On 12 May, Todd M. Lyons, ICE’s acting director, called to announce that ICE has found more than 10,000 cases of fraud in the system on the part of dodgy employers and students.

Mr Lyons said that OPT has “become a magnet for fraud.”

He continued:

“When OPT was created under the Bush administration and expanded under the Obama administration, DHS had anticipated only a few thousand foreign students would receive training approval before returning home. Instead, OPT ballooned into an uncontrolled guest worker pipeline with hundreds of thousands of foreign students working in the United States. As the programme size has exploded, so has the fraud.”

Mr Lyons, and acting executive associate director for Homeland Security Operations (HSI) John Con, detailed the results of multiple investigations across the country, which include cases of “empty buildings with locked doors at addresses where hundreds of foreign students are allegedly employed … residential addresses listed as work sites for hundreds of foreign students – yet no employees were present.” Mr Lyons said:

“We are discovering evidence of organised fraud that spans national and international borders. This is not accidental. It is deliberate, coordinated, and criminal.”

Closing out the press conference, Mr Lyons concluded: “We will not tolerate abuse of our programmes, and more actions are forthcoming.”

In 2024/25, close to 300,000 international graduates participated in either OPT (one year) or STEM OPT (one year plus a two-year extension for STEM programme graduates).

A step toward restricting the OPT programme?

Many international education analysts believe the press conference is laying the groundwork for much stricter government oversight – or even the elimination – of the OPT programme.

There is strong political support for this direction within the governing Republican party, and as we reported last week, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Joseph Edlow, has indicated that he wants a regulatory system that can “remove the ability for employment authorisations for F-1 students beyond the time that they are in school.”

It’s possible that a cumulative and coordinated administration strategy that gradually reduces the attractiveness of OPT – and more broadly, the opportunities for international students to work in the US after graduating – could be in play. Following are four measures whose inter-dynamics suggest this may already be the case.

1: Pause in visa processing. In January 2026, the government expanded its 39-country travel ban so it could impact not just students coming into the US, but also those already studying there. It announced that while current students from those countries could still apply for OPT, the processing of their applications would be paused. This “pause” remains active. OPT applicants cannot work in the US until their application is approved, leaving them in limbo and without any sense of when processing will resume.
Strategic negative impact on OPT? Yes. It becomes harder and less attractive for international students from travel ban countries to participate in OPT.

2: USCIS to decide how long international students can stay in the US. The Duration of Status (D/S) system, which allows many students to stay in the US past their programme end date if their Designated School Official decides they have a valid reason for needing more time, is expected to be terminated in September 2026. It will be replaced by a fixed-admission structure under which students will be allowed no more than four years of admission unless they get an extension. US Citizenship and Immigration Services officials will decide whether to approve the extension. Officials will be permitted to “use discretion,” which means they can make independent judgments and choices when reviewing requests from students. They will never have met those students, relying rather on a paper or electronic submission for their decision. Most F-1 students will need the extension to be eligible for OPT given that they would exhaust the four-year admission period just by completing their degree.
Strategic negative impact on OPT? Yes. To enter OPT, students will need permission from immigration officials to stay in the US for longer than four years.

3: The framing of the OPT system as a “magnet for fraud” this week. In this week’s press conference, ICE may have been creating a context in which limiting OPT access would be justified. Mr Lyons characterised the incidences of fraud as “not victimless … [but] a blatant attack on the goodwill of the American people who generously allow foreign national access to our education system.”
Strategic negative impact on OPT? Yes. OPT is being positioned as a backdoor immigration pathway.

4: New rules for US employers hiring H-1B workers. In the March 2026 registration cycle for the H-1B lottery, a December 2025 “” was applied for the first time. This rule makes it more difficult for US employers to hire entry-level, highly skilled foreign workers and students.

It does so because petitions to sponsor entry-level or lower-salaried foreign workers and students receive fewer chances to “win” the lottery. There are now four salary levels in the selection process for H-1B recipients: #4 (the highest salary) gives four chances; #3 gives three chances; #2 gives two; and #1, the lowest, provides just one chance. Young international students in OPT, who represent a popular pool of H-1B prospects for employers, will be disadvantaged given their lower likelihood of being offered senior-level positions.
Strategic negative impact on OPT? Yes, indirectly. Receiving an H-1B is the primary route for highly skilled foreigners to work in the US for a considerable amount of time (three years with extensions possible to six years or even longer). It is also a dual-intent visa that allows employers to sponsor permanent residency for their H-1B workers.

