On 8 October 2026, the US administration suspended eight companies, including Microsoft, Adobe, and several major technology services firms, from PERM, a key stage in the process through which employers sponsor workers for green cards. The distinction matters: the suspensions do not, in themselves, revoke existing work visas. They obstruct a route to permanent residence through the affected companies, creating uncertainty for employees and their families. Even without immediate visa cancellations, the freeze undermines the confidence of professionals whom American businesses want to retain.
Against this backdrop, Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu urged Indians working in the United States to consider returning home and helping to build India. His appeal carries a clear business message. If America makes it harder for skilled professionals to plan their future there, India can seek to bring home the knowledge and experience they have acquired.
Portraying Indian specialists chiefly as a source of cheap labour ignores a crucial part of the picture. They include outstanding engineers, researchers, and executives with qualifications from leading academic institutions and expertise developed over many years. Where a role requires scarce skills, a company looks for someone who can solve a complex problem, develop a product, or lead a business. Reducing that choice to the wage bill offers politicians a convenient explanation. It often offers businesses a very poor one.
Microsoft itself said that roughly four fifths of the work visa applications it submitted in the last financial year were intended to extend or change the status of existing employees. It also said that employees on these visas receive the same pay as others doing comparable work. Those claims deserve scrutiny, but they cannot simply be ignored. Counting visa applications alongside redundancies does not establish that every American employee who lost a job was replaced by a cheaper foreign worker.
Consider Satya Nadella, Microsoft’s chairman and chief executive, and Sundar Pichai, chief executive of Google and Alphabet. Their careers show why the cheap labour argument fails to explain the contribution of Indian talent at the highest levels of American business. Pichai studied at IIT Kharagpur, Stanford, and Wharton. Nadella combined an engineering education in India with advanced studies in the United States and a long technology career. The boards that entrusted them with companies of such scale expected leadership and business results.
These examples do not establish a universal shortage of American talent, nor suggest that every work visa holder is an exceptional executive. They demonstrate the value of access to a broad pool of expertise. If the best candidate for a particular role comes from India, excluding that person because of their origin does not create an American candidate with the same skills. It simply narrows the employer’s choices.
It is equally simplistic to assume that every job held by a foreign specialist comes at an American’s expense. An expert who enables a company to develop a new product may support an entire team and additional business activity. If the company cannot retain the expertise it needs, it may scale back a project or move part of it abroad. An attempt to protect one job could then harm the American employees working alongside it.
The potential damage begins before anyone leaves. People build careers, raise families, and make plans years ahead. When their route to a settled future is frozen, they start considering alternatives. Companies, too, may reconsider where to locate their next development centre. Prolonged uncertainty can drive away talent and investment without a single deportation order being issued.
This recalls the tariff increases imposed on India in 2025. Economic pressure was presented then, too, as a demonstration of strength. Yet import tariffs are paid initially by American importers, and their costs can be passed on to businesses and consumers. Research by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that US firms and consumers bore most of the economic burden of the American tariffs imposed in 2025. The research covered tariffs generally, rather than India alone. Its lesson remains relevant: the country imposing the penalty can end up paying a substantial share of the price.
In my view, the latest move raises serious doubts about how carefully its consequences have been considered. It is difficult to see how undermining the retention of skilled professionals strengthens American companies competing globally. A combative press conference can produce a successful headline. It cannot replace a proper assessment of the skills required, the alternatives available, and the potential damage to the economy.
The United States is fully entitled to protect its workers and enforce its laws. An employer that exploits staff, violates wage rules, or evades recruitment requirements should be held accountable. Serious enforcement, however, requires evidence and examination of individual cases. It should allow businesses to employ specialists on fair terms and recognise their contribution to activities that also employ Americans. Sweeping generalisations about an entire community make for an unconvincing employment policy.
For India, Vembu’s appeal could open an opportunity. The return of experienced professionals could strengthen research, entrepreneurship, and the development of Indian products. They bring experience managing global businesses, relationships with investors, and knowledge of international markets. To turn that opportunity into reality, however, India must offer suitable roles, investment in research, and conditions that justify uprooting an established life. A sense of national grievance will not be enough.
I am not persuaded by a policy that makes it harder for American businesses to retain the talent they need and then presents those obstacles as an economic victory. If expertise and business activity move elsewhere, the decision will look, in retrospect, like another reckless measure whose costs became apparent only after the applause had faded. American companies and their employees will also face the bill.
India may suffer from these measures, but America could suffer just as much. Washington can obstruct the paths of Indian professionals. It cannot guarantee that the ideas, businesses, and jobs they create in the future will remain in America.