“The proposed rule, if finalised, would injure American educational institutions and state economies by discouraging students and exchange visitors from pursuing educational opportunities in the United States,” the attorneys wrote in a September 29 letter to the secretary of homeland security, Kristi Noem.
They said the government’s plans amounted to “drastic and burdensome restrictions on international students and exchange visitors”, which were not grounded in “adequate legal or factual basis”.
On August 27, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced a proposal to set a four-year time limit on student visas, ending the current “duration of status” system by which students can stay in the country for the duration of their studies.
DHS said the current system had “created incentives for fraud and abuse” and undermined the agency’s ability to enforce compliance.
“For too long, past Administrations have allowed foreign students and other visa holders to remain in the US virtually indefinitely, posing safety risks, costing untold amount of taxpayer dollars, and disadvantaging U.S. citizens,” assistant homeland security secretary Tricia McLaughlin told The PIE.
She added the new rule would “end that abuse once and for all” and “ease the burden on the federal government to properly oversee foreign students and their history”.
But critics have said the new rule would place an undue administrative burden on students and represents a “dangerous government overreach”, according to NAFSA CEO Fanta Aw.
The attorney generals argued the four-year fixed term for all programs was “based on an incorrect belief that undergraduate students complete their degrees in four years”, highlighting that only 34% of all students – domestic and international – finished their undergraduate degrees within that time frame in 2023/24.
While DHS doesn’t explore the “numerous and varied legitimate reasons” why students tend to take longer than four years, the attorneys said reasons usually include a change in major, the need to transfer schools or leaving school to earn tuition money or care for a loved one.
What’s more, the median amount of time needed to complete a doctoral program – which the new rule would apply to – was over seven years in 2024, the letter noted.
Stakeholders have raised alarm over a provision that would set narrow criteria for granting extensions, subject to discretionary review by individual government adjudicators.
As such, DHS would not grant an extension due to a student’s “repeated inability or unwillingness to complete his or her course of study, as demonstrated by a pattern of failing classes”.
Under these rules, “the smallest hiccup … could end an academic career for a nonimmgrant and represent a loss of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars”, the lawyers warned.
“This is a strong deterrent for international students applying to undergraduate programs in the United States and will likely exacerbate the current trend of fewer international student applicants,” they said.
The smallest hiccup … could end an academic career for a nonimmgrant and represent a loss of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars
State Attorney Generals
The proposal attracted over 20,000 comments during its 30-day consultation period that ended on September 29. It will now be reviewed by the Trump administration for a final rule — a process that could take several months.
Brown University was among the many stakeholders urging DHS to withdraw the plans, expressing “strong concerns” that they would undermine US competitiveness and research innovation, and disrupt workforce pipelines in “critical areas of national need”.
“International students and scholars would face new filing requirements, financial costs associated with those requirements, restrictions on academic pathways, and significant uncertainty regarding their ability to complete their academic programs,” the institution argued.
Apart from imposing considerable burdens on students and intruding on academic decision-making, the proposal would also strain federal agencies and add to the existing immigration backlog, warned Miriam Feldblum, CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration.
If implemented, the rule would prohibit master’s students from changing their program of study and first-year students from transferring from the institution that issued their visa documents.
It would also limit English-language students to a visa period of less than 24 months, and the grace period for F-1 students, post-completion, would be reduced from 60 to 30 days.
The proposed legislation is one of a raft of recent policies deterring international students from studying in the US, including a proposed 15% cap on colleges’ international undergraduate enrolments, and an increase in the skilled worker visa fee to $100,000.
In a recent survey of more than 1,000 current graduate students, nearly half (49%) said they would not have enrolled in a US institution if the Duration of Status system had been replaced with a fixed period of admission.
The attorneys highlighted the “the rich and diverse viewpoints, interests, and skillsets, international students and exchange visitors bring to higher education institutions” that enhance the education of American students and which the proposed rule threatens.
“This education equips Americans to engage more fully with the globalised economy and to better advance American interests,” they continued.
The comment letter was signed by the attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington – all of which are Democratic-led states.
