Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to add a new section directing the Secretary of State to raise the consular visa application fee for nonimmigrant B visa applicants who are nationals of certain countries. Countries qualify for fee increases if they: deny or unreasonably delay accepting returns after DHS requests, are designated state sponsors of terrorism, or are tier 3 in the Trafficking in Persons report.
Whether fee increases unfairly penalize individual travelers versus governments
Relatively narrow, enforcement‑oriented measure that can attract supporters, though tourism/business and diplomatic objections exist.
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to add a new section directing the Secretary of State to raise the consular visa application fee for nonimmigrant B visa applicants who are nationals of certain countries.
Countries qualify for fee increases if they: deny or unreasonably delay accepting returns after DHS requests, are designated state sponsors of terrorism, or are tier 3 in the Trafficking in Persons report.
Fee increases are tiered: at least +50% for one criterion, +100% for two, and +150% for all three, with a monthly review of country determinations.
Technically simple and administratively doable, but diplomatic pushback and mixed stakeholder impact lower odds of enactment.
How solid the drafting looks.
Whether fee increases unfairly penalize individual travelers versus governments
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether fee increases unfairly penalize individual travelers versus governments
Likely skeptical of a policy that directly raises costs for individuals because of their nationality.
May accept holding foreign governments accountable, but will worry about humanitarian effects and fairness for asylum seekers and low-income travelers.
Sees the bill as a pragmatic lever to induce foreign cooperation on returns and offset consular burdens, but wants clearer implementation details.
Concerns focus on revenue use, diplomatic fallout, and legal clarity.
Likely supportive as a firm, targeted tool to penalize foreign governments that refuse repatriations or sponsor malign activity.
Views fee increases as appropriate leverage to protect U.S. immigration and security interests.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically simple and administratively doable, but diplomatic pushback and mixed stakeholder impact lower odds of enactment.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether fee increases unfairly penalize individual travelers versus governments
Technically simple and administratively doable, but diplomatic pushback and mixed stakeholder impact lower odds of enactment.
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for FIRM Act of 2025.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.