The End H‑1B Now Act amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the H‑1B program on a phased schedule: the bill reduces the annual H‑1B cap each fiscal year from 10,000 in 2026 to zero after fiscal year 2035. It also narrows which occupations count as H‑1B specialty occupations to physicians, surgeons, and nurses, removes the fashion‑model category, and adds a nonimmigrant‑intent requirement.
The bill further amends the Social Security Act’s Medicare graduate medical education (GME) definition so that Medicare cost reports will no longer count programs that train individuals who are aliens. Together, these changes aim to end the primary federal employment‑based specialty visa and restrict Medicare support for training noncitizen physicians—measures with wide consequences for employers, hospitals, immigration counsel, and foreign national workers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 8 U.S.C. 1184 to impose a declining H‑1B cap (10,000 in FY2026 down to zero after FY2035), restricts H‑1B specialty occupations to physicians, surgeons, and nurses, removes the fashion‑model H‑1B classification, and inserts a nonimmigrant‑intent requirement. It also amends 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(5)(A) to exclude from Medicare GME any program that trains an individual who is an alien.
Who It Affects
Directly affects employers who sponsor H‑1B workers (notably tech firms, universities, and research labs), foreign nationals seeking H‑1B status, teaching hospitals that rely on noncitizen residents, and organizations that administer GME funding. Immigration attorneys, HR teams, and workforce planners in affected sectors will face new compliance and strategic decisions.
Why It Matters
This bill would remove the primary federal pathway for hiring specialized foreign workers for most professional roles, forcing affected employers to shift hiring strategies, accelerate internal training or offshoring, or seek other visa categories. The Medicare amendment reallocates the federal metric for residency training and could reduce federal support for programs that train noncitizen physicians—potentially reshaping the physician pipeline.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill attacks the H‑1B program in two linked moves: a numerical phase‑out and a narrowing of who qualifies. For caps, it replaces the existing H‑1B numerical language with a specific year‑by‑year reduction: 10,000 visas in FY2026, declining by roughly 1,000 each year until hitting zero after FY2035.
That schedule curtails the issuance of new H‑1B visas over a defined transition rather than an immediate repeal.
On eligibility, the bill rewrites the H‑1B category so that ‘‘specialty occupation’’ petitions must be for physicians, surgeons, or nurses. It removes the fashion model carve‑out and inserts language requiring H‑1B applicants to maintain a foreign residence they do not intend to abandon—explicitly eliminating ‘‘dual intent’’ for H‑1B applicants.
Those changes narrow the H‑1B statute’s substantive reach and change who can reasonably be approved under the category.Separately, the bill amends Medicare’s GME language to say that Medicare cost reporting will not include any program that trains an individual who is an ‘‘alien.’’ Practically, that means hospitals cannot count federally supported training slots used by noncitizen trainees under the existing GME reimbursement framework, which will affect how hospitals calculate Medicare‑related graduate medical education payments and could reduce incentives to accept noncitizen residents.The text does not include explicit transitional or grandfathering provisions for currently valid H‑1B visas or for H‑1B holders already in the United States. Because the bill changes both numerical caps and statutory definitions, the operational effect on extensions, portability, or pending petitions would depend on administrative implementation and potentially litigation.
Employers, foreign national employees, and hospitals will need close legal analysis to interpret status continuity and funding impacts.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill sets a phased H‑1B cap: 10,000 in FY2026, then 9,000 (FY2027), 8,000, 7,000, 6,000, 5,000, 4,000, 3,000, 2,000, 1,000, and zero thereafter (no H‑1B visas after FY2035).
It narrows ‘‘specialty occupations’’ for H‑1B to only physicians, surgeons, and nurses by inserting that requirement into 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(2).
The bill removes H‑1B eligibility for fashion models and imposes a statutory requirement that H‑1B applicants have a foreign residence they do not intend to abandon, eliminating dual‑intent language for the category.
Section 3 amends Medicare GME reporting (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(5)(A)) so GME counts will exclude any program that trains an ‘‘alien,’’ potentially reducing Medicare‑recognized training slots for noncitizen residents.
The statute contains no explicit grandfathering language for existing H‑1B holders or pending petitions; the bill’s silence leaves open significant questions about extensions, portability, and the status of current holders.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the ‘‘End H‑1B Now Act.’
