Trump's proposed $100,000 OPT fee and what it means for Indian students

Trump foreign student work fee: Everything you need to know

A proposal reportedly being considered by the Trump administration to impose a $100,000 fee on international students seeking to work in the US after graduation has sparked concern among universities, immigration lawyers and employers, who warn it could fundamentally alter the economics of studying in America for hundreds of thousands of foreign students, including Indians.

 

The proposal, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, is not yet a policy. According to the report, officials are discussing attaching the fee to the Optional Practical Training (OPT) programme, which allows international students to work in the US for up to one year after graduation—or up to three years for STEM graduates. It remains unclear whether the fee, if approved, would be paid by students, employers or universities.

   

The proposal comes just weeks after the administration finalised another rule limiting most international students to four-year visas, replacing the decades-old "duration of status" system under which students could remain in the US as long as they were enrolled in an eligible programme. Together, the measures signal a broader tightening of legal immigration pathways.

 

Why is OPT so important?

 

OPT is one of the biggest reasons international students choose American universities.

 

Students on F-1 visas can work in the US after graduation while remaining on their student visa. For STEM graduates, the programme can extend employment authorisation to 36 months, giving them time to gain work experience and, in many cases, transition to an H-1B visa sponsored by an employer.

 

According to the Wall Street Journal, around 419,000 foreign graduates were working in the US through OPT in 2024, making it one of the country's largest post-study work programmes.

 

For Indian students—the largest international student cohort in the US—the programme is often viewed as the bridge that justifies the high cost of an American education.

 

"Administration officials have targeted OPT in particular, saying it enables visa fraud and overstays. There were almost 300,000 international students on OPT as of last fall, according to the Institute of International Education — roughly a quarter of the foreign student population in the US," reported Bloomberg.

 

The fee also echoes the US administration’s efforts to pin the same $100,000 price tag on H-1B visas, which have historically funneled global talent, particularly in STEM fields, to US companies. Last month, a federal judge said the fee was illegal, though the White House is appealing the ruling. 

 

Why are experts worried?

 

Higher education groups argue that such a fee would make US universities significantly less competitive against countries such as Canada, the UK and Australia, all of which offer structured post-study work opportunities.

 

The Wall Street Journal reported that universities fear the proposal could discourage international enrolments, which have become an important source of tuition revenue, while technology companies and Wall Street firms worry it would shrink an important talent pipeline.

 

Policy experts have also warned that recent changes to student immigration rules could have broader economic consequences.

 

In an analysis published by the Brookings Institution, immigration lawyer Taylor Joseph of Green & Spiegel and Ezra Brown of Cornell Law School said replacing the long-standing "duration of status" framework with fixed visa terms creates additional uncertainty for students and employers. They argued that international graduates play an important role in the US innovation ecosystem and that making it harder for them to stay could ultimately hurt American companies and workers.

 

"The largest group affected by this new regulation is students on F-1 visas. These approximately 1.2 million people account for around 6% of students in the United States. International students’ tuition payments also support domestic students. On average, for each additional international student who enrolls in a public university, two additional in-state students enroll. If students choose to study in another country, they are very likely to end up staying there, depriving the United States of their economic benefit," the lawyers added.

 

The additional uncertainties and expenses created by the regulation will discourage international students from applying to U.S. schools, at a time when the United States has already seen a 20% drop in international student applications, they argued.  "It will increase uncertainty for international students , especially in a heightened U.S. immigration enforcement environment. As the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration observed in its comment on the proposed regulation, international students are increasingly choosing other countries, such as Australia, Canada, and the U.K., for their studies."

 

Fanta Aw, CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, called it “a misguided and unnecessary policy shift that injects uncertainty, bureaucracy, and fear into a system that has long worked effectively.” Her statement also criticized the federal government for inserting itself into students’ academic decision-making processes regarding changing majors and transferring institutions.

 

The American Immigration Lawyers Association lambasted the rule on social media. The organization wrote that the rule “duplicates processes already managed through SEVIS” and that the rule change is part of the Trump administration’s larger effort to “[dismantle] the legal immigration system, potentially creating a larger undocumented population and ultimately undermining the very economic and security foundations the Administration claims to protect.”

 

What are immigration lawyers saying?

 

Immigration lawyers say the proposal may face legal hurdles if implemented.

 

Earlier this year, a federal judge struck down the Trump administration's $100,000 H-1B visa fee, ruling that the executive branch exceeded its authority by imposing what the court viewed as an unlawful tax without Congressional approval. Legal experts say any similar fee on OPT could invite comparable challenges if introduced through executive action rather than legislation.

 

"The inconsistencies in these rulings, and the appeals status of these cases, leave the ultimate fate of the fee still very much in limbo," said Melissa Calhoon Jones, counsel at Tydings Law.

 

Law firm Nixon Peabody has also noted that employers increasingly rely on OPT as part of long-term workforce planning and warned that recent regulatory changes already require companies to rethink immigration strategies for international graduates.

 

"Schools will need to consider building new compliance workflows to track I-94 expiration dates, advise students on timely EOS filing (which prevents unlawful presence), navigate new restrictions on graduate program changes and first-year transfers, and account for the immigration consequences of academic probation or suspension.

 

For employers: H-1B cap-gap protections are preserved, but fixed admission periods create new pressure to coordinate OPT/STEM OPT timing, EOS filing, and H-1B sponsorship earlier in the employment lifecycle," it said in a blog.