On Aug. 18, the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts and labor organizations filed suit in federal court in Massachusetts challenging a Department of Homeland Security rule that will replace the longstanding “duration of status” framework for international students and exchange visitors with fixed periods of admission.
The rule, published in July, is scheduled to take effect Sept. 15. It would generally cap the initial admission period for F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors at four years, with a 30-day grace period. Students whose programs take longer would have to apply for an extension of stay.
The plaintiffs argue that DHS failed to adequately consider how the change would affect students and the colleges that enroll them. The complaint says member institutions will incur costs to train or hire staff to manage the new requirements and will face recurring costs associated with extension-of-stay requests. It also argues that institutions could see fewer international students enroll, potentially requiring changes to student services, housing and academic programs.
Already, data show a collective 9.5% drop – or 111,000 students – in international enrollment at U.S. institutions.
The issue is particularly significant for programs that routinely extend beyond four years. The complaint cites data submitted during the rulemaking showing that the median time to complete a research doctorate is 5.7 years, while students completing a master’s-to-doctorate sequence take an average of 7.3 years. It also cites National Center for Education Statistics data showing a median 56.3 months — 4.33 years — to complete a bachelor’s degree.
For universities, the practical change is embedded in the reality that a student who needs additional time to complete a program may have to navigate a cumbersome extension process, rather than continuing under the existing duration-of-status framework. The rule also changes requirements governing changes in educational level, programs of study and school transfers.
The case comes as DHS is also proposing a significant change on the other end of the international talent pipeline.
On Aug. 25, the agency proposed an additional $103,265 fee for every H-1B petition subject to the annual cap, including petitions eligible for the separate advanced-degree exemption for people with qualifying U.S. graduate degrees. The proposed fee would be on top of existing filing fees.
Qualifying institutions of higher education and other cap-exempt employers would not be subject to the new fee when filing cap-exempt H-1B petitions. However, for colleges and universities, the issue isn't simply whether their own H-1B hiring gets more expensive, but what happens when international graduates move from the university into parts of the workforce that depend on cap-subject H-1B visas.
According to the National Science Foundation's National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, foreign-born workers accounted for 22% of the U.S. STEM workforce in 2023 — 8 million of 36 million STEM workers. NSF describes the U.S. STEM economy as increasingly reliant on foreign-born talent and notes that such workers are considered important to maintaining U.S. competitiveness in science and engineering.
At the highest levels of education, the concentration is even greater. NSF previously found that foreign-born workers accounted for 43% of workers in science and engineering occupations with doctoral degrees. Among computer and mathematical scientists with doctorates, the figure was 58%; among engineers with doctorates, it was 56%.
That makes the question bigger than whether a student can finish a degree or whether an employer can absorb another immigration fee, but what happens when the country educates people with advanced scientific and technical training and then makes the path into the U.S. workforce more difficult.
DHS estimates that about 85,000 petitions annually would be subject to the proposed fee and projects approximately $8.8 billion in annual revenue. The agency says the money would help cover the costs of administering the lawful immigration system across multiple federal agencies.
A 2025 report from the Center for American Progress examined how immigration restrictions could affect U.S. innovation leadership, including concerns about the proposed $100,000 H-1B fee and the possible loss of international talent in critical STEM fields. Earlier coverage also examined the possibility that growing barriers to OPT and H-1B employment could discourage international students from choosing U.S. colleges in the first place.
Combined, these policies, at best, muddy the degree-to-workforce pipeline for international students, and at worst, pose a national security risk that sees additional attacks on the innovation pipeline for a nation already lagging in science and technology competitiveness.
Not only would the change to the duration of status rule call into question of whether international students can move through U.S. academic programs with the flexibility those programs require, but the changes to the H-1B fees will limit what options they have after graduation — and whether employers outside the cap-exempt higher education and research system will be willing to absorb the cost of sponsoring them.
The H-1B proposal is open for public comment through Sept. 24. The lawsuit over the duration-of-status rule is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, with the rule set to take effect September 15, if the court doesn’t intervene.
If the United States becomes a harder place for international students to study, complete advanced degrees and transition into the workforce, what happens to the talent it no longer retains?
The answer matters not only to colleges. It matters to the research enterprise, to employers and to a country whose STEM workforce already includes millions of people born elsewhere.