By limiting the chances of international students to get an H-1B, the government also makes it less likely for them to eventually get a Green Card. The degree > OPT > H-1B > permanent residency pathway – while certainly not guaranteed – is the dream of many international students who choose the US for study abroad. Disrupting the OPT > H-1B pathway will jeopardise American universities and employers’ chances to attract some of the world’s top students.

Is OPT really so nefarious?

Many prominent companies, universities, and firms figure among the top employers of OPT participants. The table below is based on from 2024.

Apple CEO Tim Cook held a staff meeting in February in which he voiced his strong opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration approach. Mr Cook told employees: “For as long as I can remember, we have been a smarter, wiser, more innovative company because we’ve attracted the best and brightest from all corners of the world. I am going to continue to lobby lawmakers on this issue.”

Speaking of innovation

In 2022, a report from the found that one quarter of US billion-dollar companies were founded by international graduates of US universities.

More broadly, the latest instalment of the ’s long-running “New American Fortune 500” research programme found that in 2025, nearly half (46%) of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants. Further, the American Immigration Council found that “of the 14 companies that made the Fortune 500 list in 2025 for the first time, 10 were founded by immigrants or their children.”

A 2022 of American Community data found that “every additional 100 foreign-born workers with an advanced degree working in a STEM occupation creates roughly 86 jobs for U.S. workers.”

Nothing final yet

With the press conference this week, the Trump administration continues to signal that OPT is in its sights. Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, told in April:

“This current administration has been signaling very clearly that they’re seeking to end postgraduate Optional Practical Training. The former secretary of homeland security, the current secretary of homeland security, Republican senators have all been kind of waving the specter that there will be a proposed rule to end OPT.”

For additional background, please see:

• “US to end ‘Duration of Status’ for F, J, and I visas and limit the time international students can study in the US”
• “What international students need to know about study and work visas in the United States”
• “US: Student visa issuances fell by -36% in summer 2025; OPT uncertainty among factors affecting international student demand”

The post US immigration officials allege OPT is being widely abused and say “more actions are forthcoming” appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

These trends are highlighted in results from the most recent by NAFSA, Oxford Test of English, and Studyportals. The survey asked respondents from over 254 universities across 36 countries about new international enrolments in the January–March 2026 intake; perceived barriers to enrolling students; and recruitment strategies.

The research found that universities in the Big Four are struggling with policy-induced enrolment pressures, but it also revealed that they are adapting recruitment strategies for their current context. Edwin van Rest, CEO of Studyportals, commented: “Universities that are agile, proactive and supportive of students are much better positioned to absorb visa disruption and sustain enrolment.”

About the research findings

The survey sample was heavily weighted towards the US, with 149 universities from the US compared with 39 in Europe, 24 in the UK, 13 in Canada, 9 from Australia, and 9 from the Asia-Pacific region (excluding Australia). In all, about three-quarters of responding universities were in the Big Four. For this reason, the regional breakdowns in the survey report are especially valuable.

There was also a Global Enrolment Benchmark Survey wave in January to March 2025. While apples-to-apples comparisons between the early-2025 and early-2026 waves cannot be made because of the waves’ slightly different samples, broad trends are definitely apparent.

New undergraduate enrolments

As shown in Chart 1 below, 69% of Canadian institutions reported fewer undergraduate students in the January 2026 intake. Considered alongside the 82% that reported a drop in the Q1 2025 survey wave, this marks two years of severe contraction.

In Q1 2026, 62% of US universities welcomed fewer new undergraduate students, a greater proportion than the 48% reporting the same in Q1 2025. This suggests that recruitment challenges have intensified in the US over the past year.

The undergraduate enrolment situation in Australia and the UK appears less dire. Under half of Australian (44%) institutions reported a falloff, and just as many (44%) said they had welcomed more new international students. The picture was more balanced in the UK, with 42% saying commencements were down, 37% reporting stability, and 21% enrolling more new students.

Meanwhile, Asian and European institutions are faring very well. Fully 82% of Asian institutions saw more new undergraduate students in Q1 2026 than in Q1 2025, and none of them reported drops. In Europe, almost half (47%) of responding universities reported a year-over-year increase, which is nearly double the proportion reporting a decline (25%).

Graduate trends

As shown in Chart 2 (below), around two-thirds of Australian, British, and American universities reported lower international postgraduate commencements in January 2026. The 2026 trend is worse for British institutions than in 2025, when only half said commencements were down, but it is stable in the US.

Canadian institutions are grappling with further deterioration at the postgraduate level in 2026. Fully 8 in 10 (80%) institutions reported declines (up from 71% in Q1 2025), and none reported increases.

