The Cost of Exclusion: How H-1B Visa Policy Changes Threaten U.S. Innovation and Security

By: Céleste Wetmore

The United States is no stranger to a competition. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, Americans faced a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. Today, the U.S. competes neck-to-neck with China in a technology race equally essential to national security. In this race, the U.S. federal government relies on the private sector’s success, investing billions to integrate private sector tech solutions into intelligence and national security efforts, therefore developing a dependence on private sector strategies. However, the Trump administration’s recent changes to the H-1B visa acquisition process could jeopardize the very individuals needed to protect our national security.

The H-1B visa program connects specially skilled foreign applicants with American employers “who cannot otherwise obtain needed abilities from the U.S. workforce” by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals not otherwise authorized to work in the United States. The program is heavily used, particularly in the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. In fiscal year (FY) 2024, 65 percent of the 400,000 approved applications were renewals, illustrating the private sector’s continuous reliance on individuals working under an H-1B visa.

Throwing a wedge into this process, President Trump recently announced a new $100,000 fee on H-1B visa petitions. Following the policy’s effective date on September 21, 2025, employers looking to hire new H-1B applicants are now required to pay this amount before continuing the petition process. The Trump administration hopes this move will incentivize private companies to hire out of the American applicant pool. However, the Trump administration has failed to consider the policy’s troubling implications given the current context.

The Trump administration’s actions disrupt a private sector that is paramount to national security efforts and built with contribution from foreign talent accessed through the H-1B visa. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the critical importance of H-1B workers in responding to national emergencies. For instance, between FY 2010 and FY 2019, eight U.S. companies that helped develop the COVID-19 vaccine received H-1B approvals for 3,310 biochemists, biophysicists, chemists, and other scientists.

At this moment,  the Trump administration should be attracting talent, not chasing it away. Where the COVID-19 pandemic was unexpected, the global technology race is publicly and rapidly gaining momentum, especially with the Artificial Intelligence movement.  While both nations are superpowers, the U.S. holds a unique edge: massive private investment in a variety of industries, including recent AI development, an amount nearly 12 times that of China in 2024.  In FY 2025, Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon were top employers of H-1B visa holders, companies projected to invest 240 billion into AI development by the end of 2025.  Historically, the US has excelled at attracting top STEM talent from abroad, while China has struggled to do so. However, his policy change could push international talent back to the East. In FY 2023, Indian nationals accounted for 73 percent of approved H-1B visas, with Chinese nationals a distant second at 11.7 percent. China produced 47 percent of the top AI talent in 2022, far surpassing the United States at second place with 18 percent. With an increasingly competitive American visa process, however, Indian and Chinese talent is likely to deflect into Chinese research and development (R&D) efforts, giving critical advantage to a major U.S. adversary.

Republicans argue that companies take advantage of H-1B visa workers: paying foreigners less than Americans to save profits, therefore disadvantaging American applicants and the national economy. Following this logic, targeting companies with extra costs should force executives to reevaluate the benefits of supporting H-1B recipients and refocus on American talent. While this argument for the administration’s new policy holds a legal basis, the U.S. government is responsible for holistically evaluating the effects of their policies. This responsibility is further augmented when federal national security efforts are in danger of extensive indirect impact.

Whether the static dynamic aligns with the Trump administration’s political agenda or not, the reality is that the private sector operates with a dependence on foreign workers. The $100,000 fee is a crude fix—forcing key R&D companies to drastically shift their workforce over the next year will take funding and focus away from crucial R&D initiatives. Projects will be disrupted, potentially exposing vulnerabilities within U.S. national security. Even worse, the foreign talent driving America’s tech edge will funnel to other countries. The U.S. currently leads private enterprise in AI innovation, but China is undoubtedly its primary technological rival. With Indian and Chinese nationals accounting for over 80% of H-1B visa holders, restricting their entry risks diverting world-class talent toward Beijing instead.

Now is hardly the time to clog the international talent pipeline and disturb the delicate private-public exchange that keeps the U.S. ahead of China. If the Trump administration is desperate to address abuse of the H-1B visa, it must conduct triage: employ a delicate, calculated approach to extend support to impacted companies currently reckoning with these workforce changes.

Ireland, Populist Xenophobia, and Right-Wing Populism in the Western State

By: Luke Crafton

Almost three years ago, in November 2022, a new wave of far-right Irish politics erupted. For the first time, fierce protests arose over the development of asylum housing for 380 men, women, and children in a former office building in East Wall, Dublin. Locals involved in the protest cited widespread claims which pinned their frustration over the housing struggles of area natives on the influx of migrants. Protestors also expressed distress over anecdotes of disproportionate amounts of unmarried males arriving in Ireland, highlighting unfounded reports of violence and aggression habitually being expressed by migrants and asylum-seekers. 

In November 2023, riots broke out across Dublin that instantly circulated on social networks. Following the stabbing of three children in East Dublin, new Irish right-wing platform Gript, along with various right-wing politicians, began rapidly disseminating information about the perpetrator. Riad Bouchaker’s Algerian identity became a focus, despite his status as an Irish citizen of 20 years. 

The manifestation of this vitriol boiled over on the 23rd. Events included a riot peaking at 500 people involving fireworks and flares, the assault of the gardaí (the Irish police), and the destruction and burning of a Luas tram and gardaí vehicles, costing tens of millions in damage. The ramifications of misinformation and biases were unleashed in some of the most severe disarray that Dublin has seen in recent history. 

This rise in violent far-right demonstrations in Ireland is rooted in populist xenophobia, and has led to the manipulation of a population with valid grievances over housing, economics, and crumbling social welfare systems. Migrants’ concern for their community’s well-being has been weaponized against their communities, which are some of the most vulnerable in the country. Brian Killoran, the CEO of Immigrant Council in Ireland, states that “The far right is a lightning rod…They are harnessing dissatisfaction in communities and blaming migrants when actually there are much bigger structural problems.” 

