A Department of Homeland Security plan to slap a $100,000 charge on foreign graduates who want to work in America is now under White House review, signaling a major test of how far fees can go to curb immigration loopholes.
Story Highlights
- DHS drafted a $100,000 fee targeting post-graduation work authorization for foreign students; the White House is reviewing it.
- The idea mirrors a separate $100,000 H-1B fee that a federal court struck down in June 2026, now on appeal.
- Supporters say a high fee could deter fraud and overstays in the student work channel.
- Key details remain unsettled, including who would pay the fee and when it would start.
What Is Being Considered and Why It Matters
Department of Homeland Security officials drafted a plan to add a $100,000 charge to Optional Practical Training, the program that lets F-1 student visa holders work in the United States after graduation. Reports say the White House is reviewing the proposal but has not made a final decision. Officials have described the idea as a way to cut fraud and reduce overstays tied to student work authorization. That review means the policy remains active inside the executive branch.
Optional Practical Training allows most graduates to work for one year. Science, technology, engineering, and math graduates can work up to three years. The fee would sharply raise the cost of entry for that pathway and would likely reduce use of the program. Reporting says the goal is deterrence. Fewer foreign graduates would remain in the United States to work after school if the cost rises that much. That aligns with a broader strategy of using fees to limit certain work channels.
How This Mirrors the H-1B Fee Fight
The $100,000 concept echoes the administration’s earlier attempt to add a similar charge to certain H-1B work visa petitions. On June 8, 2026, a federal judge in Massachusetts vacated that rule as unlawful. The government sought a stay and lost. The case moved into an appeal process. That courtroom loss now shadows any move to impose a large new fee on student work authorization and shapes how legal experts see the odds for survival.
Because a court already struck down the H-1B fee, any new charge on Optional Practical Training will need clear legal footing and a strong record. The administration would have to show specific authority and a reasoned basis that explains the size and purpose of the fee. Without that, critics could call the charge an unauthorized barrier rather than a lawful program fee. The H-1B outcome is the closest precedent and will likely be cited in any lawsuit that follows.
Key Unknowns: Who Pays and When
Major details are still unclear. Reports say it is not settled whether the fee would be paid by the student, the hiring employer, or the university. No proposed rule text or effective date has been made public. A White House official has said there is no imminent change and that discussions are not policy until announced. That confirms the review is real but leaves the structure, exemptions, and timing unsettled for now.
The lack of specifics matters for families, schools, and businesses. If employers must pay, some may stop recruiting foreign graduates. If students must pay, many will not even try to work here after graduation. If universities must pay, they could raise tuition or reduce enrollment. Each path has different effects on American workers, campus budgets, and small businesses. Until the payer is defined, the true impact is hard to measure with confidence.
Supporters’ Enforcement Rationale vs. Critics’ Warnings
Supporters argue a steep price could curb fraud and overstays in the student work track. They say the current system is open to misuse and lacks strong oversight. A high fee, they argue, would deter abuse and push the program back toward its original training purpose. That aligns with a broader push to restore order to an immigration system strained by loopholes and weak enforcement over the past decade of loose policy and judicial roadblocks.
Critics counter that the fee would make the United States less attractive to foreign students, shrink university revenue, and push talent to rivals like Canada and the United Kingdom. Some analysts also say research finds Optional Practical Training workers do not harm job prospects for Americans. Those concerns would likely appear in court briefs and public comments if a rule is published. For now, these are warnings, not measured outcomes, since no rule text exists yet.
What Conservatives Should Watch Next
Conservatives should track two threads: legal authority and program integrity. First, watch for a formal rule sent to the Federal Register that cites clear statutory authority and provides a cost-benefit analysis. Second, look for data on fraud, overstays, or compliance lapses tied to Optional Practical Training. If the administration publishes both, a strong fee aimed at abuse stands a better chance in court and could protect U.S. workers and the rule of law.
If the White House narrows the fee, targets proven abuse, and defines who pays, the policy could redirect post-study jobs to American graduates without sweeping too broadly. If it moves ahead without a strong record, a court could block it as happened with the H-1B fee. Either way, the fight will set a standard for using fees to close back doors in the immigration system while defending U.S. workers and taxpayers.
Sources:
reason.com, forbes.com, visaserve.com, newhorizonslegal.com, americanbazaaronline.com