Meanwhile, over half of Asian universities (55%) reported postgraduate commencement gains, as did 43% of European institutions.

Significant differences in Q1 2025 and Q1 2026 survey results

Chart 3 (below) shows the difference in average reported commencements between Q1 2025 and Q1 2026. European and Asian institutions welcomed considerably more new students in Q1 2026, especially at the bachelor’s level. Masters’ commencements were down significantly in Australia. In Canada and the US, intakes at both levels worsened considerably. Canadian undergraduate programmes were particularly affected, while in the US, the most severe reduction was at the master’s level. While less pronounced than in North America, a downward trend is also evident in the UK at both levels.

The most pressing issues

An overwhelming majority of respondents in the Big Four cited restrictive policies as the biggest obstacle they face (Chart 4 below). The full Australian sample (100%) picked this option, as did 84% in both Canada and the US and 71% in the UK. Policies were also the top challenge in Europe, but only 59% chose this response option.

In Asia, the top three cited issues did not include policies at all. Instead, cost of study/living, English-proficiency requirements, and academic requirements were the main challenges for Asian institutions.

What lies ahead

More than 4 in 10 universities in Australia, Canada, and the UK are planning budget cuts in the next 12 months, with over a third saying the same in the US (Chart 5 below). Close to a quarter of institutions in Australia and Canada are also planning to cut staff.

The relatively supportive policy environments in which Asian and European institutions are recruiting are reflected in their plans. Fully 64% of Asian institutions have more aggressive enrolment goals, as do 31% in Europe. In Asia, more than half (55%) intend to use more AI in their operations, and 26% of European institutions do as well. The mindset is clearly one of growth, while Big Four universities have their hands full with managing tough policy contexts and associated budget and staff cuts.

Across the board, however, institutions see diversification as a necessity this year (the most cited sample-wide priority at 37%).

Sector resilience and top strategies

The top strategies being used by universities to boost international enrolments are highlighted in Chart 6, below. Introducing new programmes; diversifying/expanding geographically; executing strong branding/marketing; and offering financial incentives and scholarships were the most cited institution-led initiatives.

In addition, a notable proportion of universities reported that they had introduced January start dates to “manage visa unpredictability and to capture students who would otherwise defer or drop out of the cycle.” The report notes:

“One global recruitment calendar rarely works well for all markets. Understanding demand by origin country can help to prioritise marketing and recruitment activities. Certain countries show a notably stronger preference for the January to March intake than their peers elsewhere.”

Of the Q1 2026 findings, Dr Fanta Aw, Executive Director and CEO of NAFSA, commented: “Despite an increasingly uncertain policy environment, the survey shows that institutions willing to innovate and adapt can still create meaningful pathways for student success and access …. Institutions can and must exercise greater agency to counter serious external forces.”

The study report adds:

“The right response to a shifting landscape is not to wait it out. It is to understand it better and move faster. Student demand for international education remains strong. The institutions that will capture it are the ones that treat uncertainty not as a reason to pause, but as a reason to think differently.”

For additional background, please see:

• “From the Big Four to the Big Fourteen”
• “Canada and the US are losing international student enrolments to Europe and Asia”
• “The four key trends that will shape international student mobility for the next decade”

The post Universities urged to focus on “factors they can control” as policy settings depress international student enrolments in the Big Four appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The proposal also suggests that students in shorter programmes (e.g., two-year master’s) will need to leave at the end of their study programme unless they receive an extension, with language students allowed a 24-month maximum term of admission, including breaks and vacation time.

The government intends to abolish the “Duration of Status” (D/S) system, which allows students to stay beyond the end-date on their I-20 form if they can prove they have legitimate reasons for an extension. The D/S system has been in effect for decades.

As for when the D/S system will be formally replaced, Jill Allen Murray, Deputy Executive Director of Public Policy at NAFSA: Association of International Educators, told :

“We do anticipate that it will happen soon. We know that the administration’s desire is certainly to have [the fixed time limit rule] in place so that it would be effective for students arriving in the United States in the fall. They do have a proposed a 60-day implementation period that has to happen, so working back from that, the very latest we should see the final rule is between the end of May and end of June.”

The webinar was presented by NAFSA, the International Student Resource Center, and the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, and it was devoted to preparing institutions for the impact of the rule change.

What is being replaced?

