Travelers to the U.S. must pay a new $250 'visa integrity fee' – what to know

64 koolba 68 7/18/2025, 1:50:47 PM cnbc.com ↗

Comments (68)

lordleft · 1h ago
I feel like an under-discussed consequence of the current administration is how deeply these choices will harm tourism. Travel is a big part of our economy. A 250 dollar fee is yet another reason to choose Europe or Asia or your own country over the US.
evolve2k · 2m ago
[deleted]
mattnewton · 1h ago
My read - this administration seems to be betting that behaviors will change slowly enough and America has enough of a draw still that they can extract more concessions, both in the market (with tariffs), and with measures like this in the near term, without a collapse in tourism or middle class consumerism.

They must believe that the long term effects will change slowly enough, or the effects will be concentrated on the poorest, and so they can just ignored as they won't be electorally punished for them.

I disagree with the policies personally but politically I don't know if their calculation is wrong.

x86x87 · 1h ago
it's almost like they don't want tourists.
koolba · 33m ago
Or they want to have one more chip to play with when negotiating trade deals.
oceansky · 1h ago
Then why host the World Cup?
ebiester · 1h ago
FIFA is looking at moving our matches to Canada. I don't think this administration was that interested in hosting a global event.
keyringlight · 26m ago
And the Olympics in 2028
pjc50 · 1h ago
Agreed under a previous administration. Besides, oligarchs like football, that's why it was hosted in Qatar previously.

No comments yet

hobofan · 1h ago
... from "certain" countries.

Many "desirable" countries have visa-waiver programs where I would assume they would be unaffected.

hobofan · 1h ago
Seems like half of the comments here have only skimmed the article.

There doesn't seem to be an intent to implement reimbursement of the fee from the time it is implemented, and clear incentive to be as slow with it as possible.

> On that basis, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would increase revenues and decrease the deficit by $28.9 billion over the 2025‑2034 period

pjc50 · 1h ago
Skimming the article only enhances the vagueness. It remains unclear whether it's just for visas which must be explicitly applied for, or visa waivers with the reference to I-94.
thepaulmcbride · 1h ago
I wonder how this will work for visa waiver programs like the ESTA. I have family visiting next year and if they have to pay an extra $1k, it won’t happen.
pyb · 1h ago
No fee according to TFA
xnorswap · 1h ago
Where does it say that? ESTA doesn't appear and searching waiv only turns up:

> The fee applies to all visitors who need nonimmigrant visas to enter, and cannot be waived.

Which sounds like the opposite of "no fee"?

dragonwriter · 1h ago
The visa waiver program does not require those eligible to get non-immigrant visas (hence the phrase “visa waiver”), so if the scope of the new program is, in fact, “all visitors who need non-immigrant visas”, those eligible for visa waivers would be outside its coverage.
dmurray · 1h ago
ESTA is not a visa. It's specifically the process to enter America for people who do not need a visa.
rwmj · 1h ago
It's called a visa waiver, but it's effectively a lightweight visa process. Look at what it involves, not what it is called.
testing22321 · 55m ago
ESTA is just the authorization to apply, nothing to actually get you into the country.

With an ESTA in hand, an eligible visitor must get an I-94 visa waiver at the border for $6. Even with a valid ESTA this can be denied.

Source: at this point I’ve had 4 dozen of them over the last two decades.

rwmj · 53m ago
You can be denied at the US border if you have a full and valid visa. The only way not to be denied is to be a US citizen (so far ...)
briandear · 28m ago
That’s true with any country.
dragonwriter · 1h ago
It is a lightweight pseudo-visa process, but it does not involve anything which is actually legally a visa, so a program that is attached to non-immigrant visas does not apply to it. What things are called in law matters quite a lot.
rwmj · 52m ago
For sure, I'm not disputing this.
andy_ppp · 1h ago
I was prepared to be scandalised but it seems fine…
xnorswap · 1h ago
The article says it, "Cannot be waived", so does that mean that the thousands of people who travel under the ESTA visa waiver will suddenly need to find $250 (each, so $1000 for a family of four?), and to have the headache of potentially more forms at the end to get their money back again?

That seems like a lot of hassle if so, and will cause people to think twice about visiting the US.

ftruzzi · 1h ago
Since the ESTA is a visa waiver program, by taking advantage of it you don't require a visa so would not have to pay this fee. At least that's my reading of it...
ebiester · 1h ago
So, if you are one of 52 wealthy and mostly white countries... got it.
briandear · 23m ago
“Visa Waiver” it’s right there in your comment. Waiver means “no visa required: the requirement is waived.”
CaveTech · 1h ago
There are border towns where some workers do daily crossings. Without refund infrastructure in place it looks like this would add $250/day fee for all of these individuals
WesolyKubeczek · 1h ago
Is it per visa or per entry? Do the workers need to get a visa a day?
testing22321 · 1h ago
Seems like they’re trying hard to deter tourists. Don’t want those commies talking about universal healthcare or maternity leave or Americans might start getting ideas.

