Connect with us

Business

California, other states sue Trump administration over $100,000 fee for H-1B visas

Published

on

California, other states sue Trump administration over 0,000 fee for H-1B visas

California and a coalition of other states are suing the Trump administration over a policy charging employers $100,000 for each new H-1B visa they request for foreign employees to work in the U.S. — calling it a threat not only to major industry but also to public education and healthcare services.

“As the world’s fourth largest economy, California knows that when skilled talent from around the world joins our workforce, it drives our state forward,” said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who announced the litigation Friday.

President Trump imposed the fee through a Sept. 19 proclamation, in which he said the H-1B visa program — designed to provide U.S. employers with skilled workers in science, technology, engineering, math and other advanced fields — has been “deliberately exploited to replace, rather than supplement, American workers with lower-paid, lower-skilled labor.”

Trump said the program also created a “national security threat by discouraging Americans from pursuing careers in science and technology, risking American leadership in these fields.”

Advertisement

Bonta said such claims are baseless, and that the imposition of such fees is unlawful because it runs counter to the intent of Congress in creating the program and exceeds the president’s authority. He said Congress has included significant safeguards to prevent abuses, and that the new fee structure undermines the program’s purpose.

“President Trump’s illegal $100,000 H-1B visa fee creates unnecessary — and illegal — financial burdens on California public employers and other providers of vital services, exacerbating labor shortages in key sectors,” Bonta said in a statement. “The Trump Administration thinks it can raise costs on a whim, but the law says otherwise.”

Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman, said Friday that the fee was “a necessary, initial, incremental step towards necessary reforms” that were lawful and in line with the president’s promise to “put American workers first.”

Attorneys for the administration previously defended the fee in response to a separate lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Assn. of American Universities, arguing earlier this month that the president has “extraordinarily broad discretion to suspend the entry of aliens whenever he finds their admission ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States,’” or to adopt “reasonable rules, regulations, and orders” related to their entry.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that this authority is ‘sweeping,’ subject only to the requirement that the President identify a class of aliens and articulate a facially legitimate reason for their exclusion,” the administration’s attorneys wrote.

Advertisement

They alleged that the H-1B program has been “ruthlessly and shamelessly exploited by bad actors,” and wrote that the plaintiffs were asking the court “to disregard the President’s inherent authority to restrict the entry of aliens into the country and override his judgment,” which they said it cannot legally do.

Trump’s announcement of the new fee alarmed many existing visa holders and badly rattled industries that are heavily reliant on such visas, including tech companies trying to compete for the world’s best talent in the global race to ramp up their AI capabilities. Thousands of companies in California have applied for H-1B visas this year, and tens of thousands have been granted to them.

Trump’s adoption of the fees is seen as part of his much broader effort to restrict immigration into the U.S. in nearly all its forms. However, he is far from alone in criticizing the H-1B program as a problematic pipeline.

Critics of the program have for years documented examples of employers using it to replace American workers with cheaper foreign workers, as Trump has suggested, and questioned whether the country truly has a shortage of certain types of workers — including tech workers.

There have also been allegations of employers, who control the visas, abusing workers and using the threat of deportation to deter complaints — among the reasons some on the political left have also been critical of the program.

Advertisement

“Not only is this program disastrous for American workers, it can be very harmful to guest workers as well, who are often locked into lower-paying jobs and can have their visas taken away from them by their corporate bosses if they complain about dangerous, unfair or illegal working conditions,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrote in a Fox News opinion column in January.

In the Chamber of Commerce case, attorneys for the administration wrote that companies in the U.S. “have at times laid off thousands of American workers while simultaneously hiring thousands of H-1B workers,” sometimes even forcing the American workers “to train their H-1B replacements” before they leave.

They have done so, the attorneys wrote, even as unemployment among recent U.S. college graduates in STEM fields has increased.

“Employing H-1B workers in entry-level positions at discounted rates undercuts American worker wages and opportunities, and is antithetical to the purpose of the H-1B program, which is ‘to fill jobs for which highly skilled and educated American workers are unavailable,’” the administration’s attorneys wrote.

