- Trump Administration Weighs US$100,000 OPT Fee for Foreign Graduates
The Trump administration is considering a US$100,000 fee for international graduates seeking permission to work temporarily in the United States after completing their studies, a proposal that could sharply weaken the appeal of American universities and redirect skilled workers towards competing economies.
The measure remains under internal discussion at the Department of Homeland Security and has not been approved or formally implemented. Critical details—including whether the fee would be paid by graduates, universities or employers—have also not been settled.
The potential charge would be attached to Optional Practical Training, commonly known as OPT, which allows eligible international students on F-1 visas to obtain temporary employment related to their field of study.
Standard post-completion OPT generally permits up to 12 months of work, while eligible graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields can apply for a further 24-month extension, allowing them to remain employed for as long as three years.
OPT has become a central part of the commercial proposition offered by American higher education. International students frequently accept high tuition and living costs partly because a US qualification may provide temporary access to the world’s largest economy and a pathway towards longer-term employment.
Approximately 419,000 foreign graduates were reportedly working under OPT in 2024, illustrating the scale of the programme’s role in connecting universities with employers in technology, finance, engineering, healthcare and research.
A US$100,000 fee would fundamentally alter that calculation.
For many graduates, particularly those from lower- and middle-income countries, the proposed amount would exceed annual starting salaries and could come on top of tuition, accommodation, health insurance and other educational expenses.
The policy could therefore make post-study employment available primarily to wealthier graduates or those sponsored by large employers, potentially reducing access for students recruited by smaller businesses, research institutions and start-ups.
The proposal also creates a significant risk for American universities.
US colleges and universities hosted 1,177,766 international students during the 2024/25 academic year, an increase of 5.00% from the preceding year. However, new international enrolments fell by 17.00% in autumn 2025, suggesting that the market was already becoming more sensitive to immigration policy and regulatory uncertainty.
International students contributed an estimated US$42.90 billion to the American economy and supported more than 355,000 jobs during the 2024/25 academic year through tuition, accommodation and wider consumer expenditure.
Any policy that weakens demand could therefore affect more than university finances. It could reduce rental income, retail spending, research capacity and employment in communities that host large educational institutions.
The proposal may have an especially strong effect on postgraduate and STEM education, where opportunities to gain professional experience after graduation are often a major factor in deciding where to study.
Competing destinations including Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and several European countries could benefit if prospective students conclude that the US route has become too expensive or unpredictable.
The impact on employers would depend heavily on who is required to pay.
A graduate-funded model would exclude many applicants irrespective of their skills. An employer-funded structure could discourage companies from hiring international graduates unless their expected productivity justified an additional US$100,000 cost.
Large technology and financial groups might retain some ability to absorb the charge for highly specialised recruits, while universities, hospitals, start-ups and smaller companies could find it prohibitive.
The proposal also follows wider efforts by the Trump administration to raise the financial and regulatory barriers surrounding legal immigration.
A separate US$100,000 charge was previously attached to certain new H-1B petitions, although that policy has faced court challenges over whether the executive branch exceeded its legal authority.
A similar OPT fee would likely attract legal scrutiny, particularly over whether an administrative charge of that scale represents a legitimate processing fee or an immigration tax requiring congressional authorisation.
Supporters of tighter OPT rules argue that employers may use the programme to obtain foreign labour without the wage and numerical restrictions attached to other work-visa categories.
Opponents contend that weakening OPT would reduce America’s ability to retain graduates trained at its own universities and encourage highly skilled workers to develop research, businesses and technologies elsewhere.
The immediate significance of the proposal is uncertainty rather than implementation. Current students should not treat the US$100,000 charge as an existing legal requirement.
Its broader direction, however, is already consequential. International education decisions are made years in advance, and students considering expensive American degrees must assess whether post-study work opportunities will remain financially viable.
Should the fee proceed, it could transform OPT from a broadly accessible graduate employment programme into a pathway reserved for the wealthiest students and the largest employers, weakening one of the principal advantages underpinning the United States’ position in the global competition for talent.
