Trump Deals A New Immigration Blow To International Students

An exterior view of the steps and columns of the Rotunda, designed by Thomas Jefferson, at the University of Virginia, in Charlottesville, Virginia. The Trump administration has proposed a new rule to limit international students to fixed periods of entry, making enrolling at U.S. universities more precarious. (Photo Buddy Mays/Getty Images).

Getty Images

The Trump administration has proposed a new rule to limit international students to fixed periods of entry, making enrolling at U.S. universities more precarious. Educators warn that if Trump officials finalize the rule, fewer international students will come to America. The regulation represents the most recent action by the Trump administration restricting international students and should be viewed in that context. Immigration data for July 2025 showed a significant decline in the arrival of international students compared to the same period a year earlier, including a drop of almost 50% for students from India. The proposed rule will increase bureaucracy and red tape for employers by including an unrelated measure to eliminate deference to prior findings of fact in adjudications.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Joseph Edlow have indicated they do not want international students to remain and work in the United States after completing their coursework. The proposed rule has a 30-day comment period. Barring litigation blocking the rule, it is expected to become final before the Fall 2026 academic year.

The New Immigration Rule Will Establish Fixed Admission Periods For Students

On August 28, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security published a proposed rule to eliminate “duration of status” for F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors. Currently, international students can remain in lawful status as long as they are pursuing an academic program toward completion, and can, for example, transition from undergraduate to graduate studies. The new rule would replace that policy, with limited exceptions, by establishing a fixed four-year period for F-1 and J-1 visa holders. The rule also limits the period of stay for “foreign information media” on I visas. Language training students are limited to an aggregate 24-month period of stay.

The four-year limit will likely be insufficient for many international students. The National Center for Education Statistics reports a median of 52 months (4.3 years) for completing a bachelor’s degree. The National Science Foundation reports a median of 5.7 years for completing a Ph.D.

Current international students will be allowed to remain in duration of status but cannot exceed four years from the date the rule becomes final without seeking an extension of status, or EOS. The same will apply to J-1 exchange visitors. “For example, J-1 research scholars and alien physicians who have program end dates for up to 5 or 7 years respectively, would need to apply for an EOS before the 4-year maximum period of stay expires, i.e., the date that falls 4 years after the rule becomes effective,” according to the Department of Homeland Security.

“F and J nonimmigrants [temporary visa holders] who depart the United States after the rule’s effective date and before the end date reflected on their Form I-20 or DS-2019 may be admitted with a new fixed admission period, like any other newly admitted F or J nonimmigrant,” writes DHS.

Dan Berger of Green & Spiegel advises international students to keep track of their I-94 record, which includes the date of expiration of a student’s status. That will become far more significant if the rule becomes final. International students would be allowed 30 days to depart from the date they complete their coursework, authorized practical training or four-year maximum admission period, or the end date of Optional Practical Training or STEM OPT. Unlawful presence could begin accruing without such a departure.

Berger notes that, under the rule, a student’s ability to transfer to a new school in the first year of a program or to another graduation program will become limited. Under the proposed rule, “An F-1 student at any level below the graduate degree level may not change programs or educational objectives, i.e. programs, majors, or educational levels, within the first academic year of a program of study, unless an exception is authorized . . . for extenuating circumstances that may include, but are not limited to, a school closure or a school’s prolonged inability to hold in-person classes due to a natural disaster or other cause. An F-1 student at the graduate degree level or above may not change programs at any point during a program of study.” (Emphasis added.)

According to the proposed rule, “An alien who has completed a program in the United States as an F-1 nonimmigrant at one educational level may not maintain, be admitted, or otherwise be provided F-1 status through a program at the same educational level or a lower educational level.”

Immigration Rule Will Affect OPT And STEM OPT

The proposed rule will affect how international students obtain the ability to work on Optional Practical Training and STEM OPT. “Now, OPT and STEM OPT are considered part of being in F-1 status. There is an application for a work card, but no application to extend F-1 status to participate in OPT or STEM OPT,” said Dan Berger.