By contrast, the states’ lawsuit stresses the shortfalls in the American workforce in key industries, and defends the program by citing its existing limits. The legal action notes that employers must certify to the government that their hiring of visa workers will not negatively affect American wages or working conditions. Congress also has set a cap on the number of visa holders that any individual employer may hire.

Advertisement

Bonta’s office said educators account for the third-largest occupation group in the program, with nearly 30,000 educators with H-1B visas helping thousands of institutions fill a national teacher shortage that saw nearly three-quarters of U.S. school districts report difficulty filling positions in the 2024-2025 school year.

Schools, universities and colleges — largely public or nonprofit — cannot afford to pay $100,000 per visa, Bonta’s office said.

In addition, some 17,000 healthcare workers with H-1B visas — half of them physicians and surgeons — are helping to backfill a massive shortfall in trained medical staff in the U.S., including by working as doctors and nurses in low-income and rural neighborhoods, Bonta’s office said.

“In California, access to specialists and primary care providers in rural areas is already extremely limited and is projected to worsen as physicians retire and these communities struggle to attract new doctors,” it said. “As a result of the fee, these institutions will be forced to operate with inadequate staffing or divert funding away from other important programs to cover expenses.”

Bonta’s office said that prior to the imposition of the new fee, employers could expect to pay between $960 and $7,595 in “regulatory and statutory fees” per H-1B visa, based on the actual cost to the government of processing the request and document, as intended by Congress.

Advertisement

The Trump administration, Bonta’s office said, issued the new fee without going through legally required processes for collecting outside input first, and “without considering the full range of impacts — especially on the provision of the critical services by government and nonprofit entities.”

The arguments echo findings by a judge in a separate case years ago, after Trump tried to restrict many such visas in his first term. A judge in that case — brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Assn. of Manufacturers and others — found that Congress, not the president, had the authority to change the terms of the visas, and that the Trump administration had not evaluated the potential impacts of such a change before implementing it, as required by law.

The case became moot after President Biden decided not to renew the restrictions in 2021, a move which tech companies considered a win.

Joining in the lawsuit — California’s 49th against the Trump administration in the last year alone — are Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

Advertisement

Business

Trader Joe’s expands with two new locations in California

Published

on

Trader Joe’s expands with two new locations in California

Trader Joe’s plans to open two new stores in California.

The stores will be located in Paso Robles and Anaheim Hills, part of a batch of 10 new nationwide locations the company announced last week.

The additions are part of the company’s growing nationwide expansion.

The popular grocery chain plans to unveil at least 20 locations this year, two of which have already opened their doors, Nakia Rohde, a spokesperson for Trader Joe’s, told The Times.

Trader Joe’s, known for its unique, affordable products and viral tote bags, has undergone rapid growth over the past year, opening 11 new stores in the last two months of 2025.

Advertisement

The Monrovia-based company has been in growth mode since the first store — located in Pasadena — opened in 1967, Rohde said.

“Our goal is always to bring delicious products at great values to as many people and neighborhoods as we can,” Rohde said. “The best way to do that is to open more stores.”

Trader Joe’s announced five new California locations just under a year ago. A store in Costa Mesa opened in December and another Los Angeles location opened in June.

The company’s rapid developments come as grocery stores battle rising inflation, only further complicated by the hike in gas prices.

Some companies have fared better than others. Aldi, a discount grocery chain, plans to add 180 U.S. stores in 2026. Grocery Outlet announced in March that it is closing 36 underperforming stores, including nine in California.

Advertisement

Trader Joe’s is privately held and owned by families who also own a stake in the Aldi supermarket chain, according to its website.

Continue Reading

Business

How California Pistachio Farmers Profit From Iran War and Viral Dubai Chocolate Trends

Published

on

How California Pistachio Farmers Profit From Iran War and Viral Dubai Chocolate Trends

Land area devoted to pistachio growing

Advertisement

Twenty years ago, California farmers bet big on the pistachio. The little green nut was considered niche in the United States, but it was a staple in Iran and the surrounding region.

That gamble has paid off. Demand for pistachios is high as wellness trends draw people to high-fiber, protein-rich foods. They are also a key ingredient of Dubai chocolate, the incredibly popular chocolate bar filled with pistachio cream and kataifi, or shredded phyllo.

