DHS Finalizes Immigration Rule That Imperils Status Of Many Students

The Trump administration has finalized an immigration rule affecting international students on F-1 visas and J-1 exchange visitors. This new policy replaces the current “duration of status” with a fixed four-year period, requiring students to seek extensions if they do not complete their degree in four years. Critics, including educators and businesses, warn this change will deter promising global talent and harm U.S. higher education and innovation. They argue the rule’s stated justifications of national security and reducing overstays are weak. They also note that many students take longer than four years to complete a degree and extensions are not guaranteed. DHS concedes the rule could cause international student enrollment to decline.

The Trump administration has finalized an immigration rule that imperils the status of many international students. Today, international students are admitted for duration of status. That means if they are pursuing a course of study, they can generally stay in the United States, including entering as an undergraduate, going on to a master’s and then a Ph.D. without relying on new government approvals. The final rule, proposed in Aug. 2025, would replace that policy, with limited exceptions, by establishing a fixed four-year period for F-1 and J-1 visa holders. Educators, attorneys and businesses say the new policy threatens America’s role as a leading destination for international students and will harm the ability to attract and retain promising talent from around the world.

“Ultimately, it is going to be a huge burden and unnecessary administrative strain,” said Jonathan Grode of Green & Spiegel in an interview. “I worry about the chilling effect on foreign student enrollment, which has already taken a hit since Trump’s second term started.”

“This rule is unnecessary and duplicative. International students are already among the most closely monitored nonimmigrant populations in the U.S. and are subject to rigorous oversight by DHS and academic institutions,” said Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, in a statement. Nonimmigrants are temporary visa holders.

“This rule introduces unnecessary government intrusion into academic decision-making,” said Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, in a statement. “Requiring students and scholars to seek approval to extend their academic program, change majors, or pursue the next level of study places life-changing educational decisions in the hands of an already overburdened immigration system—not educators, and not institutions.”

Research indicates international students are vital to U.S. universities, American students and employers. According to a National Foundation for American Policy study by Madeline Zavodny, an economics professor at the University of North Florida, “Without immigrants, international students and the children of immigrants, the undergraduate student population in America would be almost 5 million students smaller in 2037 than 2022, or about two-thirds of its current size, while the graduate student population would be at least 1.1 million students smaller, or only about 60% of its current size.” Other research by Zavodny found having more international students at a university is associated with more U.S. students pursuing majors in science, technology, engineering and math.

Almost one-quarter (184 of 775, or 24%) of U.S. billion-dollar startup companies have a founder who first came to America as an international student, according to a recent NFAP report. “U.S. billion-dollar startup companies with founders who entered as international students have created an average of 1,123 jobs per company. The total value of U.S. billion-dollar companies with international student founders is $3.5 trillion; over $4 trillion if one includes unicorns that have gone public since 2016.”

For businesses, losing access to international student talent could be costly. At U.S. universities, international students account for 80% of full-time graduate students in computer and information sciences, 75% in electrical and computer engineering, 62% in mathematics and statistics and a majority in industrial engineering, civil engineering and mechanical engineering.

Final Immigration Rule Changes Little From Proposal

The Department of Homeland Security has published a final rule to eliminate “duration of status” for F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors. DHS published a proposed rule in Aug. 2025 and changed little in the final rule, despite receiving almost 22,000 comments. The final rule takes effect Sept. 15.

One change that DHS notes in the final rule from the proposed rule: “Providing a short-term reprieve from filing for an extension of status during the first 6 months after the rule takes effect if applying for employment authorization for either post-completion OPT or STEM OPT.”

Currently, international students can remain in lawful status if they are pursuing an academic program toward completion. The new rule would establish a fixed four-year period for F-1 and J-1 visa holders. Note: DHS has published “Quick Facts” about the rule.

DHS Highlights Risks In Immigration Rule By Only Assuring Students They Can File Extensions

DHS highlights the risks to international students by assuring students only that they can file extensions if they cannot complete their degrees in four years. “How could anyone trust that they can finish their degree based on this assurance, and how is the ability to file an extension even a genuine assurance?” said Mark Regets, an economist and senior fellow at the National Foundation for American Policy. “The four-year limit creates a major risk for young people making the largest investment of their lives, and they are asked to risk that on a government bureaucracy overseen by individuals not seen as welcoming of international students. Why would many of them take a chance on a U.S. education?”

