The Donald Trump administration has proposed raising the cost of participating in the OPT (Optional Practical Training) program from $500 to $70,000. Indeed, it is assumed that this fee would be paid not by the students themselves, but by the universities that recommend suitable OPT candidates; however, if such a proposal is adopted, it will certainly affect the cost of education in general.
What is Optional Practical Training (OPT)
OPT allows international students holding an F-1 visa to gain professional experience in the US in their chosen field. In simpler terms, they can work as practicing professionals while remaining in the country on legal student status.
Of course, this measure has strict time limits: after graduation, OPT is designed for only 12 months. An exception is made only for graduates of STEM programs (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) — for them, the program is valid for 24 months.
For many foreigners who have obtained a higher education degree in the US, OPT becomes a solid bridge to full employment, a green card, and eventual relocation. OPT can also serve as a transitional stage toward an H-1B work visa, under which American companies hire qualified foreign specialists.
Why is such a large fee increase being proposed?
The initiative comes from the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In their view, this measure will help fight fraud, improve the reliability of the immigration system, and protect American workers.
It's worth noting that it's not only the initial fee that is set to increase: for each subsequent recommendation, including for extending participation in the program, an additional fee of $30,000 is planned.
Reaction from universities, students, and others
Under the proposal, educational institutions certified under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) would have to pay $70,000 for the initial recommendation of each F-1 student for participation in OPT. The payment is not tied to a specific employer — it arises when the educational institution recommends a student for the program. Formally, then, it is the educational institution that would pay, not the student themselves. However, such high costs would naturally affect universities' willingness to recommend international graduates — and the cost of the academic programs themselves — so in the end the money would still come out of students' pockets.
Unsurprisingly, representatives of the education sector are very concerned. According to them, such a measure would significantly reduce the accessibility of US university programs for international school graduates and, overall, weaken the inflow of students. A reduction in international student enrollment means a greater burden on university budgets (for which international students are precisely the main source of funding), which in turn would make higher education less accessible for American students as well. The American labor market would lose out too: it would become harder to fill the talent shortage (including in priority technology fields, STEM), which would reduce the country's competitiveness and weaken economic growth. Employers interested in hiring talented, driven graduates — often recruiting them while they are still students — would also be left out in the cold.
Yes, the fee proposal is still just an idea, a draft, and it is far from being adopted — discussions are only just underway. However, it has already become the trigger for a heated debate about the mechanisms linking the education of international students at American universities to their subsequent professional careers in the country.
