Microsoft, Adobe and six major IT companies face federal green-card labor certification restrictions as investigators examine suspected visa abuses at nine prominent American universities.
ST. LOUIS, MO – October 10, 2026 (STL.News) The Trump administration has launched a major enforcement action targeting suspected abuses of employment-based immigration programs, suspending eight prominent technology and outsourcing companies from a federal labor certification process while opening investigations into nine leading American universities.
Vice President JD Vance and Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling announced the corporate restrictions Thursday, October 8, during a White House Fraud Task Force event focused on protecting American workers and investigating suspected misuse of federal programs.
The restrictions affect Microsoft, Adobe, Cognizant, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, HCL Technologies and Capgemini.
The Department of Labor said it would stop accepting new applications and processing pending applications under the Permanent Labor Certification program, commonly known as PERM, involving those companies.
Separately, the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General confirmed it served subpoenas on nine universities, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as investigators examine possible misuse of J-1 exchange visitor visas.
The administration argues that some employers have used immigration programs to disadvantage American workers or circumvent employment protections.
The restrictions and investigations represent federal enforcement actions, not final findings that every company or university involved committed fraud.
Trump Administration – Eight Technology Companies Face Federal Restrictions
The Department of Labor’s decision affects an important part of the employment-based permanent residency process.
PERM labor certification is generally required before employers can sponsor foreign workers for permanent residency through certain employment-based immigration categories.
The process requires employers to demonstrate that there are insufficient qualified, willing, and available American workers for a particular position and that employing a foreign worker will not adversely affect the wages or working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.
An approved labor certification does not itself grant permanent residency. Employers generally must complete additional immigration procedures before a qualifying employee can obtain a green card.
Sonderling announced that the department would stop accepting new PERM applications and processing pending applications involving the eight companies.
The restrictions apply to the labor certification process, not every immigration benefit available to foreign employees.
They do not automatically revoke existing H-1B visas, cancel previously issued green cards, or terminate the lawful employment authorization of every foreign worker employed by the affected companies.
For employees pursuing permanent residency, the consequences depend on their individual immigration circumstances and whether their applications require labor certification through one of the named employers.
Federal officials have not announced a definite expiration date for the restrictions.
Vance said the suspensions would remain in place as long as the administration deems necessary, while calling for changes in corporate hiring practices.
Vance Accuses Microsoft of Abusing Immigration Programs
Microsoft became a central focus of the White House announcement.
Vance accused the technology company of relying heavily on foreign-worker immigration programs while laying off American employees.
He cited approximately 6,000 layoffs, 6,300 H-1B visa approvals and nearly 3,000 green cards associated with Microsoft.
The vice president argued that the figures raised concerns about whether immigration programs were being used in ways that disadvantaged American workers.
Vance said the administration wanted Microsoft to continue investing in the United States while placing greater emphasis on hiring domestic employees.
The administration’s criticism reflects its view that employment-based immigration programs should address legitimate workforce needs rather than provide a way to bypass American workers.
However, the figures Vance cites do not independently establish that Microsoft directly replaced laid-off American employees with foreign workers.
H-1B petitions can extend existing employment authorization and change immigration status for employees already working in the United States.
Those filings do not necessarily represent newly recruited foreign workers.
Similarly, layoffs and immigration approvals that overlap do not establish that the same positions were involved or that unlawful employment practices occurred.
Determining whether a company violated federal requirements would require examining specific recruitment procedures, job classifications, wages, and immigration filings.
Microsoft disputed the administration’s characterization of its employment practices.
Microsoft Responds to Federal Allegations
Microsoft said approximately 80% of its H-1B applications during the previous fiscal year involved extensions or changes of status for existing employees.
The company explained that those filings should not be interpreted as applications to recruit thousands of additional foreign workers.
Microsoft also said it compensates H-1B employees comparably to other employees performing similar work.
Its response challenges the administration’s interpretation of the relationship between layoffs and immigration filings.
