In a sweeping Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) released on October 7, 2026, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) laid out plans to overhaul the financing of the Optional Practical Training (OPT) programme. Under the proposal, every Student and Exchange Visitor Program-certified school would have to pay a non-refundable US $70,000 fee before it could issue a first-time OPT recommendation (Form I-20) for an F-1 student. Renewals or extensions of OPT—such as STEM OPT—would trigger an additional US $30,000 levy. DHS says the steep charges are intended to “deter fraud, protect U.S. workers and recover programme costs,” arguing that universities, rather than taxpayers, should underwrite the compliance burden of monitoring foreign graduates. The size of the proposed fee stunned the higher-education and business communities. NAFSA CEO Fanta Aw warned that many smaller colleges would simply drop OPT sponsorship, depriving U.S. employers—particularly in STEM fields—of a key talent pipeline. Immigration lawyers note that the Trump administration has already raised or floated six-figure fees for H-1B petitions; the new OPT fees appear designed to close a perceived “loophole” whereby companies hire graduates on OPT instead of paying the higher H-1B charges. Practically, schools would have to remit the fee via the SEVIS system before entering the OPT recommendation. Institutions that fail to pay could lose SEVP certification, jeopardising all of their international students. Because the cost is assessed on the school— not the student—universities could decide to pass it through as tuition surcharges or specialised “training fees,” shifting the burden back to the very students the rule purports to protect. DHS estimates the rule would generate roughly US $6.2 billion over its first decade, funds that would be earmarked for fraud-prevention staffing, site visits and data-analytics contracts. Yet opponents argue that Congress never authorised DHS to impose such revenue-raising surcharges and question whether the rule complies with the Administrative Procedure Act. A 30-day public-comment period will open when the proposal is formally published in the Federal Register on October 8. Universities, multinational employers and foreign-student advocates are already mobilising to submit objections and, if necessary, to challenge the rule in court. For global mobility managers, the proposal injects a new layer of cost uncertainty into workforce-planning for 2027 and beyond. Companies that rely on F-1 graduates to bridge to H-1B status—or to fill hard-to-staff regional roles—should map alternative strategies now, including earlier H-1B cap-season filings, expanded use of L-1 international transferees or remote off-shore assignments. Should the fee survive the rule-making process, it would almost certainly reduce OPT participation, tighten the labour market for entry-level STEM talent and accelerate a shift of international graduates toward friendlier immigration markets such as Canada, the U.K. and Australia.
