follows It Is Already Written.

If you have been following the $100,000 H-1B fee, you have been watching the wrong document for the past four months.

The fee is blocked and in litigation. Meanwhile, a second measure from the same source is sitting quietly at the Department of Labor, past its comment deadline, waiting to be finalised. It would not cost your employer $100,000 once. It would raise what they must pay you — and everyone like you — every single year.

The H-1B prevailing wage rule is a proposed Department of Labor regulation that would raise the minimum salaries employers must offer for H-1B, H-1B1, E-3 and PERM sponsorship. Published on 27 March 2026, it would lift the four wage tiers from roughly the 17th–67th percentile of federal wage data to the 34th–88th, adding about $14,000 a year on average. Comments closed 26 May. No final rule yet.

What the rule actually proposes

The regulation is formally titled “Improving Wage Protections for the Temporary and Permanent Employment of Certain Foreign Nationals in the United States.” It was issued by DOL’s Employment and Training Administration and covers permanent labour certification through PERM for certain EB-2 and EB-3 immigrant visas, as well as H-1B, H-1B1 and E-3 nonimmigrant visas.

The mechanism is simple and its effect is not.

DOL proposes to keep the four-tier prevailing wage structure but move the percentile thresholds up — from a range of roughly the 17th to 67th percentile of the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics survey to a range of roughly the 34th to 88th percentile.

In plain terms: the government would start measuring “the going rate” much further up the pay scale. Level I, the entry tier where a huge share of sponsored roles sit, moves the most in relative terms.

If finalised, it would be one of the most significant changes to H-1B and PERM wage requirements in more than two decades, with entry-level salary requirements potentially rising by more than 30 per cent.

Across categories, minimum wages could rise by an average of about $14,000 per year, with entry-level positions seeing the largest increases.

Not everyone is affected — and the split matters

Here is a number the coverage keeps burying because it undercuts the drama.

Employers who already pay above the proposed new prevailing wage — roughly 22.5 per cent of Labor Condition Application positions — would see no change at all.

So about one in five sponsored roles is already above the new floor. If you are a mid-career engineer at a large firm in a high-cost metro, there is a reasonable chance nothing about your salary has to move.

The exposure is concentrated at the other end: Level I and Level II roles, smaller employers, and lower-wage regions where the OEWS percentile jump translates into a large absolute rupture between what the job pays now and what it would legally have to pay.

The part written for employers that nobody translated for you

Every alert on this rule says the same reassuring thing: it is not retroactive. That is true, and it is incomplete.

The proposed rule would apply only to prevailing wage requests and Labor Condition Applications filed on or after its effective date, plus prevailing wage determinations still pending at DOL’s National Processing Center at that time. It would not apply retroactively to previously approved determinations, labour certifications or LCAs.

Now the sentence almost nobody repeats.

Previously approved prevailing wage determinations, LCAs and PERM applications would not be reopened — however, extensions of H-1B, H-1B1 and E-3 status may be affected if they are based on LCAs filed after the rule’s effective date.

Read that twice if you are on an H-1B today.

Your current approval is safe. Your extension is a new filing. An extension needs a new LCA, and a new LCA filed after the effective date is priced under the new rules. A worker sitting comfortably at a Level I wage certified in 2024 could find that continuing in the same job at the same employer requires a materially higher salary — or requires the employer to decide whether the role is still worth sponsoring.

That is not a distant risk for future applicants. It is a live question for people already in the United States with an extension due in the next couple of years.

Where the rule stands right now

The 60-day comment period closed in late May 2026, and DOL must now review the comments before issuing a final rule — a process that typically takes several months.

AILA and the American Immigration Council filed a joint comment urging DOL to reconsider, arguing the wage methodology assessment was flawed and that less disruptive alternatives capable of protecting US workers were not considered. DOL will now decide whether to finalise the rule, modify it, or withdraw it.

All three outcomes remain genuinely on the table. Anyone telling you the increase is certain is guessing, and anyone telling you it is dead is guessing harder — the last comparable attempt is instructive.

This has been tried before, and it lost in court

In October 2020 DOL issued an interim final rule, published as a final rule in January 2021, setting comparable levels — Level I at the 35th percentile and Level IV at the 90th. That rule was challenged in court and, following the change of administration, abandoned.