Advertisement

Pistachio orchards cover more than 600,000 acres in California, up from 100,000 in 2001. The San Joaquin Valley of California has near-perfect conditions for pistachios, a mix of hot, dry summers and cold, wet winters. The United States is now the world’s largest producer and exporter of pistachios. Iran is second.

Adam Orandi, the chief executive of ARO Pistachios in Terra Bella, Calif., on the farm his father started with Iranian pistachios in 1971. Adam Perez for The New York Times

Advertisement

Yet more than a month into the war with Iran, ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is at historically low levels, which has stymied exports from the region.

The potential removal of a major player in the market is good news for farmers in California, who are likely to get higher prices for their pistachios.

Advertisement

“With this war, it’s going to limit what Iran is able to do, able to ship, to customers in Europe and China,” said Adam Orandi, who farms 1,600 acres of pistachio orchards in the San Joaquin Valley. His father imported saplings from Iran in the 1970s.

“For years, pistachios were a one-trick pony. They were a salty snack,” Mr. Orandi said. Adam Perez for The New York Times

Advertisement

For hundreds of years, Iran dominated the market. Pistachios first found their way to California in the 1930s when an American botanist, William E. Whitehouse, brought the nuts back from Iran. Yet only one variety flourished, which was named the “Kerman.”

Pistachio orchards expanded in the 1970s in California, but Iran continued to control the global market until the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, when students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took dozens of Americans hostage.

Advertisement

Various trade embargoes against Iran were imposed and lifted in the following years, but a 241 percent tariff that was put in place in 1986 essentially ended Iran’s reign in the pistachio market in the United States.

Since 2011, the United States has consistently surpassed Iran as the largest exporter of pistachios. Iran has continued to lose market share.

Advertisement

The U.S. leads Iran in pistachio exports

Advertisement

Source: U.S.D.A. Foreign Agricultural Service.

“Production in Iran has been very erratic,” said David Magaña, who analyzes the fresh produce and tree nut industry at Rabobank. “Fifteen years ago, Iran accounted for 40 to 50 percent of global pistachio exports. More recently, Iran’s share has been more like 20 percent.”

The wholesale price of in-shell pistachios — what large manufacturers or retailers pay — has climbed 20 percent in the last 18 months to $4.57 a pound, according to Expana, a market data provider for the agriculture and food industries. In stores, consumers are paying significantly more.

Advertisement

Pistachio orchards cover more than 600,000 acres in California, up from 100,000 in 2005. Adam Perez for The New York Times

Advertisement

The market is divided into two products: in-shell pistachios, which are sold whole and often roasted, and pistachio “kernels,” the seeds that are used in food production. The explosion of interest in pistachios as an ingredient in desserts and other foods has sharply increased demand for the kernels.

“For years, pistachios were a one-trick pony. They were a salty snack,” Mr. Orandi said. Just a few years ago, he added, he “couldn’t give the kernels away.”

In recent years, California growers have devoted more acreage to pistachios, and the state produced a record 1.6 billion pounds last year. American Pistachio Growers, a trade association, projected that California trees will bear more than two billion pounds of pistachios by 2031.

Advertisement

Pistachio imports have shot up worldwide

Advertisement

Source: U.S.D.A. Foreign Agricultural Service.

But there is one thing standing between the farmers and those projections: California’s water regulations, which people in the industry said may restrict the ability of some orchards to expand.

Advertisement

Pistachios, like other tree nuts, require large amounts of water. The amount needed by an acre of pistachio trees for an optimal crop yield depends on a number of factors, including soil salinity and the age of the trees.

On average, one acre of pistachios consumes over one million gallons of water in a year — slightly less than almonds and walnuts, according to estimates from University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. For areas in California prone to droughts, the pistachio boom could add stress to the state’s already thin water resources.

Advertisement

The vast majority of pistachios in California — in addition to other nuts and crops — grow in areas classified as of “extremely high” water stress as defined by the World Resources Institute, an environmental research firm. Compared to two decades ago, the amount of water used annually for pistachios in these areas is now tens of billions more gallons than before.

Advertisement

Difference in water use in pistachio-growing regions between 2007 and 2025

Note: Figures for gallons of water were derived from OpenET’s estimates for pistachio water use between 2020 and 2023 — roughly 47 inches of applied water per acre. Sources: World Resources Institute; CropScape; OpenET.