Employers may continue submitting immigration petitions for existing employees while reducing staffing in other positions or departments.
That circumstance does not automatically establish wrongdoing, although companies remain subject to applicable immigration and labor requirements.
Microsoft’s explanation provides important context for evaluating the administration’s allegations.
The company’s statements do not constitute an independent federal determination concerning every immigration filing it has submitted.
Likewise, the PERM restrictions are an administrative action affecting labor certification processing, not a court ruling establishing that Microsoft committed visa fraud.
Infosys Says Restrictions Will Not Materially Affect Business
Infosys, one of the six IT outsourcing companies included in the restrictions, responded Saturday, October 10.
The India-based technology services company said it does not expect the suspension of its participation in the PERM program to materially affect its business.
Infosys also said it was prepared to cooperate with the Department of Labor and other relevant federal agencies to address questions about the government’s action.
The response suggests that the operational consequences of the restrictions may vary among the eight companies.
International technology companies use different staffing arrangements, including American employees, foreign professionals working under temporary visas, and workers based outside the United States.
The significance of a PERM suspension depends partly on how frequently an employer uses labor certification to sponsor employees for permanent residency.
Even when a company expects limited overall financial consequences, individual employees with pending immigration cases may experience delays.
Infosys’ statement represents the company’s assessment of the expected business impact. It does not establish whether federal investigators will ultimately identify any violations involving the company.
Nine Universities Face Federal Visa Investigations
The administration’s enforcement initiative also extends into American higher education.
On October 9, the Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General issued an official announcement confirming investigations into potential misuse of J-1 exchange visitor programs at nine universities.
The institutions are the University of Pittsburgh, Yale University, Harvard University, Stanford University, Brown University, the University of California, Davis, the California Institute of Technology, Arizona State University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Inspector General Anthony P. D’Esposito confirmed that investigators had served subpoenas on all nine institutions and that investigations were underway.
The J-1 visa program lets eligible foreign nationals participate in approved educational and cultural exchange activities, including academic research, teaching, and other authorized programs.
Federal investigators are examining whether universities improperly classified workers under J-1 visa categories to avoid employment obligations or otherwise violated program requirements.
The inspector general reported that approximately 61% of postdoctoral workers and researchers supported by federal grants at the nine universities were foreign nationals, compared with 38% at other universities.
Federal officials cited that difference as part of their explanation for examining the institutions’ practices.
However, the proportion of foreign researchers at a university does not, by itself, establish visa fraud, unlawful hiring, or improper displacement of American workers.
The investigation must determine whether specific employment arrangements or visa classifications violated federal requirements.
Federal Investigators Examine University Compliance
The university investigations focus on potential misuse and misclassification of J-1 exchange visitors at institutions receiving substantial federal research funding.
According to the Department of Labor inspector general, investigators are examining whether visa programs were used in ways that disadvantaged American workers or undermined program requirements.
D’Esposito also expressed concerns about foreign threats to American research, technology, and intellectual property.
Those statements describe the government’s concerns and the context of its enforcement initiative. They do not establish that any of the nine universities engaged in espionage or improperly transferred federally funded research.
American universities routinely recruit international researchers through lawful immigration programs.
The central question for investigators is whether particular institutions complied with the requirements governing those programs.
The October 9 announcement confirmed that investigations were underway. It did not announce final findings of fraud against the universities.
Federal Government Establishes Visa Fraud Strike Team
The Department of Labor’s Office of Inspector General also announced a Visa Fraud Strike Team to coordinate investigations into suspected employment-related immigration fraud.
The initiative will focus particularly on potential violations involving H-1B specialty occupation visas and J-1 exchange visitor visas.
According to the official announcement, the strike team will include personnel from the Department of Labor, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Homeland Security Investigations, and the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Service.
The initiative aims to combine investigative resources across federal agencies and pursue appropriate enforcement actions when evidence supports them.
