DHS has proposed a rule that would put steep new fees on Optional Practical Training. The fees would fall on schools, but they could reach students and employers. Here are fifteen things to know before the comment period opens.
1. This is a proposal, not a rule.
The notice of proposed rulemaking is scheduled for Federal Register publication on October 8, 2026. Because it is only proposed, schools and students do not have to pay additional OPT fees now. DHS must review public comments and issue a final rule first.
2. The initial fee would be $70,000.
A school would pay it the first time it recommends an F-1 student for any type of OPT. It applies whether that first authorization is pre-completion or post-completion.
3. Later authorizations would cost $30,000 each.
The lower fee applies to any later OPT recommendation for a student who has already participated, including post-completion OPT after pre-completion OPT and STEM OPT extensions.
4. Schools would pay, and payment would gate the process.
The regulatory text puts the payment obligation on SEVP-certified schools, not students. A DSO could not enter the OPT recommendation in SEVIS until the fee was paid and verified. USCIS would be barred from approving OPT authorization without payment.
5. The costs may still reach students and employers.
DHS acknowledges that schools may recover the fees from students, employers, other funding sources, or cost-sharing arrangements. The proposal would not restrict how schools finance them, so who ultimately bears the cost is an open question.
6. DHS cites fraud, oversight, and workforce goals.
DHS says the fees would deter fraud, strengthen program oversight, and offset administrative costs. DHS also described the fee as a response to visa fraud and abuse that it says feeds a source of cheap foreign labor. It also argues the fees would reduce reliance on OPT as a long-term employment pathway.
7. DHS’s own estimates show the scale.
DHS estimates about 194,000 OPT participants and 95,000 STEM OPT participants were active in 2024. It projects annual fee payments of $8.4 billion to $16.5 billion. More than 56% of SEVP-certified institutions may qualify as small entities. DHS concedes some schools may decline to fund OPT, which could sharply reduce participation.
8. Changing employers would not trigger another fee, and refunds would be limited.
The proposal clarifies that changing employers alone would not trigger the additional $30,000 cost. Fees attach to OPT recommendations rather than employer changes. A school could request a discretionary refund before the associated EAD is issued, after removing the recommendation from SEVIS. Once the EAD is issued, the proposed provisions prohibit a refund, and refund decisions would not be subject to administrative appeal.
9. DHS is considering an even more expensive alternative.
The principal proposal describes the $70,000 initial fee as a one-time charge. DHS also requests comment on charging $70,000 again for initial OPT at each higher educational level, for example after a bachelor’s degree and again after a master’s degree. That alternative should not be confused with the principal proposal.
10. Nothing changes until a final rule takes effect.
DHS proposes that the rule take effect 60 days after a final rule is published. Any OPT recommendation issued on or after that date would require the fee. Transition treatment for students already in the pipeline is one issue commenters can press.
11. Schools would feel it first.
Institutions with large international populations could face heavy operating pressure if they absorb the fees. Smaller schools may find them prohibitive. Some may stop recommending students for OPT, and others may pass costs along. Students may not know the cost until a school announces its policy.
12. Employers and the STEM pipeline have a stake.
Employers that rely on OPT and STEM OPT hires could face higher costs or a smaller candidate pool. Universities and research institutions that employ OPT participants have similar exposure.
13. This fits a broader pattern of tightening.
Observers see the proposal alongside other recent measures, including the separate $100,000 H-1B fee, which has drawn litigation, and the August SEVP guidance on CPT. A federal court also kept the DHS rule ending Duration of Status from taking effect in September. Those matters are separate, so rulings in one do not automatically apply to another.
14. Comments should address legal authority and concrete consequences.
The advance text provides a 30-day general comment period and a separate 60-day information-collection comment period, measured from publication. One report puts the general deadline at November 7, 2026. Confirm the actual deadlines in the published notice, and submit general comments through Regulations.gov, identifying ICEB-2026-0100.
15. Strong comments will be specific.
Substantive comments should address DHS’s authority to impose these charges, the justification for their amounts, effects on access to education and training, institutional and employer reliance, transition protections, refunds, and less burdensome alternatives. Schools and employers can strengthen the record with specific enrollment, budget, hiring, research, and workforce data. Students and employers should also talk with their school and counsel about how any final rule could affect them.
Subscribe to the WR Immigration Newsletters
Start the RFP Process
Join the Corporate Benchmarking Roundtable