Advertisement

Still, there may be benefits to pistachios emerging as a major nut crop of the state, according to Josué Medellín-Azuara, a water resources researcher and professor of environmental engineering at University of California, Merced. They are more tolerant to drought and water salinity compared to walnuts and almonds, and they are consistently a high value crop, he said.

The profitability of these water-intensive crops creates a paradox for the farmers planting them, said Rich Pauloo, a hydrologist. “They consume more water, but you get more money per drop of water.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Barbie brand takes another hit with festival flop

Published

on

Barbie brand takes another hit with festival flop

Jacqueline Kerr arrived to a Florida convention center Friday, suitcases stuffed with intricate, hand-made costumes — pink sequined ball gowns, a leopard bodysuit and an all-white rhinestone cowgirl ensemble — all paying homage to classic Barbie looks.

None of them made it out of her suitcase.

Kerr and her best friend had spent hundreds of dollars preparing for Barbie Dream Fest, a three-day event that organizers touted as a chance for fans to “live the dream life.”

But when Kerr arrived Friday, it felt more like a nightmare.

“I was so excited to have an event where I could finally put on my most Barbie-esque outfits and have an excuse to wear them without looking like a fool,” the 32-year-old from Florida said. “We were so disillusioned after that first day.”

Advertisement

Hundreds of posts from angry attendees flooded social media sites this weekend, many of whom said the event was a far cry from what was advertised. The event was organized by Mischief Management in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Tickets for adults were hefty, ranging from $69 for a day pass to $449 for a 3-day VIP experience. Kerr and her friend purchased a pass that cost $249 per person and included a swag bag that she never received, she said.

Mischief Management confirmed to The Times that the company is issuing full refunds to all ticket holders. Kerr was told the refund would process in three to four weeks.

The event was meant to be an intimate fan convention designed to offer fans closer access to the Barbie universe, a spokesperson for the company said.

“We appreciate the passion and engagement from the Barbie community,” said a spokesperson from Mischief Management. “Bringing fans together — alongside Barbie role models, designers, partners, and global icons who embody the true spirit of Barbie — was at the heart of this event.”

Advertisement

The event comes during a tough time for the Barbie brand. The doll, one of the most popular toys in Mattel’s inventory, has struggled to garner sales, despite gaining momentum in 2023, when the “Barbie” movie had widespread success.

Mattel’s shares plummeted in February after the company announced weak holiday season sales, with Barbie products taking a big hit. The company recently announced it’s laying off 65 employees in May, and let go of 89 other workers in January.

The Barbie brand was licensed by Mischief Management, a spokesperson for Mattel said.

“We want every fan experience to be an excellent one,” the spokesperson said.

The event sold ticket-holders a big dream, including an ’80s-themed neon roller-skating party, an interactive Barbie Dream House, a bicycle course and a free glam bar. The schedule also boasted a star-studded lineup of speakers, including Serena Williams and Angel Reese.

Advertisement

But that dream fell flat, attendees said.

Instead, eventgoers roamed a largely empty convention center with bare concrete walls void of pink and glitter. A small, makeshift rink sectioned off by barricades was stationed in the corner, and the glam bar was closed down by the second day of the event. The bicycle course featured four small bikes with training wheels, only suitable for young children.

Kerr and her friend worked their way through the convention in less than 45 minutes on Friday, she said.

Williams, Reese and other celebrities did hold speaking events over the weekend, though the audience was mostly empty, Kerr said. The Mattel designers responsible for making Barbie also spoke at the convention.

The schedule promoted a free glam bar, which wasn’t staffed for most of the weekend, said Brielle Cenci, a vendor who paid several thousand dollars to have a booth.

Advertisement

Cenci owns a company that sells mermaid clip-on hair extensions and flew in from New Jersey. The event felt poorly organized and vendors received little communication ahead of the convention that only dwindled as the weekend went on, she said.

Vendors expected the convention to be packed with thousands of people, but Cenci said she saw only about 100 attendees a day.

“It felt like a farmers market,” Cenci said. “It was a ghost town. It felt awkward for the people attending, because it was so silent and empty… We were just as in the dark about the event as the attendees were.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending