In a growing controversy over labor practices and immigration policy in the United States, American logistics giant FedEx is under intense scrutiny after its hiring trends showed a sharp increase in foreign workers on H‑1B visas amidst widespread layoffs of domestic employees. This development has sparked a heated debate among politicians, labor unions, and business leaders about the company’s hiring strategy, the broader role of H‑1B visas in the U.S. job market, and its ethical implications.
The controversy centers on a massive federal contract awarded to FedEx by the U.S. Transportation Command, valued at $2.24 billion for the Next Generation Delivery Service‑2 (NGDS‑2) programme. This contract, received in December 2022, was intended to modernize and support critical delivery services for the Department of Defense and national security operations, with the primary contract period running from April 2023 through September 2026 and options to extend as late as 2030.
According to data reviewed by independent observers such as Dallas Express, the number of FedEx employees working under H‑1B visas grew significantly in the years following the contract award. At the time of the NGDS‑2 contract grant, the company reportedly had fewer than two dozen H‑1B workers on its payroll. However, by 2025 that figure had ballooned to nearly 500 H‑1B visa holders, many earning annual salaries in the range of $100,000 to $115,000 — a level competitive with mid‑to‑senior level technical roles in the U.S. labor market.
Domestic Layoffs Coincide With Foreign Hiring Boom
This rise in H‑1B hiring has coincided with a wave of job eliminations affecting U.S. staff across multiple states. In late 2025, FedEx confirmed the elimination of 856 positions at a single warehouse facility, triggering outrage among local labor groups. Earlier in the year, the company also announced cuts amounting to over 300 jobs in Fort Worth, Texas, and additional reductions in Garland and Plano, Texas, as well as layoffs in Memphis (Tennessee), Kentucky, New York, and Pennsylvania
Critics argue that these layoffs and the increase in H‑1B recruitment display a troubling pattern: American workers are losing jobs while a growing portion of FedEx’s workforce consists of foreign employees brought in under special visa programs. Opponents of the H‑1B system, particularly within the Republican Party and conservative media, have seized on the news as evidence that the visa programme harms American workers by allowing companies to hire cheaper foreign labor instead of investing in domestic talent. Some commentators have even claimed that U.S. employees were required to train their replacements before being let go a claim that has fueled substantial public anger.
Company Responds, But Debate Rages On
FedEx has defended its hiring practices, with a company spokesperson emphasizing that the organization is focused on recruiting the most qualified candidates and offering career growth opportunities, regardless of nationality. According to the company, the growth in H‑1B hires is not directly linked to the domestic layoffs, but rather reflects broader talent needs in specialized roles that require advanced degrees roles that are eligible under the H‑1B programme. The spokesperson said FedEx adheres strictly to all U.S. immigration and labor laws and employs a diverse workforce with varying skill sets.
However, this response has done little to satisfy critics. Political figures from across the spectrum have weighed in, turning the issue into a flashpoint in ongoing discussions about immigration policy and labor rights in the United States.
- U.S. Vice President JD Vance, a vocal critic of the H‑1B programme, urged firms to focus on hiring American workers, framing the controversy as part of a broader debate on national employment and economic fairness.
- On the right, many conservative commentators and GOP supporters have called for an outright ban on the H‑1B visa system, arguing that it undermines American jobs by allowing companies to fill positions with workers willing to accept lower wages than domestic labor.
- Conversely, some business leaders including prominent figures in the tech industry contend that access to global talent is essential for U.S. competitiveness, especially in fields like engineering, technology, and supply chain innovation. They argue that a blanket restriction on H‑1B visas could hurt industries that rely on specialized skills not readily available in the domestic workforce.
Broader Implications for Immigration and Labor Policy
The FedEx case has reignited longstanding debates over the role of H‑1B visas in the U.S. economy. The H‑1B programme initially established to fill high‑skilled professional roles that cannot easily be staffed domestically has been the subject of criticism for years. Opponents say it allows corporations to displace American workers and suppress wage growth, while proponents argue that it attracts top international talent that fuels innovation and economic growth.
What makes the FedEx situation particularly contentious is the timing and optics: a rise in foreign hires coinciding with layoffs of local staff, against the backdrop of a lucrative federal contract. This has raised questions about corporate responsibility, fairness in hiring practices, and the need for reforms to ensure that visa programmes serve national and economic interests without disadvantaging the domestic workforce.