US Vice President JD Vance has acknowledged that his description of certain H-1B visa workers as “indentured servants” was imperfect, following strong criticism from India over remarks that sparked a diplomatic row.

Speaking at a CBS Town Hall, Vance said his comments were never intended as an attack on H-1B visa holders themselves. Instead, he argued that his criticism was directed at aspects of the US visa system and employers who, in his view, gain excessive leverage over foreign workers.

Vance stated that many H-1B workers depend entirely on their employment status to remain in the United States. Because their immigration status is tied to their jobs, he argued that some workers may feel unable to challenge employers or raise concerns for fear of losing both their employment and their right to remain in the country.

He said any shortcomings in his earlier language were his responsibility, adding that his concern centred on a system that can leave workers vulnerable rather than on the individuals holding H-1B visas.

According to Vance, the structure of the visa regime can create a situation in which employers possess disproportionate power. He argued that workers who lose their jobs may face the prospect of returning to their countries of origin, making them less likely to dispute workplace decisions.

The controversy began earlier this month when Vance, speaking during a press conference focused on visa fraud, accused foreign outsourcing firms of using the H-1B system to undercut American wages.

At the time, he claimed that H-1B workers earn around $20,000 less than American citizens performing equivalent roles. He further alleged that employees brought in through foreign outsourcing companies earn approximately $48,000 less than comparable US workers.

Vance argued that some corporations benefit financially by replacing American employees with lower-paid foreign workers. During those remarks, he referred to such workers as “indentured servants”, language that quickly drew criticism both in India and among immigration advocates.

India responded forcefully through the Ministry of External Affairs, describing the terminology as unwarranted and deeply offensive.

New Delhi maintained that the phrase ignores the reality that Indian professionals in the United States are highly educated, highly skilled and important contributors to the country’s economy, technology sector and innovation ecosystem.

The Ministry also stressed that talent mobility between India and the United States benefits both nations by supporting innovation, productivity, investment and economic growth.

Indian officials further noted that the United States itself has been shaped by successive generations of immigrants whose labour, entrepreneurship and innovation have contributed significantly to the country’s prosperity.

The Ministry said language associated with historical systems of indentured labour carries painful colonial-era connotations, making Vance’s remarks particularly sensitive for many Indians.

The dispute emerged against the backdrop of a wider debate in the United States over skilled immigration, H-1B visas and employer-sponsored pathways to permanent residency.

Supporters of the H-1B program argue that it helps American companies access specialised global talent, particularly in technology and engineering sectors where demand for skilled workers remains high.

Critics, including Vance, contend that aspects of the system can suppress wages, reduce opportunities for domestic workers and increase employer control over foreign employees.

While standing by his concerns about the visa framework, Vance has now clarified that his criticism was aimed at the structure of the system and the conduct of some employers, rather than at H-1B professionals themselves, in an apparent effort to defuse tensions created by his original remarks.

ANI