On Friday, India's Ministry of External Affairs called U.S. Vice President JD Vance's description of immigrant workers "deeply offensive." It was the sharpest diplomatic response yet to a Trump administration move barring Microsoft, Adobe and several major Indian technology firms from sponsoring workers for green cards.
Vance said Thursday that the administration wanted foreign and domestic companies to "employ American workers." He also said companies "cannot lay off American workers and then replace them with foreign indentured servants." The comments came as the U.S. Department of Labor announced it would suspend the companies from its Permanent Labor Certification program, meaning they can no longer apply for permanent residency on behalf of employees on H-1B visas.
The Language and the Backlash
India's ministry accused Vance of using "terminology that carries painful historical and colonial legacy connotations." It went further: "Such descriptions are unwarranted and ignore the fact that Indian professionals in the United States are highly educated and skilled contributors to its economy and innovation ecosystem," the statement said.
Vance's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The people most exposed to this fight aren't executives. They're the engineers and analysts on H-1B visas, caught between corporate hiring decisions and a political argument conducted in loaded terms. Official data showed about 70% of H-1B beneficiaries in 2025 were born in India. That means the rhetoric lands hardest on one community.
What the Suspensions Mean
Vance singled out Microsoft, accusing it of replacing 6,000 laid-off workers with people on H-1B visas. The Labor Department's suspension also covers major Indian IT companies, including Cognizant, Infosys, Capgemini, Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro and HCL.
India's foreign ministry moved to reassure its citizens. It said the U.S. measures wouldn't affect the validity of existing H-1B visas or the status of visa holders and their dependents. "Talent mobility adds value to both economies," the ministry said, adding that the suspensions "do not advance the shared ambitions of both countries."
The distinction matters for families. A permanent residency application often lets a worker plan a future: buy a home, put down roots, stop living on a visa clock. Cutting off that pathway for employees of the suspended companies leaves them in prolonged uncertainty, even if their current status holds.
Industry Pushes Back
NASSCOM, the IT industry body, said Indian technology companies had "significantly reduced their dependence on H-1B visas" in recent years and were expanding domestic hiring for their U.S. workforces. Tata Consultancy Services, described as India's largest IT company, said its H-1B applications had been in "single digits" over the previous two years. It also said it intended to hire another 15,000 people in the U.S. over the next five years.
That record complicates the administration's framing. If the largest Indian firm filed only a handful of applications, the suspension looks less like a targeted fix for displacement than a broad penalty.
The courts have already weighed in on the administration's approach to H-1B visas. In June, a federal judge blocked the $100,000 H-1B visa fee that President Donald Trump imposed the previous year.
Why This Matters:
The dispute touches workers on both sides of the border. American employees who lose jobs deserve real protection, and enforcement against abusive hiring practices is a legitimate role for government. But the facts here show how blunt the tools can be. Suspending a company's access to permanent residency pathways puts the cost on visa holders and their dependents, who didn't make the layoff decisions. The phrase "indentured servants" also drew a formal diplomatic rebuke from a key partner, strained by language India says echoes colonial history. Targeted rules, applied through accountable agencies and open to court review, protect workers more reliably than broad suspensions and charged rhetoric. The June court ruling against the visa fee suggests judges are already asking whether the administration's approach holds up.