DHS Proposes $70,000 OPT Fee, October 2026: Notes for HR

A proposed federal fee of up to $100,000 per student could reshape how U.S. employers recruit international graduates. The rule is only a proposal, and it will be debated, commented on and possibly litigated. But the numbers are large enough that HR leaders, university partnership teams and immigration counsel should not wait for the final text before planning.

What is Optional Practical Training?

OPT gives international students one year of work authorization for employment related to their field of study. Graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields can receive a two-year extension. For many employers, OPT is the on-ramp for early-career hiring of international graduates. Workers on OPT can be employed without the employer filing a visa petition, which makes it a low-friction option compared with other work-authorization routes. Many graduates later move to other statuses, which is why OPT is often discussed alongside the H-1B program.

What exactly did DHS propose?

According to HR Dive’s report, DHS proposed the rule on a Wednesday and said it would be published in the Federal Register the following Thursday. The fee schedule is:

• $70,000 per international student seeking initial OPT work authorization;
• $30,000 additional for OPT extensions;
• Up to $100,000 in total per student.

The fee falls on the institution. Today, the institutional recommendation required for OPT carries no fee, although a separate required form carries a filing fee of $470 to $520. Institutions could seek a refund if a student does not receive work authorization, but reviews would be case by case and final determinations would not be appealable. DHS said colleges could pass the cost on to international students, to all students, or to employers.

Why does DHS say it is doing this?

DHS cited fraud and abuse in OPT. It pointed to a 2020 ICE investigation that led to the arrest of 15 international students. It argued that fees would make schools more selective about which students they recommend. It also said the rule is needed to protect American workers and claimed that OPT has been used to circumvent the H-1B visa program. DHS went further, saying it “may shut down the program entirely” without the fees. These are the agency’s stated rationales, and they will be tested during the comment period.

How large is the program?

The numbers explain why the proposal is drawing attention. About 294,000 students participated in OPT in 2024–25, more than double the roughly 120,000 a decade earlier. Nearly 1.2 million international students were enrolled in U.S. institutions in 2024–25, up 20.8 percent from a decade earlier. At $70,000 per initial authorization, even a modest share of that population would translate into a very large aggregate payment for higher education.

How have stakeholders reacted?

NAFSA executive director and CEO Fanta Aw criticized the proposal, saying it “creates deep uncertainty for international students.” A fall 2025 survey of 828 higher education institutions by the Institute of International Education found that 92 percent of college leaders said international students would likely choose other countries without OPT. HR Dive also noted that a $100,000 fee could be too expensive for many institutions, potentially damaging international recruitment.

What is the related H-1B context?

The proposal arrives amid a run of federal actions on skilled-worker immigration. A proposed $100,000 fee per H-1B petition was struck down in court in June. A separate proposed $103,265 fee was later announced for H-1B petitions from organizations subject to the annual cap, though higher education institutions are exempt from those caps. And on Thursday October 8, the Labor Department suspended Microsoft, Adobe and other large technology employers from the permanent labor certification (PERM) program, a step HR Dive described as part of a crackdown on IT outsourcing. For employers, the pattern is the same: fees and restrictions aimed at the visa pipeline are arriving quickly, and the courts have already pushed back on at least one.

What should HR teams do now?

The facts above come from reporting on the proposal. The guidance below is our analysis and is not legal advice. Employers should confirm decisions with immigration counsel.

1. Do not change current employees’ status. This is a proposed rule. There is a comment period and a 60-day delay after any final rule. Nothing in the proposal, as reported, changes the authorization of students currently on OPT.

2. Map your exposure. List every employee on OPT or STEM OPT, the graduation and expiration dates, and the roles that depend on international new-graduate hiring. Include interns and contractors converting to full-time offers. Knowing the size of the pipeline is the first step in deciding how much the risk is worth.

3. Watch for cost pass-through. DHS says institutions might push costs to employers. Ask your university partners how they intend to respond, and consider whether any recruiting agreements or sponsorship programs assume costs stay with the school.

4. Prepare alternative pipelines. If campus recruiting from international graduates becomes more expensive or uncertain, employers will want other options: domestic hiring, hiring abroad through lawful channels, or deferred start dates. Each has costs and lead times that are easier to manage if explored before the rule is final.

5. Consider filing a comment. DHS must review each comment before issuing a final rule. Employers, trade groups and universities can document concrete effects on hiring, wages and project timelines. Specific data tends to be more useful in a comment than general opposition.

6. Communicate with candidates. International students will have questions. A short, accurate statement that the rule is proposed, that no change has taken effect, and that the company is monitoring it can prevent unnecessary offer withdrawals and anxiety.

What are the open questions?

Several points remain unclear from the reporting, and they will determine how disruptive the rule is if it is finalized. First, the proposal does not say how many institutions could realistically absorb a fee of this size, or how many would decline to recommend students for OPT at all. Second, the pass-through question is unresolved: DHS lists students, all students and employers as possible payers, but a university’s choice will depend on its own finances and competitive position. Third, the refund mechanism is narrow. Refunds would be considered only if a student does not receive work authorization, reviews would be case by case, and determinations would not be appealable. Fourth, the legal footing is untested. Given that a proposed $100,000 H-1B petition fee was struck down in court in June, observers will watch closely for challenges to a fee schedule of this scale.

For employers, these unknowns argue for flexible planning rather than a single prediction. A reasonable approach is to define three scenarios: the rule is withdrawn or blocked, the rule is finalized with modest changes, and the rule is finalized as proposed. Then assign each scenario a trigger date, such as the end of the comment period or publication of a final rule, and decide in advance what the company will do at each trigger. That discipline prevents rushed decisions when the next headline arrives.

Why the timing matters for recruiting cycles

Campus recruiting for next summer’s graduates is already under way at many employers. Offers made this autumn will often be conditional on work authorization that students expect to obtain through OPT after graduation. If a final rule lands within the comment-plus-60-day window described in the proposal, it could take effect before many of those students apply for OPT. That does not mean it will; the timeline depends on how many comments DHS receives and how it responds. But it does mean that recruiting teams should be ready to answer questions from candidates this semester, not next year.

What is the trend context?

Google’s public daily search trends for the United States on October 9–10 were led by sports and entertainment, and no immigration or OPT term appeared. That is expected for a regulatory proposal that has just been announced. Interest in policy changes like this usually shows up as targeted searches by affected people, such as students, university staff and recruiters, rather than as mass-market spikes. For HR publishers, that argues for practical, plain-language explainers aimed at those readers.

Bottom line

A $70,000 fee per student, rising to $100,000 with extensions, would be a dramatic change to a program used by roughly 294,000 students. It is not law yet. HR leaders should use the comment period and the 60-day runway after any final rule to understand their exposure, speak to their university partners, and prepare alternatives, while keeping candidates and current employees informed with accurate, calm messaging.

Sources: HR Dive reporting on the DHS proposal and related federal actions (hrdive.com); Google Trends daily search trends, United States. This article is general information, not legal advice.