The D/S system, which allows F and J students an extension on the admission end-date on their I-20 form if their school, college, or university determines they are progressing in their studies. The D/S system recognises that international students need flexibility when it comes to accomplishing their study goals. For example:

• A student begins their journey in an English-intensive programme (IEP) and then progresses to higher education once they have become more proficient in the language;
• A PhD student needs more than four years to finish their programme (which is very common – the average is five to eight years);
• A student completes their degree programme and then progresses to Optional Practical Training (one year) or STEM OPT (three years) to gain work experience.

These are only some of the common and legitimate study pathways offered to international students under D/S.

If a student needs to stay in the US for longer to complete their programme, they apply for an extension to the Designated School Official (DSO) at their institution, who is familiar with the student’s academic progression and performance. The DSO is authorised to make extension decisions by the Department of Homeland Security.

How will the extension process change?

According to the proposal, the DSO will no longer have power to approve the extension request. That will transfer to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials, and those officials will be permitted to “use discretion” in their decisions. The date students are required to leave the US (with a 30-day grace period) will be entered on their I-94 form, linked to their passport. Students will need to make their case for an extension directly to USCIS.

Other limitations

The proposal also seeks to prohibit international undergraduate students from changing programmes or schools in the first year of their studies and graduate students from doing so at any point. Extensions will not be granted to students wanting to pursue a second degree or qualification if immigration authorities deem that programme to be at the same or lower level than the initial one.

The threat to OPT

When the government takes over the role of education institutions in deciding if a student should have more time to complete their studies, the implications will be massive, especially for students aiming to participate in Optional Practical Training (OPT). The director of USCIS, Joseph Edlow, has indicated he is prepared to restrict access to OPT. In May of 2025 at his , he said:

“What I want to see would be essentially a regulatory and sub-regulatory program that would allow us to remove the ability for employment authorizations for F-1 students beyond the time that they are in school.”

The OPT and STEM OPT post-study work streams are vital to US institutions’ ability to compete for international students (especially those in STEM and at the graduate level). A 2025 survey conducted by NAFSA and  found that 54% of current international students would not have chosen the US if there was no OPT option.

If it becomes too cumbersome, expensive, and uncertain to request an extension for OPT, demand will be extremely affected in the US’s top source of students, India. This is because Indians represent about half of all participants in OPT and STEM OPT.

The implications for graduate programmes

Nearly half of all international students in the US are studying at the master’s or doctoral level. The proposal includes a four-year limit for graduate programmes. Doctoral-level programmes very frequently require more time than this to complete. International student demand for graduate programmes is already down, and it will almost certainly fall further due to the proposal.

Some graduate programmes in STEM could be devastated. According to IIE data, international students account for almost 70% of enrolments in math and computer science programmes and more than half in engineering programmes. In AI-related programmes, 7 in 10 enrolments are international.

Such statistics also illustrate the huge potential of international STEM graduates to contribute to research and innovation in the US economy.

Will current students be affected?

The finalised rule is expected to apply to new students coming into the US in September 2026. Current students wanting to extend their stay beyond their programme end-date will likely need to submit a request to immigration authorities. It is possible there will be a six-month grace period for OPT students after the ruling goes into effect, as long as they do not leave the country.

Why is D/S being replaced?

The government says that the D/S setup cannot adequately address cases of fraud and visa non-compliance by international students and exchange visitors. More broadly, the change is being framed as a way to better protect national security because it will provide more opportunities for DHS to monitor the activities of international students. Students’ end-dates and activities will be more closely integrated into the US visa infrastructure.

In its response to the proposal, NAFSA exposed many holes in the government’s argument – including the lack of data compromising many of its points – and explained how much of the monitoring the DHS wants to do could be accomplished by making tweaks to the SEVIS system upon which D/S relies.

NAFSA has mounted a comprehensive and sector-wide effort to have the government reconsider the end of D/S or at least to significantly reconsider the proposed changes. The association has stated:

“If [the proposal] becomes final, the damage done by this rule will be felt on our campuses and in our communities and will harm our country’s standing in the world.”

The “sea change” ahead

The need for students to file a request for an extension to USCIS will be anything but a procedural switch. As Joann Ng Hartmann, Strategic Initiatives Leader at NAFSA says, it will be a “sea change.”
It will introduce considerable uncertainty for students, for two main reasons:

• At present, USCIS’s processing of immigration requests has never been more backlogged. Adding international students’ requests for extensions to the backlog will only worsen the situation. Many students will face a long wait to see if their extension is approved. 


  
• The granting of extensions will be in the hands of immigration officials at a time when the US government is eager to reduce the flow of foreigners into the country.

