On October 8, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would impose significant new fees on schools recommending F-1 students for Optional Practical Training (OPT). DHS proposes a $70,000 fee for an initial OPT recommendation and a $30,000 fee for the second year of practical training, with no additional fees in subsequent years. The proposal would not change the underlying eligibility requirements for OPT, but could significantly affect how students, schools, and employers participate in the program.

Public comments are due by November 9, 2026. Given the sweeping nature of the proposal and the extraordinary fee levels under consideration, many higher education, business, and industry groups are expected to request additional time to evaluate the proposal and prepare comments. Unless DHS grants an extension, interested stakeholders should plan to submit comments by the current November 9 deadline.

Proposed Fee Structure

Under the proposed rule, a Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)-certified school would be required to pay:

• $70,000 for an initial OPT recommendation; and
• $30,000 for a subsequent recommendation associated with the second year of practical training, such as a STEM OPT extension.

These fees would be separate from existing USCIS filing fees and would need to be paid before the school could recommend the student for OPT in SEVIS. The proposal does not directly alter OPT eligibility criteria, available periods of employment authorization, or employer compliance obligations.

Who Would Bear the Cost?

Although the proposed fees would be assessed against SEVP-certified educational institutions, the rule recognizes that schools may seek other sources of funding to cover those costs. As a practical matter, employers that rely heavily on international student talent should consider not only the potential impact on the available talent pool, but also the possibility that universities may explore cost-sharing, reimbursement, or other funding arrangements if the rule is finalized.

DHS’ Stated Rationale

DHS states that the proposal is intended to combat fraud and abuse within the OPT program, strengthen program integrity, and protect U.S. workers. The agency cites concerns regarding shell companies, problematic worksites, “pay-to-stay” arrangements, and other schemes that it believes have undermined the integrity of the program. DHS has indicated that the fee structure is intended to encourage increased oversight and vetting by educational institutions before recommending students for OPT.

Why This Matters to Employers

For many employers, particularly those in STEM, healthcare, financial services, life sciences, engineering, and technology sectors, OPT serves as a critical bridge between graduation and longer-term employment sponsorship options. The program provides employers with access to highly skilled graduates educated at U.S. universities, including talent in specialized fields where recruiting qualified workers can be challenging. At the same time, OPT provides international students with an opportunity to apply their academic training in a professional setting and gain practical experience that may benefit employers and economies both in the United States and abroad.

While the proposal technically targets educational institutions, employers should not view it solely as a higher education issue. If finalized, fees of this magnitude could affect the availability, cost, and predictability of international student hiring. Universities may become more selective in supporting OPT participation, students may reassess whether pursuing U.S. employment opportunities is financially viable, and employers will face increasing pressure to offset program costs.

Employers that recruit substantial numbers of international students may see impacts on:

• Campus recruiting programs;
• Early career hiring pipelines;
• STEM OPT hiring strategies;
• Workforce planning and forecasting; and
• Competition for highly skilled international graduates.

Part of a Broader Shift in Policy and Enforcement

This proposal is the latest in a series of actions reflecting increased scrutiny of employment-based immigration programs, program integrity, and workforce-displacement concerns. It follows DHS’s proposal to eliminate the 60-day grace period for certain F-1 students following termination of their employment and comes amid a broader Administration effort to increase oversight of employment-based immigration programs and strengthen fraud detection and compliance.

DHS has framed the proposal as a response to concerns regarding fraud, abuse, shell companies, problematic worksites, and “pay-to-stay” arrangements that it believes have undermined the integrity of the OPT program. This approach is consistent with recent Administration messaging across employment-based immigration programs, including H-1B and labor certification, emphasizing fraud prevention, workforce protections, and the expectation that foreign worker programs supplement rather than displace U.S. workers.

Few employers would disagree with those objectives. Most employers support efforts to identify and address fraud and abuse and have little interest in preserving practices that undermine confidence in the immigration system. At the same time, many employers lawfully use OPT to hire graduates educated in the United States who possess skills needed to support business operations, innovation, and growth.

Accordingly, one of the central questions likely to emerge during the comment period is not whether fraud should be addressed, but whether fees of this magnitude are appropriately tailored to advance DHS’ stated goals without creating unintended consequences for educational institutions, students, and employers that participate in the program responsibly.

Employers should not assume that educational institutions and industry groups alone will carry the conversation during the comment period. Employers are often best positioned to provide data regarding workforce needs, recruiting realities, compliance practices, and the practical impact these fees could have on filling business-critical roles.

What Should Employers Do Now?

Although the proposal is only at the rulemaking stage and may change before becoming final, employers that rely on international talent should begin evaluating potential business impacts now.

Employers should consider:

• Assessing the extent to which their recruiting and workforce planning strategies depend on OPT and STEM OPT hires.
• Reviewing university recruiting programs and projected talent needs for 2027 and beyond.
• Evaluating whether reductions in OPT participation could create hiring challenges in key roles or business units.
• Considering whether to submit comments regarding the practical impact of the proposal.
• Working with experienced immigration counsel to review current hiring strategies, sponsorship planning, and reliance on international student talent.
• Evaluating potential cost exposure if the rule is finalized, including whether educational institutions may seek cost-sharing, reimbursement, or other financial support from employers that rely on OPT and STEM OPT talent.

Given the possibility that access to international graduates could become more limited or more expensive, employers may benefit from proactively evaluating alternative talent pipelines and longer-term workforce planning strategies rather than waiting for a final rule to be issued.

Employer Takeaway

Given the possibility that access to international graduates could become more limited, more expensive, or less predictable, employers may benefit from proactively evaluating recruiting strategies, talent pipelines, workforce planning needs, and potential cost implications rather than waiting for a final rule to be issued.

For more information, please contact the authors, Dawn Lurie and Alexander Madrak, or your Seyfarth relationship partner. Seyfarth’s Immigration Compliance & Investigations specialty group is nationally recognized as a leader in the field, providing strategic, practical guidance to employers of all sizes, from Fortune 100 companies to emerging and growing businesses, across the full spectrum of immigration compliance matters.

The group advises on Form I-9 and E-Verify compliance; ICE inspections and worksite enforcement matters; internal immigration assessments and I-9 audits; DOL immigration-related wage and hour investigations; H-1B compliance; DOJ IER and OCAHO anti-discrimination matters, including enforcement actions involving allegations that U.S. workers were disadvantaged in favor of foreign workers; and deemed export and ITAR compliance issues. The team combines deep immigration compliance and investigations experience with Seyfarth’s nationally recognized labor, employment, and litigation capabilities. For timely updates on immigration developments, subscribe to Seyfarth’s immigration blog, Through the Immigration Lens.