Wednesday 4 November 2026

Immigration has once again featured prominently in the US midterm elections. For businesses, however, the most important question is not whether the political landscape has shifted to the left or right. It is what the new landscape could mean for their ability to recruit, relocate and retain international talent.

So, what should businesses take from the results? In this post, we consider the potential implications in states such as California, Texas and New York, where businesses make significant use of employment-based immigration.

California: Silicon Valley and the future of high-skilled immigration
California provides a strong link between employment-based immigration and the economic competitiveness of the United States. Silicon Valley’s technology and AI companies compete globally for highly specialized workers, making access to international talent particularly important to the state’s economy.

Re-elected Democratic Congressman Khanna, whose district encompasses much of Silicon Valley, has taken a position that is broadly supportive of high-skilled immigration while simultaneously calling for significant reform of the H-1B program. He has argued that the limited supply of H-1B visas should be preserved for highly skilled foreign workers. At the same time, he has criticized companies that use the program to replace US workers with foreign employees who can be paid less or have less bargaining power. That criticism should be viewed in the context of existing H-1B wage protections, which generally require employers to pay H-1B workers at least the required wage, based on the higher of the actual wage paid to similarly situated employees or the applicable prevailing wage. The purpose of these requirements is to prevent the employment of H-1B workers from adversely affecting the wages and working conditions of US workers.

His continued presence in Congress poses two overarching implications for businesses in the technology sector. First, it gives Silicon Valley an established voice in Congress arguing against a model of H-1B reform that could disproportionately disadvantage startups and smaller technology companies. For example, the additional fee of approximately $100,000 imposed by the Trump administration on certain H-1B petitions involving workers outside the United States, although currently subject to ongoing litigation, has a very different impact on an early-stage AI company hiring its first specialist engineer than it does on an established multinational enterprise. Khanna has explicitly identified that disparity when criticizing the fee.

Khanna’s re-election is particularly relevant to California’s growing technology companies. The practical issue is no longer simply whether the United States remains open to international talent. It is which international talent policymakers want to prioritize, what employers will have to demonstrate to sponsor those workers, and whether smaller companies can afford to compete for them.

Texas: political change in a major international recruitment market
The results in Texas also mark a notable political shift, with Democrat James Talarico winning the state’s US Senate contest and Democrat Gina Hinojosa defeating Republican Governor Greg Abbott. Hinojosa’s victory ends a Republican hold on the governorship dating back to 1995.

For businesses reliant on employment-based immigration, Talarico’s election is particularly noteworthy. He campaigned on an immigration platform that combines stronger border security with an expansion of lawful immigration opportunities. His priorities include increasing Border Patrol resources and enforcement against cartels and human trafficking, while making it easier for people to immigrate legally to strengthen the US economy. He has specifically criticized an approach that responds to illegal immigration by restricting avenues for legal immigrants who contribute economically.

His election to the Senate gives those views considerably greater relevance to corporate immigration. As a US senator, he will now be able to vote on federal legislation affecting employment-based visa programs and permanent immigration. Talarico has expressly identified comprehensive immigration reform and making legal immigration easier as priorities for his Senate tenure. This could make him a Senate voice for reforms that distinguish more clearly between unlawful immigration and the legal pathways US companies rely on to recruit international workers, helping to ensure that restrictions aimed at the former do not unnecessarily constrain the latter.

New York: a stronger voice for employment-based immigration reform
New York’s relevance to the business immigration debate is difficult to overstate. The state’s midterm results could be significant for employers that depend on international talent, particularly in financial services, technology and other highly skilled industries that compete globally for skilled workers, making access to employment-based immigration an important factor in the state’s economy.

Notable Democratic gains include Cait Conley’s defeat of Republican incumbent Mike Lawler in the state’s 17th District. New York Democrat Hakeem Jeffries is also now positioned to become Speaker when the new House convenes.

For New York employers, Democratic control of the House could mean greater resistance to further restrictions on employment-based immigration, while creating greater legislative and oversight pressure to address issues such as H-1B policy and employment-based green-card backlogs. For New York’s financial services, technology and other specialized service employers, this could provide a stronger counterweight to further restrictions on the routes they use to recruit and retain international talent, even if major immigration reform remains difficult to achieve.

What should employers be doing now?
Going forward, the midterm results could create more room for lawmakers to distinguish corporate and employment-based immigration from the broader debate on unlawful immigration and border enforcement, and suggest greater congressional resistance to restrictions on legal employment-based immigration.

The results do not require businesses to change their immigration programs immediately. Instead, employers should identify where their workforce strategies would be most exposed if the political themes emerging from the midterms become policy.

Employers should also consider how the new political landscape could affect the long-term retention of their foreign-national employees. Democratic gains in Congress may create greater legislative and oversight pressure to address employment-based green-card backlogs, while a clearer distinction between legal employment-based immigration and the wider border debate could help protect the routes businesses use to retain international workers. Employers with significant foreign-national workforces should therefore continue to follow these developments closely as they consider their long-term personnel planning.

Finally, employers should consider retention alongside recruitment. If the new Congress proves more receptive to addressing employment-based green-card backlogs, businesses with employees waiting for permanent residence will have a particular interest in those developments. Conversely, if reform remains difficult, employers may need to continue revisiting strategies for employees whose temporary status does not provide a predictable route to permanent residence.

Ultimately, the midterm results suggest that the business immigration debate may be shifting away from a simple question of whether immigration should be restricted or expanded. The more important question for employers may be which forms of legal immigration lawmakers consider economically valuable, and how accessible those routes remain to businesses of different sizes. For companies competing for international talent, the answer could directly affect the cost of sponsorship, access to skilled workers and the ability to retain them in the United States.