DHS moved to slap universities with a $70,000 charge before they can recommend a foreign student for work, claiming it will fight fraud and protect U.S. workers.
Story Highlights
- DHS proposed $70,000 for a student’s first work authorization and $30,000 for later periods.
- Schools, not students, would pay before recommending Optional Practical Training participation.
- Supporters say the fees target fraud and shield American workers from cheap labor.
- Critics warn of higher tuition, lower enrollment, and lost productivity under the plan.
What DHS Proposed And Why It Says It Matters
The Department of Homeland Security proposed a new rule that would charge universities $70,000 before they recommend a foreign student for initial Optional Practical Training and $30,000 for each later recommendation, including the science, technology, engineering, and math extension. DHS tied the fees to stopping fraud, restoring immigration-system integrity, and protecting American workers from being undercut by low-cost labor through campus programs that feed into jobs after graduation.
The proposal places the payment duty on schools certified by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, not directly on students. DHS argues that making institutions pay will force better oversight, cleaner compliance, and fewer sham placements that displace U.S. graduates. Trade and employment concerns drive the logic. This approach treats Optional Practical Training as a labor entry point that should carry strong guardrails to prevent abuse and shield lawful wages.
How The Rule Would Work For Schools And Students
Under the draft, a school would submit proof it paid the fee before recommending any student for pre-completion, post-completion, or the science, technology, engineering, and math extension. The first-time charge is $70,000, and later authorizations cost $30,000 each. The rule was scheduled for publication in the Federal Register with a public comment window afterward, which means feedback from families, employers, and institutions can still shape the final version before it takes effect.
Legal and policy summaries describe the fee structure and its sweep across all Optional Practical Training pathways. Employer hiring would still follow current authorization checks. The cost lever instead sits with the universities that sponsor and monitor training. By raising stakes for institutions, DHS aims to reduce weak screening and potential pipeline abuse. Observers note the draft would need final approval and could face court tests after the agency reviews public comments and issues a final rule.
The Pushback: Costs, Enrollment, And Competitiveness
Higher-education associations and immigration advocates warn schools may pass costs to students or trim seats. Analysts say a six-figure combined cost across training periods could price out programs, cut international enrollment, or raise tuition for American families. Reporting says DHS estimated about $4 billion each year in opportunity costs from reduced work experience, lower employer productivity, and fewer international students if this plan goes through as written, a figure critics cite to argue the cure may overshoot the disease.
Coverage across business and labor law outlets frames the change as a major reset of how the United States handles the study-to-work bridge. Supporters argue it is long overdue, citing integrity gaps and misuse that harm U.S. workers and depress wages. Opponents stress that many graduate programs, especially in science and engineering, rely on a stable post-study path to attract talent. Both sides agree the scale of Optional Practical Training makes the stakes high for families, employers, and taxpayers.
What This Means For American Families And Workers
For parents watching tuition rise and jobs leave their towns, the central question is simple: does this stop abuse and open more entry-level roles for American grads? DHS says yes, and it backs the plan as a way to force real oversight where there are gaps today. Critics counter that the cost burden falls on campuses and could boomerang onto students, reduce research capacity, and slow innovation that drives growth and better wages over time.
What To Watch Next: Comment Period, Revisions, And Courts
Stakeholders now have a formal path to weigh in through the public comment process. Universities will press for narrower fees or stronger guardrails without massive charges. Business groups will seek clarity on hiring timelines and compliance risks. If DHS finalizes the rule, lawsuits are likely, testing whether the agency calibrated fees to fight fraud without crossing legal lines or harming core U.S. interests in science, technology, and national competitiveness.
Sources:
foxnews.com, govinfo.gov, immigration-analytics.com, eiglaw.com, global.tamu.edu, firstpost.com