I gave a talk in Montana last week and I could hear a pin drop when I said my wife got 18 months maternity leave so we travelled the world with our little one.

betaby · 1h ago
> my wife got 18 months maternity leave

With 100% of salary, 50%?

I know some countries 'hold' your place of employment up to 5 years, although one gets only symbolic money during all that time, think like 10% of the salary.

testing22321 · 54m ago
100% for the first 12 months, then 50% for the next 6.

We could have shared that too, but chose not to.

By law they must hold her position.

briandear · 27m ago
Who paid for that 18 months? Your wife’s lower salary did.
mindslight · 1h ago
One has to love how it's two weeks after the big ugly spendthrift bill was passed, and its actual contents are still being dissected. Not just small details, but entire topics.

Where's the time for us citizens to be informed? And the time to write our senators and representatives so they know what their constituents think? Of course that's idyllic, and we haven't had that in decades. At least things like the (anti-) "PATRIOT" act were bipartisan, despite selling out the people. But the sheer speed this barge of incoherent trash was wholesale rammed through really shows how utterly feckless Congress as a whole has become.

It seems like they need to watch more of those 90's "Just say no" ads.

GuinansEyebrows · 1h ago
Many politicians who voted for the bill publicly admitted they hadn't read it before passing it.
beart · 1h ago
The more interesting (and depressing) aspect of congress is not how few of them read the bills, but the entities that actually write the bills. Most of the laws today have almost nothing to do with all of the lawyers in congress. They are written by lobbyists and industry groups.
hilbert42 · 1h ago
Huh! The US isn't the only country where laws are written by lobbyists and industry groups. I'd maintain it's one of the biggest problems facing democracy these days.

People everywhere know their voice hardly counts when lobbying, big business and money are involved.

hiq · 1h ago
And then you have things like https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/gambling-tax-trump-big-b... which no one seems to have wanted and made it through anyway.
SV_BubbleTime · 1h ago
Like Pelosi proudly announcing the same for the Affordable Care Act in 2010? Nothing changes, except the issues you chose to be mad about and the ones you chose to ignore.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/p...

GuinansEyebrows · 57m ago
what on earth would lead you to believe that i would defend anything nancy pelosi has ever done? she's a ghoul and i hope she burns in hell. are you happy now?

the affordable care act was one of the single largest transfers of wealth into private industry in the last few decades, and a massive failing by both major political parties to actually provide affordable, high quality healthcare that we're capable of shouldering as a society. you won't catch me defending any part of it, or anybody who kneecapped it during the legislative process.

can you stop acting like politics is a team sport that can be won, and start recognizing that both parties are Bad, Actually, and do absolutely nothing for the vast majority of americans with net worths under a billion dollars?

mindslight · 58m ago
Oh, thank you for explaining that the real problem is caring. You're right, we're all just meat feedstock for "AI" (ie corpos) or whatever, and we should be thankful for our chance to passively watch before it's our own turn to be fed into the grinder. </s>

I get how the ACA is this reactionary touchstone about big scary de jure government daring to regulate the corpo-created death panels, and as a libertarian I would have vastly preferred a much different type of healthcare reform. But from a perspective of individual liberty, a national implementation of Romneycare couldn't possibly have fucked the country nearly as hard as handing unchecked reins of power to an autocrat running on dementia fumes of ideas that might have worked in the 90's.

xhkkffbf · 1h ago
So it seems like you get the $250 back if you honor the terms and leave by the end. It's an interesting monetary incentive, not unlike the bottle deposits.
avs733 · 1h ago
its like any other monetary fine projected on to all people - it hurts poor people more.

As it stands it isn't an incentive, its just a disruptive and opportunistic approach to take money from a politically disfavored group. THe CBO, as quoted, is clear that until they figure out the reimbursement process they are still just going to colelct the fee and keep the money:

>, “CBO expects that the Department of State would need several years to implement a process for providing reimbursements. On that basis, CBO estimates that enacting the provision would increase revenues and decrease the deficit by $28.9 billion over the 2025‑2034 period.”

briandear · 1h ago
Meanwhile, in Australia, they’re raising student visa fees to $1279 (USD.)

US student visas, after all fees are roughly $500 (USD.)

UK skilled worker visas are about $1660. The H1B is about $1700.

The U.K. multi entry visitor visa for 10 year validity is about $1200.

The U.S. version: $185

I understand it’s popular to post articles that sensationalize how “bad” the U.S. is, but reasonable people probably should have some perspective.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australias-ruling...

cjs_ac · 1h ago
Australia and the UK have their own particular immigration crises. In Australia, overstaying a student visa is the most common way of becoming an illegal immigrant, and so the increased fee is part of a larger suite of reforms designed to reduce this. In the UK, the government wishes to reduce the number of skilled worker visas to deal with a pay compression issue: the average salary for a new graduate in the UK is the same as the minimum wage.

