On October 7th the Trump administration proposed charging colleges and universities $70,000 before recommending an international student for Optional Practical Training, or OPT, and $30,000 for subsequent recommendations.
OPT allows students to apply their education in the workplace through temporary professional training and experiences directly related to their field of study. These fees would put that opportunity beyond reach for most students, institutions, and employers.
If implemented, the rule would harm not only international students and campuses, but also domestic students, employers, and US global competitiveness. Preventing that harm requires all hands on deck — from higher education and business leaders to local communities and members of Congress.
There is immediate action to take. Institutions, students, employers, and members of the public can submit comments until November 9 documenting the harms to educational opportunities, research projects, administrative functions, and economic contributions the proposal would cause.
The administration claims the change is necessary to prevent fraud, but its own explanation reveals its broader goal: far fewer students participating in OPT — or potentially no program at all. The DHS explicitly states in the text of the rule that the fees would reduce the pool of participants.
It also states that, without these egregiously high “fees” — or tax as some analysts argue — it may shut down OPT entirely. Ultimately ,either path threatens to dismantle a crucial educational opportunity and talent pipeline.
Any possible case of fraud should be investigated and violations addressed, but this proposal would create a “pay-to-play” system. It would split students into two groups: the few who can participate because they, their employer, or their institutions can afford the fees, and those excluded despite meeting the same eligibility requirements.
DHS argues that the substantial financial stake would encourage schools to exercise greater oversight and selectivity when recommending students for OPT.
Yet the proposed rule ignores existing institutional processes and does not establish how the ability to pay is related to a student’s eligibility to participate in OPT or the value of practical training. Two students could meet the same requirements and have equally valuable opportunities, while only the one whose institution, family, or employer can finance the charge could participate.
Institutions already facing financial pressures cannot simply absorb these costs and DHS can’t assume employers will cover them. Small businesses, startups, arts groups, religious organizations, and other nonprofit employers may have valuable training opportunities to offer without tens of thousands of dollars available to secure a graduate’s participation.