Phase‑out schedule for H‑1B numerical limitation
Amends 8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(A) to replace the current numerical language with a step‑down schedule from 10,000 visas in FY2026 to zero after FY2035. Practically, this fixes the aggregate number of new H‑1B visas available each fiscal year during the transition; it does not itself spell out administrative processes for lotteries, allocations among employer categories, or how cap‑exempt petitions are treated, which will be left to implementing guidance or further statutory detail.
Removes fashion‑model classification and reinstates foreign residence requirement
Modifies 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) by striking the fashion‑model language and inserting an express requirement that the H‑1B applicant ‘‘have a residence in a foreign country which he has no intention of abandoning.’’ That language removes the established ‘‘dual intent’’ flexibility H‑1B petitioners have relied on and narrows the class of applicants who can qualify on intent grounds; it also eliminates the explicit fashion‑model H‑1B path.
Limits ‘‘specialty occupation’’ to physicians, surgeons, nurses
Alters 8 U.S.C. 1184(i)(2) to require that an H‑1B specialty occupation be for a physician, surgeon, or nurse. This is a categorical limitation rather than a skills‑based or degree‑based test, which removes most professional and technical occupations (e.g., IT, engineering, finance, academia) from the H‑1B program’s statutory scope.
Medicare GME exclusion for programs training noncitizens
Adds a sentence to 42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(5)(A) excluding from Medicare’s GME definition any program that trains an individual who is an alien. That will affect how hospitals count full‑time equivalent (FTE) residents for Medicare payments, potentially reducing federal GME support tied to programs that include noncitizen trainees and altering hospitals’ residency planning and hiring.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Certain U.S. job seekers and recent graduates in fields heavily staffed by H‑1B holders — they may face less competition for entry‑level and mid‑career positions as the H‑1B pipeline narrows, particularly in technology and other professional services.
- Medical graduates who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents — by restricting H‑1B eligibility to physicians, surgeons, and nurses and by excluding noncitizen trainees from Medicare GME counts, the bill could shift some training emphasis toward domestically licensed graduates.
- Employers that compete with H‑1B‑sponsoring firms for talent and prefer hiring domestic workers — these firms could gain leverage in recruitment and wage negotiations if the overseas hiring channel tightens.
Who Bears the Cost
- Technology firms, startups, and research universities that rely on H‑1B talent to fill specialized roles — they will need to redesign hiring, accelerate domestic training pipelines, or move work offshore.
- Current H‑1B holders and beneficiaries of pending petitions — absent clear grandfathering, these individuals face status uncertainty, potential loss of work authorization, or barriers to extensions and change‑of‑status.
- Teaching hospitals and health systems that rely on noncitizen residents — the Medicare GME change may reduce reimbursable FTE counts for programs that train aliens, with possible financial and operational impacts.
- Immigration law practitioners and HR departments — new statutory constraints will create a surge in requests for alternative visa strategies, litigation, and compliance work.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward but stark: the bill seeks to protect U.S. jobs by eliminating a major pathway for hiring skilled foreign workers, yet doing so risks creating or worsening real shortages of specialized labor—particularly in technology and healthcare—and forces a choice between short‑term labor protection and maintaining the flexible talent pipelines many industries rely on.
The bill’s largest implementation challenge is its silence on transition rules. It prescribes new numerical and categorical limits but does not say whether existing H‑1B statuses, multi‑year petitions, or pending change‑of‑status and extension requests survive the change.
That silence creates legal and operational uncertainty: agencies will need to decide whether to honor previously issued H‑1Bs, and employers will have to balance compliance risk against workforce continuity.
The Medicare GME amendment raises practical and legal questions about how ‘‘alien’’ is defined for counting purposes (lawful permanent residents? refugees? visa subclasses?) and whether hospitals that temporarily train noncitizen physicians will lose substantial Medicare funding. The provision could also accelerate credentialing bottlenecks if hospitals choose to limit noncitizen trainees to preserve Medicare counts.
Finally, the bill will likely shift demand to other immigration channels (L‑1, O‑1, TN, employer‑based green cards) and increase offshoring of specialized work, producing economic and diplomatic ripple effects the statute does not address.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.