J.D. Vance asserts he’s scrutinizing universities for visa fraud, yet the probe seems motivated by protectionism.
As the vice president charged with steering the administration’s anti-fraud agenda, J.D. Vance has redirected his attention toward another suspected instance of wasted spending.
Recently, Vance disclosed an inquiry into nine universities over alleged J-1 visa fraud as part of the broader effort to tighten controls on foreign labor programs. He argues that these institutions—which include Harvard, Stanford, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—are “employing J-1 visas for federally funded grants at a rate of about 61 percent” compared with a “national average of just 38 percent.”
“Something odd is happening at these universities,” Vance said. “They rely on these visas far too heavily. They use them in ways that suppress the wages of American graduate students and domestic researchers, and it must stop.” Naturally, he believed this justified opening a fraud investigation.
Labor Department Inspector General Anthony D’Esposito, who is heading the inquiry, offered pointed remarks for the universities. “Improperly categorized J-1 visas to dodge employment obligations, exploit taxpayer-funded programs, and undermine American workers will not be tolerated.” He added that prestige won’t shield any institution from consequences: “Break the law and harm the American people, and I will personally hold you accountable.” He also warned that universities could be exposing American research to foreign adversaries, specifically China.
The press conference appeared to indict the J-1 program more than to accuse the schools of fraud. Unlike the H-1B visa—which permits employers to sponsor highly skilled foreign workers—the J-1 operates more like an exchange program than a dedicated work visa; it does not require employers to pay the prevailing wage or for visa holders to contribute to Social Security or Medicaid taxes during the initial years. Using the program to hire cheaper foreign labor is presented as a feature of the program, not a violation.
The full picture is considerably murkier than the figures cited by Vance. The inspector general’s statement notes that “approximately 61 percent of postdoctoral workers and researchers supported by federal grants at the nine universities are foreign nationals, compared to 38 percent at other universities.” Foreign nationals could include H-1B holders and other visa categories, not solely J-1s as claimed. Moreover, the 38 percent figure comes from unspecified “other universities,” rather than the national average.
D’Esposito spoke with a fiery tone, but neither he nor Vance pointed to a single proven violation by a university. Their evidence rests on a statistic showing that these elite research institutions rely heavily on foreign researchers. Vance’s main objection isn’t that these universities have broken the law; it’s that they hire foreigners instead of Americans, which aligns with his protectionist stance.
Opposition to visa programs is found on both the left and the right. In his first term, President Donald Trump implemented a raft of restrictions that complicated the H-1B visa process and pushed denial rates to about 24 percent in FY 2018 (up from roughly 6 percent in FY 2015). In 2020, the administration was compelled to roll back key policies behind those increased denials after a federal judge ruled they hadn’t followed the required rulemaking process. In September of last year, Trump imposed a $100,000 fee on H-1B petitions. A federal judge struck it down in June, ruling that it exceeded the president’s authority and violated the separation of powers.
Historically, other presidents have used federal power to leverage higher education. Yet Trump’s campaign against universities—including the freezing of federal funds for institutions like Columbia and Harvard over alleged antisemitism—is largely without precedent. These actions highlight a deeper issue: federal funding comes with federal influence, and as long as universities depend on federal dollars, they remain subject to Washington’s sway. If institutions want enduring independence, the solution isn’t to curb the J-1 visa; it’s to reduce their reliance on federal support altogether.
