THE HEART OF THE STORY
- DHS proposes $70,000 for initial OPT and $30,000 for subsequent OPT recommendations per student, not annual fees or employer-change charges.
- SEVP-certified schools would have to pay before recommending students, although the proposal allows them to obtain the money from other sources.
- The fees are not in effect. DHS says public comments on the proposed rule will run from October 8 through November 9, 2026.
The Trump administration is taking aim at what it describes as a cheap-labor pipeline in the foreign-student work program, proposing substantial fees intended to protect American workers and make participating schools more accountable.
The Department of Homeland Security announced October 7 that it wants SEVP-certified schools to pay $70,000 for an initial Optional Practical Training recommendation and $30,000 for subsequent recommendations for an individual student. These are proposed charges, not fees currently being collected.
Putting responsibility on the schools
OPT provides eligible F-1 students with temporary employment authorization connected to their field of study. It can cover training before or after graduation, generally for up to 12 months at each educational level, with an additional 24-month extension available to eligible STEM graduates.
Under the proposal, the school—not the student or an employer—would be legally responsible for paying before its designated official recommends the student. USCIS would not grant the relevant work authorization without payment. The charge would attach to the student's OPT recommendation, not a particular employer, and would not be an annual assessment.
That does not mean schools must absorb the expense. The proposed rule expressly contemplates passing costs to international students, the broader student body, or employers, subject to other applicable laws. Institutional responsibility for submitting a payment and responsibility for ultimately bearing its cost are different things.
DHS argues American workers deserve protection
DHS says the policy would discourage fraud, strengthen schools' scrutiny of training placements and prevent OPT from serving as a source of cheap foreign labor. Its announcement cites problematic worksites and pay-to-stay schemes among the abuses the department says it has encountered.
The department's argument is that a substantial financial commitment would give schools a stronger incentive to vet recommendations. Whether those specific fee amounts would achieve the promised results remains a policy claim, not a demonstrated outcome of a rule that has yet to take effect.
The accountability question matters: an educational program should serve genuine training, not become a convenient way around scrutiny of hiring practices. The government should be able to demand meaningful oversight from institutions recommending access to the American workforce.
Higher-education groups warn of lost opportunities
The Associated Press reported that NAFSA chief executive Fanta Aw warned the proposal could harm innovation and the workforce, arguing that OPT supplies practical experience and helps address STEM labor shortages. Sarah Spreitzer of the American Council on Education also emphasized OPT's role in attracting international students and warned about the enrollment consequences.
Those objections deserve examination during rulemaking, including who would ultimately pay. They do not eliminate the government's responsibility to investigate abuse or consider the interests of Americans competing for jobs.
What happens next
DHS says comments on the proposed rule will be accepted October 8 through November 9, 2026, after which it may revise the proposal. A separate paperwork-related comment process has a 60-day period.
The proposal calls for implementation 60 days after a final rule is published. Its transition provisions would not retroactively charge for existing approved OPT or recommendations issued before the effective date. A later recommendation after that date could trigger the new fees, including the initial $70,000 charge where that fee had not previously been paid.
FaithfulHeartbeat Perspective
American workers and their families should not be an afterthought in immigration policy. Protecting honest work, enforcing lawful limits and requiring accountability from powerful institutions are legitimate duties of government. Universities' recruitment goals and employers' staffing preferences should not automatically outrank those duties.
The administration is right to insist that a student-training program must not become a vehicle for fraud or undercutting American workers. The final policy should be judged by whether it actually stops abuse and strengthens fair opportunity—not simply by how much money it collects. Christian concern for the dignity of work also means treating lawful international students honestly and individually, rather than assuming that participation in OPT itself proves wrongdoing.
SOURCES
Loading comments…