Regets is referring to a DHS response to comments on data showing that four years is insufficient for many students to complete an undergraduate or doctoral degree. “DHS recognizes students may take longer than four years to complete their undergraduate and graduate programs of study,” according to DHS. “However, this rulemaking does not require completion of a program within four years. Rather, the four-year period is intended as a law enforcement and screening tool to assess whether a student is maintaining normal academic progress and eligibility for F-1 status. Students who demonstrate continued academic progress and meet F-1 eligibility criteria may apply for an extension of status to complete their programs, consistent with the realities of U.S. higher education.” (Emphasis added.) DHS states students “may apply for an extension,” but does not promise or provide regulatory language to indicate that they have a high probability of receiving one.

The National Center for Education Statistics reports a median of 52 months (4.3 years) for completing a bachelor’s degree. The National Science Foundation reports a median of 5.7 years for completing a Ph.D.

International students not maintaining valid F-1 status will be allowed only a 30-day grace period to depart without accruing unlawful presence under the final rule. DHS warns accruing unlawful presence could make a student subject to the three-and ten-year bars under immigration law.

DHS concedes the rule may result in fewer international students choosing to study in America, writing, “DHS acknowledges that enrollment of foreign students in U.S. educational institutions may decline because of this rule but is unable to quantify the extent of this decline because there is no precedent from which accurate conclusions can be drawn as to the rule’s impact. However, DHS does not intend for the rule to result in a significant decline in foreign student enrollment.”

“When DHS says that it cannot quantify how much international student enrollment will decline, it means the downside risk of the rule is larger than DHS knows,” said Regets.

DHS Offers Weak Immigration Policy Justifications For The Rule

The primary argument DHS offers is that the final rule will enhance national security and seeks to buttress that by using the phrase 176 times in the Federal Register document. DHS also argues the rule will reduce overstays and other immigration violations.

As the National Foundation for American Policy noted in its comment to the proposed rule, analysts do not find the national security justification for the final rule to be credible. In the proposed rule, DHS discussed five cases of Chinese nationals who entered on J-1 visas, whose actions, the department believes, represented national security threats. DHS argued the way to prevent future threats is to wait four years after the entry of such individuals and evaluate their academic progress if they file for an extension of status.

“As with F nonimmigrants, setting the length of the J nonimmigrant’s specific program to not exceed a 4-year period would establish a mechanism for immigration officers to assess these nonimmigrants at defined periods (such as when applying for an EOS in the United States beyond a 4-year admission period) and determine whether they are complying with the conditions of their classification,” according to DHS. (Emphasis added.) An EOS is an extension of status.

As NFAP wrote in its comment, it seems unlikely that government officials believe the best way to address the national security concerns raised by the cases of the five Chinese nationals is to require fixed periods of admission to “establish a mechanism for immigration officers to assess these nonimmigrants at defined periods (such as when applying for an EOS in the United States beyond a 4-year admission period).” NFAP noted, “If individuals represent national security concerns, hoping that they apply for an extension after four years so that an immigration officer can review their application is a woeful or even absurd security measure. Under DHS’s reasoning, if the proposed rule is finalized, all a national security threat needs to do to avoid scrutiny is to complete their academic program quickly enough to prevent the need to file for an extension.”

DHS can scrutinize any international student or exchange visitor it desires if officials believe they represent a threat. DHS also has access to their academic progress via the SEVIS program, which ICE operates within DHS.

Elizabeth Neumann, former assistant secretary for counterterrorism and threat prevention at the Department of Homeland Security during Donald Trump’s first term, said in an interview, “It seems like they’re trying to focus on national security as a justification for what is really a policy preference. If I had to characterize this action, I would say there are legitimate needs to strengthen the student visa programs to prevent fraud and protect national security, but it might be possible to do so through other, more narrow means.”

