U.S. to Impose $70,000 OPT Fee per International Student, $30,000 for Extensions (Roundup)

Universities to Pay $70,000 per Student
Additional $30,000 Fee for Extensions
Universities and Tech Industry Push Back: "Will Drive Talent Away"

A policy is being pursued that would require universities to charge international students seeking employment in the United States OPT (Optional Practical Training) fees of up to nearly 100 million won per student. The measure would effectively restrict the OPT program, which has served as a path to employment for international students after graduation. Some predict that demand for studying in the United States will decline even faster.

Students walk past Widener Library at Harvard University in the United States in November 2025. Reuters-Yonhap

On October 7 local time, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a rule requiring schools to pay a fee of $70,000 (about 93.8 million won) for each international student newly enrolled in OPT. Schools would have to pay an additional $30,000 (about 40 million won) to extend OPT. The proposed rule will be finalized after a public comment period that runs through November 9.

OPT allows foreign students with F-1 visas who graduate from U.S. universities to work for a limited period in fields related to their majors. Graduates in general fields may work for one year after graduation, while those in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields may work for three years.

DHS said it proposed the rule in response to fraud and abuse identified by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The government said it had uncovered cases in which schools, officials, employers and international students falsified work locations or engaged in so-called "pay-to-stay" arrangements to maintain their immigration status. A DHS spokesperson claimed that OPT "is being abused as a conduit for cheap foreign labor."

DHS added that the proposed rule is also in line with a presidential proclamation issued last September to prevent abuse of the H-1B program to take jobs away from American workers, as well as with President Trump's executive order embodying the "America First" principle. In the first year of his second term, last year, the Trump Administration revoked the immigration status of thousands of international students and detained or deported some of them. This summer, it also proposed a measure that would bar international students from staying in the United States for more than four years without federal government approval.

News outlets reported that universities and companies are pushing back against the proposed OPT fee rule. U.S. universities actively recruit international students to generate tuition revenue, while technology companies have relied on OPT to secure workers in STEM fields. Fanta Aw, CEO of the Association of International Educators (NAFSA), criticized the proposal in an interview with the Associated Press, saying, "Pushing international students' talent and perspectives outside the United States will harm innovation, economic growth and workforce development."

Concerns are also growing on U.S. campuses that the number of international students could fall further. The number of new international students who first arrived in the United States last fall was down 17% from the previous year, marking the steepest decline since the COVID-19 pandemic. Some universities reported that their international student numbers fell by 30% to 40% this fall. Education experts said that because OPT is one of the key draws of studying in the United States, the decline in international students could accelerate if the fees take effect.

Some have warned that the proposed rule could face legal challenges. Doug Rand, who served as a senior adviser at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services under the former Biden Administration, noted that the proposed OPT fee could also be invalidated, pointing to a court decision that blocked a measure to impose a $100,000 fee on H-1B work visas. In June, a federal court in Boston blocked the measure, ruling that the amount was not a mere administrative fee but effectively a "tax" that Congress had not authorized. A federal court in California invalidated the measure over procedural flaws in the rulemaking process.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.