Overview
On October 8, 2026, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), published a proposed rule that would impose substantial new fees on colleges and universities participating in the F-1 Optional Practical Training (OPT) program.
As brief background, OPT is a temporary employment authorization that allows eligible international students in F-1 visa status to gain hands-on work experience directly related to their major area of study, either prior to completing their degree (pre-completion) or after graduation (post-completion). There is currently no fee for a college or university to recommend an international student for OPT.
Under the new DHS proposal, a Student and Exchange Visitor- (SEVP-) certified institution would be required to pay $70,000 for a student’s initial OPT recommendation and $30,000 for each subsequent OPT recommendation, including a 24-month OPT extension for students with a qualifying degree in science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM). The fee would be paid by the institution before the Designated School Official (DSO) could enter the OPT recommendation in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would not grant the required Employment Authorization Document (EAD) unless the required fee had been paid.
DHS justifies the fees primarily as measures to combat fraud and abuse in the OPT program and protect US workers.
Changes would take effect 60 days after publication of a final rule.
What would change
The proposal would fundamentally alter the economics of OPT for institutions. The $70,000 initial fee would apply the first time a student receives an OPT recommendation, whether for pre-completion or post-completion OPT. A $30,000 subsequent fee would apply to a later OPT recommendation, including a STEM OPT extension for students with a qualifying degree in science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) and employed by a qualifying E-Verify employer. Refunds would be discretionary and available only if the EAD has not yet been issued; once an EAD is issued, the fee would be nonrefundable, with no administrative appeal. The fee is tied to the institution’s OPT recommendation, not to a particular employer or a change in employer.
For example:
- A student who uses pre-completion and then post-completion OPT would result in $100,000 in total institutional fees.
- A student who uses 12 months of post-completion OPT followed by the 24-month STEM OPT extension would also result in $100,000 in fees.
- A student who changes employers during an existing period of OPT would not trigger another fee merely because of the employer change. A subsequent fee would be tied to a later OPT recommendation, such as a STEM OPT extension.
- A student who receives an OPT recommendation before the final rule’s effective date would not be subject to the fee for that period of OPT. A later OPT recommendation would, however, trigger a new fee: the OPT fee of $70,000 would start to apply for F-1 students who will receive a DSO recommendation for any type of OPT that is dated on or after the effective date of the final rule.
DHS expressly anticipates that institutions may respond by reducing pre-completion OPT and becoming more selective about which students they recommend for OPT. The proposal also would make DSOs important financial gatekeepers because a DSO could not enter an OPT recommendation until the required fee had been paid. DHS contemplates that institutions may evaluate whether individual students are “strong candidates” for OPT and whether participation could “affect program integrity.”
What it means for colleges and universities
The impact would be particularly significant for smaller institutions. DHS estimates that approximately 60.5% of affected small institutions would experience costs exceeding 1% of annual revenue, while 116 institutions would experience costs exceeding 20% of annual revenue.
However, the immediate issue is not simply whether an institution can absorb a $70,000 or $30,000 payment. Institutions will have to consider how the proposal could affect international enrollment, financial planning, DSO decision-making, student communications, and institutional policy.
DHS states that institutions could fund the fees by passing costs onto F-1 students, all students, and/or employers, or looking to other funding sources. It does warn against seeking funding from “large or unusual financial contributions from foreign sources, especially those tied to programs that rely heavily on OPT,” which could serve as “red flags” for further investigation, according to DHS. Any pass-through arrangement or funding agreements, however, would require careful review of tuition and fee policies, contracts and disclosures, financial aid considerations, and applicable reporting requirements, including federal reporting requirements relating to certain foreign gifts and contracts.
The proposal would also require institutions to build processes for authorizing, tracking, and documenting very large payments before a DSO can issue an OPT recommendation. DHS anticipates that institutions may need new budgeting, accounting, audit, and recordkeeping processes.
What institutions should do now
Quantify the exposure. Institutions should model the proposed fees using their recent OPT and STEM OPT recommendations. Presidents, provosts, CFOs, enrollment leaders, international student offices, and general counsel should understand the potential exposure now, particularly at institutions with significant international enrollment or high STEM OPT participation.
Review institutional policies. Schools should begin considering whether and how they would handle payment authorization, reimbursement or pass-through arrangements, DSO decision-making, refund requests, and communications with students and employers.
Do not change current OPT practices yet based solely on the proposal. The proposed fees do not take effect unless and until DHS issues a final rule, assuming litigation does not ensue to enjoin it from taking effect. Institutions should, however, be prepared to act quickly if a final rule moves forward.
Any eventual legal challenge could focus, among other things, on whether DHS has statutory authority to impose fees of this magnitude on educational institutions. DHS relies principally on INA §214(a), which authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to prescribe by regulation the “time” and “conditions” of non-immigrant admission, and cites the DC Circuit’s decision in Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. DHS (Washtech), 50 F.4th 164 (DC Cir. 2022), upholding DHS’s statutory authority to establish the OPT program. Washtech, however, only addressed DHS’s authority to establish OPT; it did not address the authority to impose a fee of this magnitude on third-party educational institutions. In addition, the proposal’s requirement that the fees be paid to the US Treasury rather than retained to fund the OPT program may be relevant to that analysis.
The bottom line
The proposed OPT fee structure would add a potentially significant new institutional cost to the F-1 OPT program, not to mention result in a chilling effect on future international student enrollment. For some colleges and universities, particularly smaller institutions, the financial impact could be significant enough to affect participation in the program itself. Given the short comment period and the legal and operational questions raised by the proposal, institutions should begin preparing now.