That process will change once DHS finalizes the rule. “Under the proposed rule, F-1 students will have to file for an extension of F-1 status to be eligible for OPT,” said Berger in an interview. “People on OPT would have to file an extension of F-1 status to get the STEM OPT extension. This adds more delay and expense. USCIS is already reviewing the SEVIS record and F-1 status in the work card application.”

People working on OPT or STEM OPT before the rule becomes final will not have to file for an extension of stay to remain on OPT or STEM OPT.

OPT and STEM OPT programs escaping more significant restrictions in this rule do not mean they are safe from future regulatory action. Joseph Edlow, the new director of USCIS, has said that he hopes to end the ability of international students to work on Optional Practical Training after completing their coursework.

Immigration Officials Launch A Sneak Attack On Deference That Will Increase Requests For Evidence

During Donald Trump’s first term, USCIS ended deference to prior findings of fact for adjudications, which contributed to a dramatic increase in Requests for Evidence and a significant rise in denials for H-1B extensions. This led to many longtime employees of companies leaving the United States when USCIS adjudicators rejected their H-1B applications. The H-1B rule finalized by the Biden administration in December 2024 codified deference and, at the time, attorneys and employers viewed it as a way to improve USCIS operations and prevent a future administration from upending business immigration. The Trump administration has other ideas.

Trump officials included in the proposed rule on duration of status a sneak attack that eliminates the deference provision by cloaking the significant change in bureaucratic language.

As Nancy Morowitz of Fragomen points out, the current 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5) with the discretion language states: “Deference to prior USCIS determinations of eligibility. When adjudicating a request filed on Form I-129 involving the same parties and the same underlying facts, USCIS gives deference to its prior determination of the petitioner’s, applicant’s, or beneficiary’s eligibility. However, USCIS need not give deference to a prior approval if: there was a material error involved with a prior approval; there has been a material change in circumstances or eligibility requirements; or there is new, material information that adversely impacts the petitioner’s, applicant’s, or beneficiary’s eligibility.”

That section would be replaced with the proposed: “(5) Decisions for extension of stay applications. Where an applicant or petitioner demonstrates eligibility for a requested extension, it may be granted at USCIS’s discretion. The denial of an application for extension of stay may not be appealed.”

The regulatory preamble in the proposed rule masks this alteration by characterizing it as a minor technical change related to forms. The preamble reads: “Like the technical updates to strike the specific form name from 8 CFR 214.1(c)(2), DHS is proposing to strike the references to Forms ‘I-129’ and ‘I-539’ in 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5), replacing those specific form numbers with the aforementioned general language. See proposed 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5). The substance of that provision, including the language that does not allow an alien to appeal an EOS denial would remain the same.”

The change may lead many employers to conclude that USCIS in the second Trump administration will look a great deal like it did in Donald Trump’s first term.

Immigration Rule Provides Limited Exceptions To Extend Stays

The proposed rule allows international students to obtain an extension of stay. However, educators worry about the additional cost, delays and uncertainty the new policy will bring. “USCIS may grant an extension of stay to an F-1 student who has maintained his or her F-1 status, but who is unable to complete his or her program by the end of his or her authorized period of admission,” the proposed rule states.

The rule lists three valid reasons for obtaining an extension. First, “A compelling academic reason, such as a change of major or research topic or unexpected research problems.” That would include “unexpected research problems,” such as a change in a faculty advisor or funding delays. “Delays including, but not limited to, those caused by academic probation or suspension or a student’s repeated inability or unwillingness to complete his or her course of study are not acceptable reasons for an extension.”

A second reason: “A documented illness or medical condition that is a compelling medical reason, such as a serious injury, that is supported by medical documentation.” A third valid reason for an extension: “Circumstances beyond the student’s control, including a natural disaster, national health crisis, or the closure of an institution.”