The 2026 proposal sets thresholds close to that vacated rule. If it is finalised in something like its current shape, litigation is close to a certainty, and the pattern of the past year on the $100,000 fee shows how that plays out: enforcement paused, appeals filed, months of uncertainty in which nobody can plan.

Which is worth saying plainly. A worker’s realistic planning horizon here is not “the rule takes effect on date X.” It is “the rule may take effect, may be enjoined, and may be in limbo for a year.”

Why this exists at all

The rule did not appear from nowhere.

It was prompted in part by a September 2025 presidential proclamation directing the Secretary of Labor to initiate rulemaking to revise prevailing wage levels — the same proclamation that imposed the $100,000 fee on certain H-1B petitions — and it sits alongside the weighted selection process for the annual cap lottery, which now favours beneficiaries offered higher wages.

Three instruments, one strategy: make lower-paid sponsorship expensive, make higher-paid sponsorship comparatively favoured. DOL’s stated rationale is that current wage levels sit too low relative to market rates, particularly for entry-level positions, creating conditions in which employers can substitute foreign workers for domestic ones at below-market pay.

You can agree or disagree with that reasoning. Either way, the direction of travel across all three measures is consistent, and betting on a reversal is not a plan.

The PERM problem is worse than the H-1B problem

For anyone in a green card queue, this deserves its own attention.

PERM sits at the front of the employment-based permanent residence process. A higher prevailing wage there does not just raise the salary on paper. Higher prevailing wages during recruitment can affect the outcome of the labour market test itself, require higher wages on the ETA 9089, and increase the long-term green card cost for sponsored employees.

Workers in the early stages of PERM sponsorship should work closely with their employer and immigration counsel to assess whether to time the PERM filing before or after any final rule takes effect.

The uncomfortable truth in that sentence: filing timing is now a strategic decision with real money attached, and the person who benefits from filing sooner is you, while the person who controls the calendar is your employer.

One provision worth watching

DOL considered removing the ability for employers to use private wage surveys instead of OEWS-based prevailing wages, but chose not to do so in this rulemaking — the proposal preserves that flexibility where regulatory criteria are met.

That option is not guaranteed to survive in the final rule, and employers should not plan around it.

For occupations where OEWS data is a poor fit — narrow specialisms, unusual role definitions — alternative survey data is often the difference between a sponsorable wage and an impossible one. If it disappears at the final-rule stage, the practical impact will be larger than the percentile shift suggests.

What to actually do while this is pending

Find out your wage level. Your LCA states it — Level I, II, III or IV — and your employer or attorney has it. If you do not know your level, you cannot assess your exposure at all. Start there.

Work out the gap. DOL’s own data puts the average gap between offered wages and proposed prevailing wages at roughly $14,000, though it varies significantly by occupation and geography. If your offered wage is already well above your level’s floor, your risk is low.

Check when your next LCA is due. Extension timing is the variable that decides whether the new rules touch you. An extension filed before the effective date is priced under today’s rules.

Raise it with your employer now, not later. The conversation you want is “if this finalises, does this role stay sponsorable?” Asked in advance, that is workforce planning. Asked after a final rule drops, it is a crisis.

Do not pay anyone to “lock in” a wage level. There is no such product. Prevailing wage determinations are issued by DOL’s National Processing Center on a defined methodology, and no consultant can pre-purchase an outcome.

Key Takeaways

• The rule is proposed, not final. Published 27 March 2026; comments closed 26 May; DOL is reviewing.
• Four wage tiers stay; the percentiles rise — roughly 17th–67th to 34th–88th of OEWS data.
• Average increase around $14,000 per worker per year, with entry-level roles rising most — potentially over 30 per cent.
• About 22.5 per cent of LCA positions already pay above the new floors and would be unaffected.
• Not retroactive — but extensions can be caught, because a new LCA filed after the effective date is priced under the new rules.
• PERM timing becomes a real strategic decision for anyone early in green card sponsorship.
• A near-identical 2021 rule was challenged in court and abandoned. Litigation is likely if this is finalised.
• DOL can still finalise, modify or withdraw it. Nothing is settled.

FAQ