This visa integrity fee seems to be a much blunter instrument.

citrin_ru · 1h ago
> the government wishes to reduce the number of skilled worker visas to deal with a pay compression issue

At least in IT/tech I would expect an opposite effect - with number of skilled immigrants reduced there will be risk that multinational companies will close development offices in the UK, startups will have one more reasons to choose another country too. With number of available jobs going down workforce reduction will not prop salaries up IMHO.

SV_BubbleTime · 1h ago
> In Australia, overstaying a student visa is the most common way of becoming an illegal immigrant,

This may be due to the difficulties with border crossings.

cjs_ac · 48m ago
There is, however, a long history of immigration to Australia that is illegal under Australian law; see the 'Timeline' section of this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia
testing22321 · 52m ago
> This may be due to the difficulties with border crossings.

It’s no harder getting out than it was getting in.

malinens · 1h ago
You do not sound very genuine. It does not say it is multi-entry fee enywhere. For tourists very few countries ask more except visa fee (and many do not require visa at all). For UK this fee is only 16GBP for 2 years and not 1200 USD:

https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/electronic-travel-author...

jabjq · 1h ago
Is it a fee if you always get it back? It’s more like a deposit.
mindslight · 1h ago
It's a "deposit" you're giving to a government ruled by an autocrat who is notoriously famous for stiffing people when he can get away with it and whose policy platform is based around harassing foreigners. I would consider the money gone.
xhkkffbf · 1h ago
I had a similar experience in Europe. The store told me that VAT was refundable, but they didn't mention that the process was so convoluted that few actually did it. I persisted and they sent me a check that could only be cashed in Europe.

Unfortunately many countries pull stunts like this.

mindslight · 33m ago
Great - so we're in agreement that this is an unfortunate development for our own country, and thus another way we're unnecessarily destroying our position of global leadership.
snvzz · 1h ago
Seems reasonable.

For most people, it'll be returned as they leave.

For people who really shouldn't be there, it serves as a filter; If they can't afford to loan the US $250, it is unlikely they will be able to afford theirlife necessities once in the US. Such a person should solve their issues BEFORE traveling to the US.

For visa overstayers, it funds their deportation.

AlotOfReading · 1h ago
It's pretty clear that it won't be returned as they leave if you read the article. The government would need several years to implement reimbursement and in lieu of providing them the CBO estimates a $29B windfall for the government.
alistairSH · 1h ago
Except there are no details on how the refund process works...

So, family of four saves up to visit NYC for vacation, now they need to find an extra $1000 to take the trip. And it's unclear when they get that money back (is DHS going to post somebody at international departure terminals to issue them - unlikely).

jplrssn · 1h ago
For someone intending to overstay their visa, is the loss of $250 really going to serve as much of a deterrent?
bamboozled · 1h ago
Sounds great, good job all.
linotype · 58m ago
My wife was forced to pay about $200 to Canada at the border because she had a DUI five years prior. Somehow those shakedowns aren’t mentioned in the news.

Edit: I’m a Democrat but for each downvote to this post I’m donating $1 to the Republican Party. Y’all are crazy if you think other countries aren’t doing this.

Current tally: $2 for downvotes $5 for a comment made without any knowledge of the situation $7 total

piva00 · 52m ago
> Edit: I’m a Democrat but for each downvote to this post I’m donating $1 to the Republican Party. Y’all are crazy if you think other countries aren’t doing this.

That's an absurd amount of butthurtdeness coupled with pettiness, lol. Sucks for your wife, she could've chosen to not drive drunk though.

linotype · 38m ago
$5 for that comment lol. She didn’t drive drunk, she had just left the bar, encountered a checkpoint (which I think should be unconstitutional, but clearly people don’t care about that anymore) and was barely over. And didn't even drive in Canada. But hey, who cares about facts?
alphabettsy · 13m ago
If she was driving with a blood alcohol content over the legal limit, then she was by definition, driving drunk.

I don’t necessarily agree with the way that Canada handles people with past drunk driving convictions in the US, but that’s not the same thing as a blanket fee.

linotype · 8m ago
Yes, by definition, you’re right. But she was in no way incapacitated by any reasonable measure.
lenerdenator · 1h ago
People complained about American policies and actions for years.

Well, now you get to look back upon those policies and actions fondly.

oceansky · 1h ago
What are you talking about specifically?
michaelt · 1h ago
The French felt there was little evidence of Iraq having WMDs, or working with Al-Qaeda, and refused to back George W. Bush's US-led invasion in the UN.

The US responded with a wine boycott, renaming French Fries to Freedom Fries on the congresesional cafe menu, and some WW2-related insults on TV.

At the time, a lot of people would say GWB was one of the worst ever US presidents, that cutting taxes while spending a bunch on a costly war was irresponsible, etc.

But looking back? That guy had no signs of dementia, no major convictions, hadn’t been credibly accused of rape, and nobody was heiling hitler at his inauguration. I for one now look back on his presidency fondly.

avs733 · 1h ago
not having sterile international transit and forcing everyon to clear US immigration and customs even if you are connecting to another international flight would be a good place to start.