“With this new proposed rule, academic probation may lead to the end of the student’s ability to gain a degree, since that is considered a valid reason to take longer to finish a degree,” according to Dan Berger. He thinks the rule ignores that not all students come in with the same level of preparation, and some require more time to find their way in higher education. He said American schools differ from schools in many other countries because U.S. schools give second chances.

National Security Cited To Justify An Expansive Immigration Rule

DHS cites national security benefits to justify a potential sea-change in how international students attend U.S. universities: “DHS expects this proposed rule to have qualitative benefits for national security by providing DHS additional opportunities to evaluate whether F, J, and I nonimmigrants are complying with their status requirements, or if they present a national security concern.”

In the section on the need for rulemaking, DHS cites five cases of Chinese nationals who entered on J-1 visas, whose actions, the department believes, represented national security threats. DHS places significant confidence in the extension approval process to protect against threats. “As with F nonimmigrants, setting the length of the J nonimmigrant’s specific program to not exceed a 4-year period would establish a mechanism for immigration officers to assess these nonimmigrants at defined periods (such as when applying for an EOS in the United States beyond a 4-year admission period) and determine whether they are complying with the conditions of their classification,” according to DHS. “This will increase vetting of the J nonimmigrant population, which can help to prevent and deter nefarious actors.”

Elizabeth Neumann, former assistant secretary for counterterrorism and threat prevention at the Department of Homeland Security during Donald Trump’s first term, believes there are legitimate issues with student and exchange visitor visas, but is unsure the proposed rule is the best way to address them. “It seems like they’re trying to focus on national security as a justification for what is really a policy preference,” Neumann told me. “If I had to characterize this action, I would say there are legitimate needs to strengthen the student visa programs to prevent fraud and protect national security, but it might be possible to do so through other, more narrow means.”

DHS has the authority to check any individual F-1 or J-1 visa holder. If there are particular concerns about visa holders from specific countries or working in certain areas, a focused and likely more effective approach would be for DHS or the FBI to increase checks on those individuals based on the information the agencies received, rather than subjecting all international students and J-1 visa holders to new restrictions.

DHS also cites longtime students to justify the rule. “DHS has identified over 2,100 aliens who first entered as F-1 students between 2000 and 2010 and remain in active F-1 status as of April 6, 2025.” A total of 2,100 aliens would equal 0.067% of the estimated 3.1 million people who may have entered the United States as F-1 students on visas between 2000 and 2010. The proportion indicates that, to the extent DHS believes it must address this group of students, it could direct resources at that population rather than impose a far-reaching policy that could negatively affect the other 99.93% of international students. DHS does not allege these 2,100 students have violated the law but rather “the spirit of the law.” (Given DHS recordkeeping issues, not all these students may be in F-1 student status today.)

Educators Expect The Immigration Rule To Reduce International Student Enrollment

Education organizations oppose the proposed rule, expressing concerns about its impact on international student enrollment. “The proposed rule is yet another unnecessary and counterproductive action aimed against international students and scholars,” said Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, in a statement. She believes that by forcing students to submit additional applications, the rule would impose significant burdens on students, colleges and universities, and USCIS, which already has extensive immigration backlogs. “If finalized, this rule would create additional uncertainty, intrude on academic decision-making, increase bureaucratic hurdles and risk deterring international students, researchers and scholars from coming to the United States.”

Educators view the proposed rule as an example of government overreach. “The proposal represents a dangerous overreach by government into academia, as it would give USCIS oversight over decisions that have long been the domain of academia, including changes to a student’s course of study and to their level of study,” said Fanta Aw, Executive Director and CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, in a statement. “International students and exchange visitors are already rigorously tracked in the SEVIS database and are the most closely monitored nonimmigrants in the country.”

“Government interference into the academic realm in this way introduces a wholly unnecessary and new level of uncertainty to international student experience in the United States as degree completion is now highly unpredictable,” said Aw. “It will certainly act as an additional deterrent to international students choosing to study in the United States, to the detriment of American economies, innovation and global competitiveness.”