Mark Mitchell, a political commentator and chief pollster at Rasmussen Reports, has drawn widespread criticism after suggesting that
major US corporations should “de-Indianise.” His statement, made on social media, has triggered debate over the role of Indian professionals in America’s technology sector.
In a post on X, Mitchell wrote, “I have never in my life wanted anything more than this:
to build a new corporate consultancy helping major firms de-Indianize.” He made the comment following a discussion on Steve Bannon’s
War Room, where he criticised the growing number of Indian engineers working in the
United States under the H-1B visa programme.
Mitchell claimed that American technology companies have become “too dependent” on foreign engineers from India and China. He alleged that firms use H-1B visa holders as low-cost labour, replacing US workers.
“We are talking 60,000, 70,000 dollars a year for roles that pay American engineers 150,000 or more,” he said. He further claimed that
American employees often have to “train their replacement before getting the boot.”
In another post, Mitchell wrote,
“Americans think big tech is out of control. And also, big tech is Indian.” He also targeted Apple CEO Tim Cook, saying,
“Hey Tim Apple – Fire those damn H1-Bs!”
Industry figures show that nearly two-thirds of Silicon Valley’s workforce comprises foreign-born professionals. Of these, about 23 per cent are Indian nationals and 18 per cent Chinese. However, H-1B visa holders make up only 0.3 to 0.4 per cent of the total US workforce of 163 million.
Mitchell compared hiring H-1B engineers to importing low-wage labour, saying businesses view both as ways to cut costs.
“A single H-1B developer earning 90,000 dollars is like importing ten undocumented labourers earning 9 dollars an hour,” he argued.
The term “de-Indianise” is uncommon in political or corporate contexts. The word “Indianise” typically means to bring something under Indian cultural or professional influence. By contrast, “de-Indianise” would refer to reversing that influence—reducing Indian presence or detaching from Indian cultural or professional identity.
In broader terms, the phrase implies discouraging Indian practices or limiting Indian participation within an institution. In political discussions, it often carries a negative undertone, suggesting an attempt to distance systems or workplaces from Indian influence.
Regards
