For decades, the deal has been simple: study at an American university, then get up to three years of work experience through a programme called Optional Practical Training. Now Washington wants to put a price on it — a price so high it could end the programme as most people know it.
The Department of Homeland Security posted a proposed rule on October 7 that would charge $70,000 for every international student’s first stint of OPT, and $30,000 for every subsequent one. Students currently pay around $500. Universities and student groups are calling it what it is: an effective shutdown of post-graduation work for foreign students, dressed up as a fee.
What is being proposed?
Under the rule, issued by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a certified school would have to pay DHS $70,000 before its designated official can recommend an F-1 student for initial OPT in the government’s student tracking system (SEVIS). Any later OPT recommendation for the same student — including the 24-month STEM extension available to science and technology graduates — would cost $30,000 more. A student who takes the standard 12 months of OPT and then the two-year STEM extension could trigger $100,000 in fees. US Citizenship and Immigration Services would not grant work authorisation without the payment.
Who proposed it, and why?
The proposal comes from DHS under the Trump administration, part of a broader crackdown on foreign visa holders. The department says the fees are meant “to combat fraud, strengthen the integrity of the immigration system, and protect US workers.”
It fits a pattern. In September 2025, Trump signed a proclamation raising the fee companies pay to sponsor H-1B skilled-worker applicants to $100,000 — a measure two federal judges have since blocked. In August, DHS proposed a $103,265 fee for H-1B cap-subject petitions. OPT, which often serves as the bridge to an H-1B visa, is the next domino.
Who would actually pay?
Here is the detail that matters most: the fee would be paid by the university, not directly by the student. But the rule explicitly says schools may pass the cost on — to the student, to the employer, or spread across the student body. Immigration experts note the burden could land very differently depending on how each institution responds, and some universities may simply stop recommending students for OPT rather than absorb a $70,000 liability per student.
The numbers at stake are large. About 363,000 Indian students were enrolled at US institutions in the 2024–25 academic year, and nearly 144,000 of them were on OPT — up 47 per cent from the year before. Nearly 62,000 Chinese students took part in OPT the same year. NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, says international students and their families contribute tens of billions of dollars to the US economy annually.
What are supporters and critics saying?
The education world is nearly unanimous in its horror. NAFSA chief executive Fanta Aw warned that “driving away the talents, perspectives, and aspirations of international students will only hurt American innovation, economic growth, workforce development, and global leadership,” adding that “international students don’t take opportunities from Americans, they create them.” The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities called the proposal “deeply flawed,” doubting colleges could afford it.
DHS answers, in the rule itself, that colleges “should be able to attract foreign students without relying on OPT and STEM OPT,” and that employers can simply recruit US citizens for jobs foreign graduates would have taken. That is the administration’s theory of the case — and universities that depend on international tuition revenue will tell you it is a fantasy.
Is this law yet? What happens next?
No. This is a proposal, not an enacted rule. DHS has opened a 30-day public comment period; if the rule is finalised, it would take effect after a further 60-day implementation window. Universities are advising students to follow the existing OPT rules and fees for now, and Reuters notes the change is expected to face swift legal challenges — much like the H-1B fees that judges blocked.
Why this matters goes beyond the paperwork. Donald Trump campaigned in 2024 promising to make it easier for foreign graduates to stay, even floating automatic green cards. Two years later, his administration is pricing post-graduation work out of existence. The contradiction is the point: the policy signals, not just the dollars, tell talented students the US is no longer sure it wants them. Canada, Britain and Australia — all competing for exactly these graduates — could not ask for a better recruitment advertisement. Whether the courts let the rule stand will decide how fast that exodus becomes real.
One Comment