DHS Proposes Fees of Up to $70,000 Per Student on Optional Practical Training

On October 7, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security published a proposed rule that would impose substantial new fees on schools recommending F-1 students for Optional Practical Training, the program that allows graduates to work in the US in a field related to their studies. The proposal sets a fee of $70,000 for an initial OPT recommendation and $30,000 for the second year of practical training, such as a STEM extension, with no further fees after that. It would not alter who is eligible for OPT, but fees of this magnitude would meaningfully change how students, schools, and employers participate in the program. The rule remains a proposal, with public comments due by November 9, 2026, and nothing is yet in effect.

What the Proposed Rule Would Do

The mechanics are more specific than the headline figures suggest. Under the proposal, a school certified by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program would be required to pay $70,000 for a student’s initial OPT recommendation and $30,000 for a subsequent recommendation tied to the second year of training, such as a STEM OPT extension. These fees would be separate from the existing USCIS filing fees rather than a replacement for them, and a school would have to pay before it could recommend the student for OPT in the government’s tracking system. USCIS would not grant the student’s employment authorization if the school had not paid the required fee.

What the rule would leave untouched is the substance of the program. The eligibility criteria, the available periods of employment authorization, the 12 months at each education level, the additional 24-month STEM extension, and employers’ compliance obligations would all remain as they are. This is a fee proposal, not a redesign of how OPT works.

Who Would Bear the Cost

The fees would be assessed against SEVP-certified institutions, so on paper the obligation falls on the schools. In practice, the question of who ultimately absorbs the cost is less settled. The rule itself acknowledges that schools may seek other sources of funding to cover these amounts, which leaves room for cost-sharing, reimbursement, or other arrangements involving the employers and students who benefit from the program. For an employer that relies substantially on international graduates, the prudent assumption is that a fee of this size will not simply remain with the university, and planning should account for that possibility.

DHS’s Stated Rationale

DHS presents the proposal as a measure to combat fraud and abuse, strengthen program integrity, and protect U.S. workers. The agency cites concerns about shell companies, problematic worksites, and “pay-to-stay” arrangements that it believes have undermined the program, and it argues that attaching a significant cost to each OPT recommendation would prompt schools to exercise greater oversight and selectivity before recommending students. The department has also tied the proposal to executive directives emphasizing the protection of U.S. workers, and its public statements characterize OPT in pointed terms, describing it as a program it believes has functioned as a source of inexpensive labor.

A central question likely to emerge during the comment period is not whether fraud should be addressed, which few dispute, but whether fees at this level are appropriately tailored to that objective, or whether they would fall most heavily on the schools, students, and employers that use the program responsibly. That is precisely the kind of issue the comment process exists to examine.

Why This Matters Beyond Higher Education

Although the proposal is directed at educational institutions, it would be a mistake to treat it as solely a higher-education concern. For employers in fields such as technology, healthcare, engineering, financial services, and the life sciences, OPT often serves as the bridge between a student’s graduation and longer-term sponsorship, and it is a primary channel for hiring highly skilled graduates educated at U.S. universities. Fees of this magnitude could affect that pipeline in several ways at once. Universities may become more selective about which students they support for OPT, students may reassess whether pursuing U.S. employment remains financially viable, and employers may face pressure to help offset the cost. The most likely points of impact are campus recruiting, early-career hiring, STEM OPT strategies, and longer-term workforce planning, each of which depends on OPT remaining accessible and predictable.

Part of a Broader Policy Shift

This proposal does not stand in isolation. It is the latest in a series of measures tightening the conditions around student and employment-based immigration, and it follows closely on related actions, including the proposal to eliminate the 60-day grace period for F-1 students after a job loss and the broader scrutiny being applied to programs such as H-1B. The consistent themes across these measures are fraud prevention, worker protection, and an expectation that foreign-worker programs supplement rather than displace U.S. workers. For those tracking the direction of policy, the OPT proposal fits a familiar pattern, in which the pathways that run through student status and employment are becoming both more costly and more closely monitored.

What Happens Next

Nothing changes at this stage. The rule is at the proposal stage, with comments due November 9, 2026, and given its scope, many higher-education and industry groups are expected to request additional time to respond. Unless DHS grants an extension, stakeholders should plan to submit comments by the current deadline. After the comment period closes, DHS would need to review the input and issue a final rule before anything took effect, and the proposal could change before then. In the meantime, employers that depend on international graduates would be well served to assess how much their recruiting and workforce planning rely on OPT and STEM OPT, to factor potential cost exposure into their 2027 planning, and to consider submitting comments, since employers are often best positioned to document the practical workforce impact that the agency might not otherwise hear.

A Note on EB-5

For EB-5 investors, this proposal has no direct effect, as it concerns student work authorization rather than the investor pathway. Its relevance is contextual. Many families first come to the United States on student visas, and OPT has long been one of the principal reasons international students choose this country, offering a way to gain professional experience and recoup the cost of an education before moving to longer-term status. As that bridge becomes more expensive and less certain, it adds to the considerations for families weighing whether to rely on the student-to-work-to-sponsorship track or to look instead at a path to permanent residence that does not depend on it. That is a genuine consideration for some families, though one to be weighed on its own terms rather than treated as a reason this rule bears on EB-5 itself.

Final Thoughts

The proposed OPT fees would place an unprecedented price on a program that has, for decades, been one of the central reasons international students choose to study in the United States. The rule is not final, its details may change, and the current program continues to operate unchanged for now. But a $70,000 initial fee, followed by $30,000 for the second year, would represent a significant new cost in the system, and it reflects the broader direction immigration policy has taken over the past year. Schools, students, and the employers who hire them should follow the rulemaking closely, prepare to participate in the comment period before the November 9 deadline, and consult qualified immigration counsel about how the proposal, and the wider shift it reflects, bears on their plans.

Because your Green Card Shouldn't Take a Lifetime