International students are heading into another difficult fall, with new immigration restrictions taking effect just as applications and enrollment are already falling. One of the most consequential changes is the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) new rule eliminating “duration of status,” the longstanding policy that has allowed international students and exchange visitors to remain in the country as long as they maintain their status and continue making progress toward completing their programs.
Beginning Sept. 15, F-1 students and J-1 exchange visitors will instead be admitted for a fixed period tied to their program, capped at four years. Those who need more time will have to apply to the federal government for an extension of stay, adding a new layer of uncertainty for doctoral students and others whose programs routinely take longer than four years. The rule also restricts students’ ability to transfer institutions or change programs.
The changes could leave international students with fewer options than their domestic classmates, according to Sarah Spreitzer, ACE vice president and chief of staff for government relations. “I worry about the fact that you’re creating this second class of students,” she said on a recent dotEDU podcast, pointing to opportunities such as changing majors, pursuing a double major, studying abroad, or participating in an exchange program that could become more difficult under the new system.
Duration of Status Rule Faces Legal Challenge
The new rule is already facing a legal challenge. On Aug. 18, a coalition of higher education, labor, and other organizations filed suit against DHS in federal court in Massachusetts and asked the court to block the rule before it takes effect.
The plaintiffs argue that DHS acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the rule, including by failing to adequately address the nearly 22,000 public comments it received and failing to sufficiently consider the costs of the change or less burdensome alternatives.
Unless the court intervenes, however, the rule is scheduled to take effect Sept. 15.
New Scrutiny of Curricular Practical Training
In another immigration issue confronting campuses as the academic year gets underway, DHS’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) has increased its scrutiny of Curricular Practical Training, or CPT, which allows F-1 students to participate in internships, cooperative education, and other practical training that is part of their academic program.
In an Aug. 12 message to designated school officials, SEVP said it had seen an increase in CPT authorizations that don’t comply with federal regulations and warned institutions that the training must be an integral part of an established curriculum. The agency followed that message with additional guidance Aug. 24 indicating that practical training must be an integral and required part of an established curriculum and required of students in that curriculum. Simply awarding academic credit for an internship or other practical experience may no longer be sufficient.
SEVP has warned that institutions may be asked to provide documentation demonstrating that CPT meets those requirements and that improper authorizations could lead to investigations and potentially threaten an institution’s SEVP certification. Some colleges and universities are reviewing their programs and practices in response to the new guidance, adding another layer of uncertainty for students and the campus officials who advise them.
H-1B Proposal Adds Concerns About What Comes After Graduation
There was some good news for higher education in another recent DHS proposal. The department is proposing a new $103,265 fee for H-1B petitions but would exempt colleges and universities, nonprofit research organizations, and other employers that are exempt from the annual H-1B cap.
ACE and more than two dozen other higher education associations had urged the administration to preserve that exemption, arguing that the fee could make it much harder for institutions to recruit international faculty and researchers. But the proposal could still have significant implications for international students who hope to remain and work in the United States after graduation. Many ultimately rely on employers subject to the H-1B cap to sponsor them.
“We’re very happy as employers” about the exemption, Spreitzer told Politico, but for international students the new fee will likely be “another thing that’s discouraging.”
Comments on the proposal are due Sept. 24.
Enrollment Indicators Are Already Pointing Down
These policy changes are landing at a particularly difficult moment for international enrollment.
New international student enrollment fell 17 percent in fall 2025 compared with the previous year. More recent indicators suggest the decline has continued this fall.
International first-year applicants using the Common App fell 10 percent in the 2025–26 application cycle, a decline of roughly 16,000 students. Meanwhile, 63 percent of the 585 institutions responding to the Institute of International Education’s spring survey said they expect international enrollment to decline in 2026–27. International applications to research doctoral programs at 55 major research universities fell 21 percent for fall 2026.
NAFSA estimates that the United States may have lost as many as 111,000 international students this fall, resulting in up to $3.4 billion in lost economic contributions and nearly 40,000 fewer jobs. The organization points to declining applications, persistent visa appointment bottlenecks, and new immigration restrictions as contributing factors.
The implications go well beyond institutional finances. International students and scholars play an important role in U.S. research, graduate education, and the country’s ability to compete globally for talent. And students have choices about where to pursue their education.
“We’re just going to not be attractive. We’re not going to be competitive for attracting those international students,” Spreitzer said of the cumulative effect of the new restrictions.
Increasing uncertainty about whether students can enter the country, complete their programs, participate in practical training, and remain to work after graduation risks making the United States a less attractive destination at a time when other countries are actively competing for these students.
Court Rejects Speech-Based Deportation Policies
There was some welcome news for international students last month. A federal judge in California ruled Aug. 28 that the Trump administration violated constitutional protections when it used immigration law to target lawfully present noncitizens for deportation or visa revocation based on protected speech.
The case was brought by The Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation and an international student after the newspaper said noncitizen students had declined assignments, removed articles, stopped speaking on the record, or left the publication because they feared that their political speech could jeopardize their immigration status.
U.S. District Judge Noël Wise said that the government’s use of provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to punish protected speech violated the First Amendment and that the policies were also unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment.
“In the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people,” Wise wrote. “It is not the government’s to take.”