Many experts point to the fact that the areas of Ireland most active within the wave of nationalism are those in “ignored and deprived” regions where “disproportionate” amounts of migrants are housed due to vacancies and lack of competition. The presence of migrants in these areas is more clearly visible to the Irish natives, therefore reinforcing a collective sense of neglect from the Irish government. 

In response, these populations feel validated in their belief that they are being displaced and thrive upon rhetoric that continues to blind them to the larger serious, but repairable, problems that Ireland faces. 

Ireland represents the experiences of many Western countries as they continue to face challenges in housing, economy, and in the provision of social services, especially following the COVID-19 pandemic. Ireland is not an isolated example of right-wing populism, as countries globally lean towards more drastic right-wing platforms centered around xenophobic rhetoric and anti-immigration policies. However, whether or not this fever faces the root causes of these systemic problems or scapegoats migrants to cope with the issues remains to be seen.

Migration will continue to grow in our highly globalized world due to conflicts, inflation uncertainty, and economic recession. With the West perceived as increasingly welcoming to migrants, America and Europe will have to make a decision. They must decide whether they are willing to honestly confront the changing dynamics of the international community, or if they will turn to ethnocentrism and withdraw from responsibilities to global politics for temporary relief from uncertainty.

Currently, the West has the ability to choose whether it will tackle these problems with awareness and tolerance, or lead our societies to experience firsthand the failure of right-wing populism as a miracle cure for growing domestic and international crises.

Forcibly Taking the Panama Canal Would Be a Disaster for the U.S.

By: Anna Douglas Piper

As Trump continues to threaten to reclaim the Panama Canal, fears of military action, invasion, and loss of sovereignty rise. This would do much more harm than good.

December 2024 marked the 25th anniversary of the handover of the Panama Canal to the country’s government in 1999. The U.S. did this for geopolitical reasons, addressing numerous rising security threats by doing so. Since then, the U.S.-Panama partnership has grown and solidified, reaping many rewards for the U.S.

There were 3 important reasons why the U.S. originally handed over control of the canal. As decolonization spread after World War II, the sovereign American colonial control over the Canal Zone became increasingly unpopular. Panamanians resented the foreign control that split up their land and provided almost no benefits, leading to growing violence. Additionally, as guerilla violence in Latin America spread and increasingly framed their struggles as liberation from U.S. domination, other countries began to criticize the situation. Finally, a left-wing and nationalist military dictatorship seized power in Panama in 1968 whose main goal was to take back the Canal, with force if necessary. 

Negotiations began around this time as the Nixon administration became aware of the rising threats. Famous international relations theorist and Nixon’s Secretary of State Henry Kissinger summarized the threat at the time, saying that “if these [Canal] negotiations fail, we will be beaten to death in every international forum and there will be riots all over Latin America.” President Carter completed the project, signing the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties that committed to transfer control by 1999. 

Though it did not happen immediately, this transfer fueled close ties between the country that eventually led to Panama’s establishment as a democracy. Today, Panama remains a committed U.S. ally with a booming economy.

Taking back control of the Canal would be disastrous to this relationship and to American influence in the region. 

The Trump administration argues that the U.S. faces excessive and disproportionate tolls for ships passing through the canal. They also argued that China controls it, and could use it in a conflict to undermine American interests. Though some Chinese companies have made investments in Panama, there is no evidence to support this claim. Additionally, even if there is worry over potential influence in the Canal’s operation, forcibly retaking the Canal will not solve this problem.

Retaking the canal would effectively be recolonization, as the zone was operated as an entirely sovereign U.S. territory before 1999. This move would not counter China’s threat – in fact, it would benefit them directly. Research shows that Latin Americans have mixed feelings about China’s role in the region. An unprovoked U.S. invasion would “provide China precisely the rhetorical ammunition needed to present itself as a responsible alternative to an out-of-control U.S,” according to Americas Quarterly. 

“It would likely make Panama more pro-China, not less.”

Additionally, the canal is not a simple piece of real estate to take. It is central to Panamanians' sense of their nation. Panama’s efficient and professional operation of the canal has fueled prosperity, expansion, and shown better success rates than when under U.S. control. 

It is simply not in the U.S.’s interest to take the canal back. In fact, it could be catastrophic. 

If concerns over Chinese influence are to be mitigated, the Trump administration must look towards other solutions, like continuing to fuel the region’s prosperity. Additionally, a main criticism, that Panama charges U.S. ships excessively, is actually an environmental concern. In 2023, the country suffered its worst drought in decades, impacting the water supply the Canal runs on. Transits were restricted because of this shortage, though some ships could pass through faster if they paid more. In general, “canal fees are applied transparently and neutrally to all countries.” To prevent this from occurring in the future, the current administration may find more success in preventing further environmental degradation from climate change. 

Trump’s claims, which have now escalated to military threats, have been met with only rejection from Panamanian authorities. 

Panama President Jose Raul Mulino has rejected Trump's claims, arguing that there is “no presence of any nation in the world that interferes with our administration.”

“The operation of the Panama Canal itself, and performing under the terms of the neutrality treaty, we have followed the neutrality treaty to the letter,” says Ricaurte Vasquez, Panama Canal’s administrator. “We believe that both the U.S. and Panama obey the rule of law, and we are consistent in our performance and behavior are consistent with the rule of law…if you go to military intervention I think that will be detrimental for Panama but probably will be more detrimental to the U.S. presence in the world.”

“There is a rule of law, and there is no need for any military intervention in Panama as we stand right now.”