“The chaos that’s going to ensue will show that this rule is a policy seeking to solve a problem that doesn’t exist,” said NAFSA deputy executive director, public policy, Jill Allen Murray told webinar attendees this week.
Murray acknowledged the “elephant in the room” of when the proposed rule will be finalised, with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) having published the proposals last August and the comment period ending in September 2025. During this time it attracted nearly 22,000 public comments.
She highlighted the administration’s “desire” to have the rule in place for students arriving in the US for the fall 2026 enrolment cycle, as well as the proposed 60-day implementation period, meaning “the very latest it could be in place would be sometime between the end of May and June”.
While the full picture will become clearer when the rule is finalised, leaders have long anticipated the incoming changes and urged universities to prepare in terms of employee workload and strategies, and communicating with students about the new visa rules.
“Until the rule is published, we won’t know for sure, but it’s really important that you start examining your current processes and where there might be a gap or hole that a student or scholar could fall into, because that can lead to very important consequences,” said NAFSA senior impact officer Joann Ng Hartmann.
“Workload is going to be more than you anticipate when the rule drops, regardless of preparation,” Hartmann warned colleagues.
As it stands, the proposed rule seeks to replace duration of status for F and J students and visitors, who would be admitted only until their program end date – not exceeding four years – plus a 30-day grace period to replace the current 60 day grace period.
“This would be troubling for students who are in dual degree programs, medical training, PhD or other programs that routinely take much longer… but really for any student, because there are many very valid reasons for why a student may need to take longer to finish their program,” said Zuzana Čeplá Wootson, deputy director of federal policy at the Presidents’ Alliance.
Thereby, international students would have to repeatedly apply for extension of stay, with USCIS responsible for adjudicating these applications “and standards for that approval would be stricter and allow USCIS to use discretion in reviewing the reasons for the extension”, said Wootson.
Robin Catmur-Smith, managing director of the International Student Resource Center said she was concerned about the fact it hasn’t been revealed what the adjudicating standards would be at USCIS.
“They have no business adjudicating academic decisions like: ‘Should this student be in this program?’ ‘Should this student change to that level?’ And yet those are becoming immigration decisions, not academic decisions,” said Catmur-Smith.
And while ending the long-standing flexibility of student visa terms has dominated headlines, the rule contains other considerable changes impacting transfers.
Not only would it prohibit undergraduate students from transferring schools or academic programs within the first year of their study, the rule would prevent graduate students from doing so at any point during their degree.
It would also disallow all F-1 students from taking a second degree at the same or lower education level after completing a program of study.
While the government has framed the changes as a means of enhancing immigration oversight and protecting national security by collecting nonimmigrant information, critics have warned of the additional burdens it would place on USCIS, institutions and students, carrying wider repercussions for America’s competitiveness.
“The extensions and authorisations required by the proposed rule would create additional backlogs within USCIS,” said Wootson, adding that this, in turn, would cause extended adjudication timelines leading to “even more uncertainty” for students and schools.
I can’t emphasise enough that planning needs to start now
Joann Hartmann, NAFSA
Notably, this comes on top of recent pauses in visa processing, expanded vetting and stricter social media scrutiny already causing adjudication delays, with Wootson casting doubt on whether USCIS would be able to process the additional cases in a timely manner.
Catmur-Smith raised “another unknown” regarding the communications happening between various federal departments including CBP, Consular Affairs, USCIS and ICE.
“What are they being informed as to these changes, and what kind of chaos will we see at the border and at the consulate?” she asked.
Meanwhile, much of the webinar focussed on ways institutions can prepare for the changes, with leaders warning of higher compliance costs and legal risks, and heavier advising burdens impacting financial and staffing budgets.
Universities were urged to expand student data collection to find out who they are advising – students that are graduating soon, those who might need extensions and prospective OPT applicants – as well as joining up communications with graduate research offices and recruitment departments within institutions.
“Operationally, I can’t imagine you’ve not done anything, but I can also imagine… that some folks are just waiting because it’s proposed,” said Hartmann. “I can’t emphasise enough that planning needs to start now.”
“When DS goes away, what is your advising policy? Staff training on campus, what does this look like?” she asked.
Beyond government and institutions, Wootson doubled down on the damage the rule is set to have on domestic students and America’s overall economic competitiveness, reiterating the contribution of international students to US communities, campuses and economies.
“International students contributed $43 billion to our economy and created close to 360,000 jobs in the academic year 2024/25.”
“On average, for every additional international undergraduate student enrolled at a public university, two more in-state first year students enrol as well,” she said, warning that as other study destinations boost recruitment, America risked deterring international talent.
“Last year, we already saw a 17% decline in new enrolments. This trend is deeply concerning and ending duration of status would only accelerate it.”
In face of the changes, stakeholders are preparing to challenge the incoming rule in the courts, with experts highlighting that individual and institutional examples of specific harms would be “critically important” to any litigation filed against the changes.
“The plaintiffs will need to demonstrate with evidence that they or their members are suffering specific harms from the agency’s actions, so they are a critical part of any litigation effort against a rule like this,” Andrew Lyonsberg, partner at McDermott Will & Schulte advised attendees.
While the nature of the challenge will depend on the written explanation the government gives for the policy change, Lyonsberg said litigation would likely be aimed at getting preliminary relief under the proposed 60-day implementation period, hailing efforts to “drum up participation” from the sector.
