America’s fight over H‑1B visas is spilling well beyond policy. Anti‑Indian posts on X drew about 280 million views last summer, a sign that an argument over skilled-immigration rules is morphing into open hostility toward Indian and other South Asian communities.
The New York Times, citing data from the Center for the Study of Organized Hate, reported that posts featuring anti‑Indian slurs and narratives such as “deport Indians” amassed roughly 280 million views over about two months in the summer of 2025. Researchers at Stop AAPI Hate also say anti‑South Asian slurs and threats have surged in online spaces associated with targeted violence since 2023, as immigration rhetoric hardened. Together, the findings suggest a feedback loop in which political flashpoints help mainstream previously fringe abuse.
Tensions rose after President Donald Trump proposed a new H‑1B charge, with the White House unveiling a Trump proposed a $100,000 H‑1B fee in September 2025. The move triggered an immediate backlash from industry and civil‑society groups, and multiple legal challenges followed. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sued to block the fee, while state attorneys general in Michigan and Massachusetts joined multistate actions arguing the policy exceeds executive authority and bypasses required rulemaking. However the courts rule, the fight has already reframed a long‑standing program as a cultural lightning rod.
While some activists have tried to tether the H‑1B program to broader demographic anxieties, prominent conservatives of Indian origin have pushed back. Ramaswamy urged conservatives to denounce anti‑Indian bigotry, warning that tolerating slurs and conspiracies corrodes the movement’s core ideals. The Washington Post has also documented how online clashes over visas — amplified by high‑profile influencers — have helped normalize racist language about Indians and South Asians in mainstream political feeds.
In the months ahead, watch three fronts: the courts, which will determine whether the new fee stands; Capitol Hill and federal agencies, where any durable H‑1B overhaul would need to be codified; and the online conversation, where researchers will track whether election‑year rhetoric continues to fuel spikes in harassment. However the policy debate evolves, keeping criticism focused on rules, not communities, will be essential to preventing a further slide from disagreement into dehumanization.