In addition, it will cause chaos for schools and colleges, according to Robin Catmur-Smith, Director of Immigration Services in the Office of Global Engagement at the University of Georgia, who was a NAFSA webinar panelist. Institutions will need to change their recruitment messaging, websites, communications, and supports for incoming and current students.

The administration burden – and needed budget – will be extremely high as well for the new compliance and procedural changes ahead. International student departments will in many cases have to be reorganised to advise and track different student profiles (e.g., J students, graduate students, incoming students, OPT students). What’s more, because the final proposal has not yet been published, institutions are in some ways flying blind as they attempt to prepare themselves, recruitment agents, current students, and incoming students for the September 2026 intake.

Where does the government proposal stand now?

The DHS review of comments and objections submitted by tens of thousands of respondents – including universities and peak bodies – is complete and the document is now final. NAFSA announced today that:

“On May 5, 2026, DHS submitted the final rule that will eliminate F and J “Duration of Status” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. We expect OMB’s review to be expeditious and for the rule to be published in the Federal Register in the not-too-distant future. The final rule will go into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Although the text of the final rule will not be available to the public until at least 24 hours before the Federal Register publication date, we surmise that it will retain most if not all of the changes included in the proposed rule.”

Can the rule be challenged?

During the 28 April NAFSA webinar, Andrew Lyonsberg, a partner at McDermott Will & Schulte’s Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation and Government & Regulatory Litigation practice, presented as a panelist. He spoke to the question of whether the fixed time limit rule can be legally challenged.

Mr Lyonsberg, whose practice has successfully appealed past Trump administration immigration rules, says that when the final rule is published, DHS will need to present strong rationale that the need for the change outweighs the “harms” of it to students, institutions, and stakeholders. If not, this will likely clear a path to litigation.

If there is a challenge, it would likely be that the rule should be struck down because it is “arbitrary and capricious.” That legal terminology without a reasonable basis, ignoring relevant facts or logic and often appearing random, unfair, or unsupported by the evidence.

Mr Lyonsberg said that the international education community could prepare to support potential litigation by beginning to document concrete examples of harms the proposal would inflict on students, institutions, staff, and more.

The larger implications

NAFSA states:

“We are in a global competition for talent, as other countries around the world recognize the outsized economic and social benefits of international students and exchange visitors and have implemented policies to create a welcoming environment for these students to thrive.”

“If finalized, the rule will foster tremendous uncertainty for many international students and exchange visitors about whether they will be able to maintain their legal status in the United States through the completion of their studies or program, discouraging students and exchange visitors from coming here, and pushing them to look for opportunities in other countries instead.”

NAFSA also has related to the proposal and its implications, including:

• “Preparing for the final D/S rule. How has your office started to prepare?”
• “Spreadsheet for advising and staffing planning”
• “Presidents’ Alliance Survey: Share how international talent strengthens our communities”

For additional background, please see:

• “What international students need to know about study and work visas in the US”
• “US: Student visa issuances fell by -36% in summer 2025; OPT uncertainty among factors affecting international student demand”

The post US to end “Duration of Status” for F, J, and I visas and limit the time international students can study in the US appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The report continues Shorelight’s commitment, which began in 2023 in partnership with the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, to acquiring and analysing F-1 visa denial data. It is based on annual data obtained via a public information request to the US Department of State.

Refusals higher than in the pandemic

More than a third of all F-1 visas (35%) were refused in 2025, up from 31% in 2024 and 23% in 2015

The extremes on either point of this average are sharp. For Europe, the refusal rate is 9%. For Africa and Asia, it is 64% and 41%, respectively. The chart below shows the persistently low rate of rejection over 10 years for European students compared with students from elsewhere in the world.

Surging rejection rates for African students

In 2015, more than half of African applicants had their F-1 visa application approved. In 2025, nearly two-thirds were rejected. Over 10 years, refusals for African applicants have risen by 33%.

Students from some African countries are especially likely to be denied, with at least 80% of applicants from Sierra Leone, Somalia, Benin, and Burkina Faso turned away last year.

A record-high refusal rate also applied to applications from Ghana: 81% in 2025 versus 72% in 2024. Ghana – one of the safest and most stable countries in West Africa – has been a very important emerging market for US institutions in recent years. In 2024/25, according to the IIE’s Open Doors data, there were 12,825 Ghanaian students in the US, a +36.5% rise over the previous year. This was an even higher rate of growth than that from Nigeria (+9.1%), which has been the top African sender of students to the US for several years.

