Another critical factor complicates the equation: the $27 billion projected by the CBO would not remain permanently in government coffers. The policy stipulates that the money would be refunded to applicants once their visas expire—usually after ten years. This means that beyond a temporary inflow of cash, the funds would ultimately have to be returned. When factoring in reduced tourism spending and eventual refunds, net losses could exceed $60 billion over the next decade.
Industry associations and chambers have been quick to voice their concerns. Representatives argue that this decision threatens to eliminate around 15,000 tourism-related jobs and stall investment projects in destinations heavily reliant on international visitors. They also warn of potential long-term damage to the United States’ reputation as a welcoming travel destination, at a time when global competition for tourists is fiercer than ever.
Media outlets such as Forbes have highlighted that the CBO failed to consider the broader ripple effects of declining tourism: reduced visitor spending in hotels, restaurants, and retail; lower tax collection at state and local levels; and widespread job losses in labor-intensive industries. In other words, the government’s projected revenue gains would likely be offset—and possibly surpassed—by the broader economic fallout.
India offers a clear example of the risks ahead. Indian travelers spent more than $13.3 billion in the U.S. in 2024, according to the National Travel and Tourism Office at the Department of Commerce. The imposition of a $250 fee per person, on top of the existing $165 visa application fee, could become a serious obstacle. For many families, having to lock up that amount of money for a decade represents a major disincentive that may prompt them to reconsider their holiday destination.
Beyond the economics, the policy risks sending a negative signal to countries that have strengthened ties with the U.S. through tourism and business. In some markets, experts do not rule out consumer backlash, with travelers choosing alternative destinations that are more affordable and have less restrictive entry policies.
At the heart of the debate lies a broader question: is it wise to sacrifice the vitality of a strategic industry in exchange for a temporary revenue measure? Tourism not only generates direct tax revenue, it also supports entire value chains, fosters cultural exchange, and enhances the country’s global image.
While the visa integrity fee has been presented as a financial tool, more and more voices warn that it could backfire on the U.S. economy. The coming years—and the reaction of key source markets—will determine whether the policy achieves its intended goals or instead undermines the competitiveness of the most visited destination in the Americas..
