US midterm elections 2026: What could change for H-1B & green cards as US' immigration rules face a poll test

The US midterm elections are shaping up to be a major test for the country's immigration policy, with lawmakers proposing changes that could affect H-1B visas, employment-based green cards and deportations. Americans vote in the midterms in November, when all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and roughly one-third of the Senate are up for election. The results will determine control of Congress and, with it, which immigration proposals have a realistic path through the House and Senate.

Also Read| Why gerrymandering matters in the 2026 US midterm elections

For Indians, the debate goes beyond illegal immigration and border security. Several proposals before Congress directly concern skilled workers and people seeking permanent residency, while other bills would change detention and deportation rules.


The proposals also come as President Donald Trump's administration is separately tightening immigration rules through executive actions and regulations. These should not be confused with bills before Congress: administration policies can take effect without Congress passing new legislation, while bills generally need approval from both chambers and the president's signature to become law.

Here is where some of the major immigration proposals stand ahead of the midterms.

US Midterm Elections 2026: What could change for H-1B visas?

H-1B visas have emerged as one area where lawmakers are seeking substantial changes.

Republican Senator Jon Husted of Ohio has introduced the Protecting American Workers Through H-1B Modernization Act, which would change a salary threshold that has remained at $60,000 since 1998.

Under existing rules, certain H-1B-dependent employers face additional requirements intended to protect US workers. However, an H-1B employee can qualify as an "exempt" worker if the person earns at least $60,000 or holds a master's degree or higher.

Husted's bill would replace the fixed $60,000 salary threshold with a level equal to twice the Social Security Administration's national average wage index. His office said that would currently put the threshold at nearly $140,000. The threshold would then move with wages rather than remaining fixed. The bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“For decades, companies have been able to sidestep hiring American workers because of a salary threshold that hasn’t budged since 1998. That’s not modernization, that’s a loophole,” Husted said.

Some Republicans want an H-1B pause

A more restrictive proposal would go further.

Republican Senator Tim Sheehy of Montana, along with Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio, introduced the End H-1B Visa Abuse Act of 2026 in the Senate. The legislation proposes pausing the issuance of H-1B visas until specified restrictions are implemented.

The Senate bill was introduced in July and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A House version was introduced earlier by Republican Representative Elijah Crane of Arizona with seven Republican cosponsors. That bill has also been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Neither proposal is currently law.

The push in Congress is taking place alongside action by the Trump administration. In September, Trump extended for another year the requirement for a $100,000 payment for certain H-1B petitions involving workers outside the US, subject to exceptions. The renewed restriction runs until September 21, 2027.

The White House has also directed federal agencies to give greater scrutiny to H-1B applications involving employers that have recently laid off, or plan to lay off, similarly situated US workers. Those are administration actions rather than congressional proposals.

H-1B reform is not entirely divided along party lines

The debate over H-1B is more complicated than a simple Republican-versus-Democrat split.

Republican Senator Chuck Grassley and Democratic Senator Dick Durbin introduced the H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act of 2025, alongside Senators Bernie Sanders, Tommy Tuberville and Richard Blumenthal.

The bipartisan bill seeks changes aimed at reducing fraud and abuse in the H-1B and L-1 programmes. It remains before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

That means proposals to tighten parts of the skilled-worker visa system have supporters from both parties, even as lawmakers differ significantly over the Trump administration's broader approach to legal immigration.

Green cards: A proposal to rewrite the system

The debate becomes broader when permanent immigration is considered.

Republican Representative David Schweikert of Arizona introduced the SMARTER Act in September. The proposal would make major changes to the way the US distributes employment-based green cards.

Instead of the existing employment-based preference structure, the legislation proposes a points system that would rank applicants using factors including age, education, English proficiency, job offers and compensation. Higher salaries would receive more points.

The legislation would also allow employment-based immigration numbers to be adjusted according to labour-market needs and would repeal the existing per-country numerical limits.

The latter provision would be particularly relevant to Indians because employment-based applicants from India have faced long waits under the current system's numerical limits.

But the bill goes considerably further than employment-based immigration. It would narrow family-sponsored immigration, remove parents from the definition of immediate relatives of US citizens for new cases, and eliminate the Diversity Visa programme.

The SMARTER Act was introduced on September 15 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It has not become law.

Also Read| The H-1B midterm test: Why Indian tech workers could matter in the US elections

Democrats push back on green-card restrictions

Democratic lawmakers have taken a different position on several recent restrictions affecting legal immigration.

Senators Dick Durbin and Alex Padilla and Representatives Jamie Raskin and Pramila Jayapal were among lawmakers who challenged a USCIS policy affecting adjustment-of-status applications.

They called on USCIS to reverse guidance that they said creates a preference for green-card applicants to complete processing through US consulates abroad rather than adjusting status while inside the country.

Jayapal has also criticised the administration's decision to suspend Microsoft from the Permanent Labor Certification, or PERM, programme.

PERM is an important early step for many employer-sponsored green cards. Jayapal said the US needed “more — not fewer — legal pathways for immigrants” while maintaining protections for American workers.

Democratic lawmakers have also introduced the LIFT the BAR Act, which would remove the five-year waiting period that applies to some lawful immigrants seeking access to federal programmes including Medicaid, SNAP and TANF. Jayapal and Representative Rob Menendez introduced the measure with 99 lawmakers in June.

International students are also part of the fight

The congressional immigration battle is not limited to workers and green-card applicants.

Durbin, Padilla, Blumenthal and Sheldon Whitehouse, along with Democratic House lawmakers including Jayapal and Raskin introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution seeking to overturn the Trump administration's rule changing how F-1 students, J-1 exchange visitors and I-visa holders are admitted to the US.

The lawmakers oppose replacing the long-standing “duration of status” system with fixed periods of admission.

That fight could be particularly relevant to international students who later seek H-1B visas and employment-based green cards.

What the midterms can and cannot change

The November midterms will not themselves rewrite America's immigration system.

What they will decide is which party controls the House and Senate. That matters because Congress can pass or block legislation, control committee agendas, conduct oversight and determine funding for agencies including DHS, ICE and USCIS.

A Congress seeking tougher immigration restrictions could pursue proposals dealing with H-1B wages, visa issuance, detention and enforcement. A Congress opposed to parts of Trump's immigration agenda could instead use legislation, funding and oversight to challenge or limit some administration policies.

But executive actions are a separate matter.

Trump's $100,000 H-1B payment requirement, for example, comes from a presidential proclamation rather than an act of Congress. The administration is also pursuing H-1B changes through federal rulemaking and agency policy.

That distinction will be important after the election: winning control of Congress does not automatically cancel an existing presidential proclamation or agency regulation.

For Indian workers and students, the immigration debate therefore has two tracks to watch - what the Trump administration is already changing, and what the Congress elected in the midterms may try to change next.