In 2024/25, there were 21,850 Nigerian students in US higher education, but next year will tell a different story: Nigeria is on the Trump administration’s travel ban list. This means that Nigerian students currently cannot even apply to the US, let alone have a shot of being approved for a visa. In addition, Nigerian students in the US hoping to switch to Optional Practical Training (OPT) aren’t currently able to, as the immigration department has placed an indefinite hold on their applications. This means they cannot work after finishing their studies.

Keystone Education Group reports that “Nigerian student search interest in the USA has dropped more than -50% since the visa processing freeze announcement on 17 December 2025.” Keystone found that Nigerian interest is shifting mainly to France (+40%), Italy (+33%), Australia (+21), and China (+17%).

Refusals now common for South Asian students

Like African students, South Asian students are increasingly aware that simply being from their country means they are less likely to receive an F-1 visa than students from other regions. Indian students – who compose the largest segment of the international student body in the US – are no exception. The rejection rate for Indian students rose from 53% in 2024 to 61% in 2025.

As a source market, India has been growing over time – up +10% in 2024/25 after an expansion of +23% in 2023/24, but this trend is now reversing.

Similarly, visa denials for Nepali students rose from 59% in 2024 to 81% in 2025. Last year, Nepal was the sixth largest origin market for US institutions, growing by +48% in 2024/25 over 2023/24 – the most significant jump of any top 20 market for the US.

Students from Bangladesh and Pakistan are also much more likely to be refused than approved for an F-1 visa (73% and 71% rejection rate, respectively), and this trend has intensified over the past year.

European students fare much better

Over 9 in 10 European students were approved for an F-1 visa in 2025.

The problem is that European countries contain a relatively small recruitment pool. For example, though six European countries – the UK, Türkiye, Spain, Germany, France, and Italy – are top-20 source countries for US colleges, they collectively compose less than 6% of international enrolments. In addition, they are not high-growth markets (see chart below); they will not offset declining enrolments from Africa and Asia.

Lower Indian demand has profound implications for the US economy

Indians represent 30% of all foreign enrolments in the US, and they are mostly in graduate programmes. But last year, Indian graduate enrolments fell by -9.5% – a serious decline made even starker because it followed +18.5% growth the previous year.

If Indian demand declines further because of high visa refusal rates or restrictions on the OPT and H-1B work streams, there will be profound domino effects. Consider:

• Indian students contribute over 70% of enrolments in master’s and PhD-level STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) programmes.
• Nearly half of STEM-OPT participants are Indian.
• Close to 75% of all H-1B work visas are awarded to Indians, mainly for positions in the tech sector.
• Nearly a quarter (23%) of tech workers in Silicon Valley with a bachelor’s degree or higher are Indian-born (including the current CEOs of Google, Microsoft, and IBM).
• Indian-born doctors are the largest segment of immigrant doctors in the US.

The explains what could happen if Indian students choose to go elsewhere to study and work in STEM fields:

“The broader impact on the US could be severe: hospitals facing doctor shortages, universities struggling to attract STEM students, and start-ups without the lobbying muscle of Google or Amazon are likely to be hit hardest.”

The future impact of structural bias in F-1 visa processing

The Shorelight report concludes:

“With student visa refusals in India climbing up to 60%, we’re not just denying students, we’re cutting off a critical talent pipeline for US universities, employers, and the economy. Without expanding opportunities in other high-growth regions, we’re creating a self-inflicted talent shortage. In a global race for skilled workers, the US cannot afford to turn away the very students who fuel our research, workforce, and competitiveness.”

Asked by Inside Higher Ed to comment on Shorelight’s determination that visa approvals are more determined by applicants’ home countries than by merit, the US State Department said: “All visa applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with US law, and adjudicated based on the facts and circumstances of the individual case.”

Shorelight’s recommendations

Within the Shorelight report are “evidence-based solutions to address this challenge [of structural bias in F-1 visa processing],” including a call for “greater transparency in denials, standardised financial guidance, specialised training for high-refusal consulates, dual-intent for F-1 visas, and codifying OPT.” The full report .

For additional background, please see:


• “US: Student visa issuances fell by -36% in summer 2025; OPT uncertainty among factors affecting international student demand”
• “Australia: Student visa refusal rates reach record high amid weakening demand from China”

The post Visa rejections climb in the US for international students from key markets including India appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

A new resource from immigration law firm Fragomen called “” offers helpful guidance on what international students should consider when applying to a US institution, changing visa status, or leaving the US while on a visa or during a visa transition period (e.g., from an F-1 to OPT, or OPT to H-1B).

In brief, Fragomen emphasises that this is a very risky time for international students to leave the US because of a real chance that they might not be permitted re-entry.