The inspector general also announced a separate Most Wanted List identifying 16 fugitives accused of collectively stealing more than $250 million from American workers and taxpayers.
Those fugitive cases are separate from the corporate restrictions and university investigations.
The alleged financial losses have not been attributed to the eight companies or nine universities involved in the visa crackdown.
The strike team creates an additional federal mechanism to investigate suspected immigration-related employment violations.
What the Crackdown Means for American Workers
The administration’s actions renew a longstanding debate over the relationship between employment-based immigration, domestic hiring and wages.
Supporters of stronger enforcement argue that employers should be held accountable when they fail to comply with requirements intended to protect American workers.
The administration maintains that immigration programs should not be used to bypass qualified domestic applicants or reduce labor costs unlawfully.
Technology companies and higher education institutions, meanwhile, emphasize the importance of international recruitment for specialized employment and scientific research.
Federal immigration law permits qualifying employers to recruit foreign professionals while imposing requirements intended to protect American wages and employment opportunities.
The presence of foreign employees at a company does not establish that American workers were improperly displaced.
Similarly, a university’s employment of international researchers does not independently demonstrate misuse of the J-1 program.
Determining whether violations occurred requires examining specific recruitment practices, compensation records, employment arrangements, and immigration filings.
For workers employed by the eight affected companies, the immediate concern is the interruption of PERM labor certification processing.
For American job applicants, the enforcement initiative places additional attention on whether employers satisfy applicable domestic recruitment requirements.
The broader consequences will depend on subsequent federal actions and the outcomes of the investigations.
Understanding H-1B, J-1 and PERM Programs
The administration’s announcement involves three immigration mechanisms, each with a different purpose.
H-1B visas generally allow qualifying U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign professionals in specialty occupations requiring specialized knowledge and educational qualifications.
J-1 visas permit eligible foreign nationals to participate in designated educational and cultural exchange programs, including academic research and teaching.
PERM labor certification is generally an early step in the process through which employers sponsor certain foreign workers for employment-based permanent residency.
The October 8 corporate restrictions specifically concern the Department of Labor’s processing of PERM applications involving eight named employers.
They do not automatically terminate existing H-1B employment authorization or revoke previously issued green cards.
By contrast, the university investigations focus on suspected misuse of J-1 exchange visitor classifications.
Understanding these differences is essential when evaluating the legal consequences of the administration’s actions.
An employee may remain lawfully authorized to work under an existing visa while a separate permanent residency application is delayed.
The announcement should therefore not be interpreted as an immediate removal order affecting foreign employees at the named companies or universities.
What Happens Next in the Visa Fraud Crackdown?
The Department of Labor has not announced a definite date for lifting the PERM restrictions involving the eight technology and outsourcing companies.
Vance said the restrictions could remain in place until federal officials are satisfied the companies have addressed the administration’s concerns.
The affected employers may seek clarification from federal authorities or pursue available administrative and legal remedies.
The nine universities must respond to investigative subpoenas and provide records as legally required.
Federal investigators will evaluate whether the evidence supports allegations of improper visa classifications, employment violations or other misconduct.
Investigators could pursue additional administrative enforcement or criminal referrals if they find sufficient grounds.
However, investigations may also conclude without findings of wrongdoing against particular organizations.
As of October 10, the federal announcements and independent reporting establish that the government has imposed PERM processing restrictions involving eight companies and initiated investigations involving nine universities.
They do not establish that every company or university involved committed immigration fraud.
The administration’s actions significantly expand federal scrutiny of employment-based immigration practices involving major technology companies and research universities.
The eventual consequences for American workers, foreign professionals and employers will depend on the evidence developed, the responses of the affected organizations and subsequent decisions by federal authorities.
For now, the administration has made clear that employment-based immigration enforcement remains a priority, with federal officials examining whether programs intended to support lawful employment and academic exchange are being administered in accordance with federal requirements.