DHS conceded the shortcomings in their overstay data that an NFAP report highlighted, specifically that the “suspected overstay rate for students and exchange visitors drop(s) by as much as 42% over time as the government’s own data is reconciled.”

“A commenter pointed to a forensic analysis by the National Foundation for American Policy which had concluded that DHS methodology is flawed,” wrote DHS. “The decline over time in counts of suspected in-country overstays, as noted by NFAP, reflects the expected and documented process of updating records as DHS receives additional departure and benefit information. This decline is an intended result of the system design, not a flaw in the methodology. The existence of these later adjustments is a known and transparent feature of the methodology and does not mean the initial statistics are unreliable or ‘inflated.’”

Mark Regets responded, “It does mean the initial overstay statistics that DHS highlights are inflated. DHS said what NFAP said in its report, that the initial numbers are not a good indicator because they are going to fall.”

The Immigration Rule Affects All International Students

The new rule affects all international students. Here are the key elements.

• New students will have four years to complete their studies unless they obtain an extension.
• Current international students will be allowed to remain in duration of status, but cannot exceed four years from the date the rule becomes final without filing for and receiving an extension of status. “For example, J-1 research scholars and alien physicians who have program end dates for up to 5 or 7 years respectively, would need to apply for an EOS before the 4-year maximum period of stay expires, i.e., the date that falls 4 years after the rule becomes effective,” DHS explained in the rule.
• Current international students who leave the country can see the time to complete their studies limited. “F and J nonimmigrants (temporary visa holders) who depart the United States after the rule’s effective date and before the end date reflected on their Form I-20 or DS-2019 may be admitted with a new fixed admission period, like any other newly admitted F or J nonimmigrant,” DHS wrote in the final rule.
• Transfers are now restricted. Under the proposed rule, “An F-1 student at any level below the graduate degree level may not change programs or educational objectives, i.e. programs, majors, or educational levels, within the first academic year of a program of study, unless an exception is authorized . . . for extenuating circumstances that may include, but are not limited to, a school closure or a school’s prolonged inability to hold in-person classes due to a natural disaster, a student needing to change schools to complete elementary or secondary education, or other cause. An F-1 student at the graduate degree level or above may not change programs at any point during a program of study.” (Emphasis added.) It may be possible for a graduate student to receive an exception for “extenuating circumstances.”
• According to the rule, “An alien who has completed a program as an F-1 nonimmigrant at one educational level will be unable to maintain F-1 status, depart and be admitted in F-1 status, or otherwise obtain F-1 status (e.g., via a change of status) through a program at the same educational level or a lower educational level. However, an F-1 student who has completed a program in the United States at one educational level and is beginning a new program at a higher educational level will be considered to be maintaining F-1 status if they otherwise comply with requirements under 8 CFR 214.2.”
• The proposed rule will affect how international students obtain the ability to work on Optional Practical Training and STEM OPT. F-1 students will have to file for an extension of F-1 status to work on OPT. One exception would be students filing for OPT before the transition period ends.
• The immigration rule provides only limited exceptions to qualify for an extension. The rule lists three valid reasons for obtaining an extension. First, “A compelling academic reason, such as a change of major or research topic or unexpected research problems. Unexpected research problems are those caused by an unexpected change in faculty advisor, need to refine an investigatory topic based on initial research, research funding delays, and similar issues. Delays including, but not limited to, those caused by academic probation or suspension or a student’s repeated inability or unwillingness to complete his or her course of study are not acceptable reasons for an extension.”
• Other reasons permitted for granting an extension: “(ii) A documented illness or medical condition that is a compelling medical reason, such as a serious injury, that is supported by medical documentation from a licensed medical doctor, a licensed doctor of osteopathy, a licensed psychologist, or a licensed clinical psychologist; or (iii) Circumstances beyond the student’s control, including a natural disaster, national health crisis, or the closure of an institution.”

The fallout from the new immigration rule could be considerable. “At a time when global competition for talent is intensifying, this policy sends exactly the wrong message,” said NAFSA’s Fanta Aw. “It tells the world’s brightest students and scholars that the United States is becoming less welcoming, less predictable, and less committed. This is not just bad for higher education, it is bad for American innovation, economic growth, workforce development and global leadership.”