In today’s article, we feature ��������dz����’s advice, and we also provide an update on the broader immigration landscape in terms of its implications for international students, higher education institutions, and employers. In particular, we look at why proposed changes to Optional Practical Training (OPT) and study duration limits – as well as new H-1B rules – pose challenges for US colleges’ international recruitment.

The golden pathway

The majority of international students in the US (57%) are in STEM fields: science, technology, engineering, and math. Many of them choose their academic focus to become eligible for the programme called STEM OPT (STEM Optional Practical Training), which:

• Allows international students to work in the US for up to three years (rather than the one-year term permitted for regular OPT participants).


  
• Gives them three chances to be selected through the H-1B work visa lottery system (a significant feature because of the extremely high demand for the limited number of H-1Bs granted each year). The H-1B visa, where applicants are sponsored by US employers, is valid for three years with a possible three-year extension.

In many cases, the pathway envisioned by many international prospects applying to a US university is this: Enrol in a STEM academic programme on an F-1 visa > participate in STEM OPT > apply up to three times for an H-1B visa that allows up to six years of work in the US > potentially progress to permanent residency from there.

The opportunity to pursue this pathway is central to the decision-making of most prospects considering study in the US. A 2025 survey conducted by NAFSA and the found that 54% of current international students would not have chosen the US if there was no OPT option. Another survey, the , found that 92% of US higher institutions believe that international students would choose another destination if OPT were eliminated.

Those survey findings underscore the impact of the OPT programme on an international student’s overall return on investment (ROI) for study in the US. Simply put, participating in OPT helps students to offset the high cost of a US degree, which might otherwise be prohibitive.

The pathway is under pressure

The importance of OPT to US colleges’ international enrolments highlights the massive impact that several recent proposals or rule changes by the Department of Homeland Security may have on institutions’ ability to recruit overseas. These include:

• A proposal to restrict or end the OPT programme. This proposal is currently under review. 

  
• A presidential proclamation requiring an employer to pay a US$100,000 fee for an H‑1B application filed from outside the US after 21 September 2025. This fee is now in place despite multiple legal challenges, some of which are still proceeding through the courts.


  
• A proposal to impose a fixed period limiting international students’ study visa to no more than four years. This would replace the current Duration of Stay (D/S) system that allows students to remain in the US as long as they are progressing in their academic programmes. A fixed admission period would require students to apply for extensions that they wouldn’t automatically receive. If an extension were denied, a student would be required to leave the US immediately, with no chance at OPT. This proposal is under review. Almost half (49%) of current students responding to the 2025 NAFSA/ Institute for Progress survey said they would not have enrolled in the first place had Duration of Status been replaced with a fixed period of admission.

Heightened scrutiny for international students

At the core of the current US immigration strategy is the administration’s belief that international students and workers could be a threat and even to national security.

As a result, the administration has shown that it is willing to use various policy levers to make it more difficult for international students to come to the US, and/or to stay after graduation.��

For the many international students who want to safeguard their ability to study, work, and potentially immigrate to the US, deciding to leave the country for travel can be risky. Re-entering means dealing with US immigration officers again at a time when the State Department is increasing refusals of visas for . It can be very difficult for students to challenge refusals from abroad – and for institutions to help them.

Several universities – with the help of legal experts – are counselling their international students to stay in the US for this reason. ��������dz����’s resource delves deeply into the risks for particular kinds of students based on their visa status or intended visa progression:

“International students are facing significantly heightened scrutiny, which could affect their status, ability to change status, and ability to re-enter the United States after international travel…F-1 students who have applied for, or are working on, post-completion optional practical training (OPT) or may be the beneficiary of an H-1B cap petition and a request to change status should be aware of the requirements and risks of travelling internationally.”

Fragomen adds: “This is true whether you are in an ongoing course of study, your 60-day grace period, a period of OPT (including a STEM extension), or in the ‘cap gap’ – the period between the end of your course of study or OPT and either the date a timely-filed H-1B change of status on your behalf will take effect, or April 1 (whichever is earlier).”

��������dz����’s guidance goes into to describe best practices for specific types of international students in different visa classes or circumstances.

The destabilising effect

Naavya Shetty, an Indian student finishing up her degree at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, spoke with in October 2025:

“What we [international students] felt would happen was that all these companies would develop a sense of uncertainty about hiring international students. Because who knows when a new law is going to pass that makes them have to pay a lot more for us than we might actually be ‘worth.’”

Ms Shetty explained: “In order to come here, I had to take a student loan, with a particularly high rate of interest. My parents had to mortgage our house in order for me to be able to take that loan. If I do not manage to get a job, there is quite a lot of burden on me and my family financially. The average graduate student salary [in the US] for my field is estimated to be about 100K, whereas in India, the estimated cost is around 15 to 20 lakhs – equivalent to roughly $17,000 a year.”

Keep the facts in focus

The confusing narrative around the US$100,000 H-1B application fee is daunting for employers who may not understand which applicants are affected and which are not. In fact, the fee (as of this writing) applies only to new H-1B applicants outside the US. F-1 students are exempted if they secure a job right after finishing school, which means there is no added cost for US employers wanting to hire them.

What’s more, the new rules could actually benefit F-1 international students. Employers who know about the exemption could pivot to hiring an international student graduate instead of a skilled worker outside of the US, since this would allow them to avoid the US$100,000 fee.

Law firm notes:

“[The new rules] create a sharp strategic divide. US‑based international graduates become far more attractive candidates, while employers may be reluctant to sponsor workers abroad due to the substantial additional cost …

The H-1B program is evolving into a higher cost, higher skill pathway. Employers prepared to invest in top tier talent will remain active participants, while others may pivot to alternative visa strategies or focus on international graduates already in the United States.”

The need for legal advice

��������dz����’s offers exactly the kind of counsel that can seem very elusive for students and institutions alike at this time.

For additional background, please see:

• “US suspends immigration processing for nationals from 39 travel ban countries – but F, J, and M visa processing will continue”
• “US: Student visa issuances fell by -36% in summer 2025; OPT uncertainty among factors affecting international student demand”&�Բ�����;

The post What international students need to know about study and work visas in the United States appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

“DHS has indicated it intends to re-evaluate practical training regulatory requirements for foreign student visa holders through a rulemaking,” said the Secretary. “The rule would propose to amend existing practical training regulations to protect US workers from being displaced by foreign nationals, address fraud and national security concerns, and enhance the Student and Exchange Visitor Program’s capacity to oversee the program.”

The momentum for a rule change stems from a belief in some circles that the current OPT framework takes jobs from US workers, among other assertions. ()

Recent F-1 visa data suggests that OPT’s possible termination is already having an effect on international student demand for study in the US – especially in some of the most important overseas markets for US institutions.

A strategic pillar of US recruitment

The OPT programme is increasingly popular – especially because STEM students can receive a total of three years of work due to their specialisation (regular OPT allows for only one year). Participation in the compared with the previous year.

According Mirka Martel, the Institute of International Education’s (IIE) head of research, OPT is an “essential component of an international student’s academic experience” (which is why the organisation includes OPT numbers in its annual on international student numbers in the US). Keystone Education Group research suggests that OPT may be the The firm found that 86% of international prospects consider staying in the US and working after graduation.

Visas plummet -36%

Leading up to the 2025/26 intake for US institutions, a series of events disrupted international student recruitment. The Trump administration suspended visa interviews at US consulates in May 2025, which lasted for almost a month; revoked thousands of student visas; and it warned of upcoming policies to curb the duration of student visas and post-study rights for international students. In the key summer recruiting window, President Trump also revived the travel ban preventing nationals of some countries from entering the US (and then extended it in December 2025 to 39 countries).

Alongside those events, F-1 visas plunged by -36% between May and August of 2025, according to a analysis of data.

The top market for US institutions – India – decreased much more sharply than the average: about -60%, which equates to only 22,870 new F-1 visas awarded to Indian students in those summer months. In July and August alone, the drop was nearly -80%.

Why STEM OPT is so important to international students

Of all the disruptive factors spurring the visa declines, uncertainty around the OPT programme – especially STEM OPT – could have the most significant long-term impact on international student demand – particularly in price-sensitive student markets.

The importance of STEM OPT for the families of thousands of international students can be summed up in three letters: ROI (return on investment).

This is because:

• STEM OPT participants (this is not a rule for general OPT).
  
• This means that at least two of the three years of work that STEM OPT participants engage in are paid.
  
• The three-year term of STEM OPT gives participants three chances to enter the H-1B visa lottery (one per year) – versus one chance offered by a one-year OPT term.
  
• The H-1B visa, which allows US employers to temporarily hire foreign workers for specialty occupations (mostly in STEM), is valid for three years with a possible three-year extension. Those who receive an H-1B have a better chance to become permanent residents because they gain work experience that counts towards eligibility.

STEM OPT participants’ paid work in a specialised STEM field allows them to offset the cost of their degree. The potential ROI increases even further because STEM OPT students have a better chance of receiving an H-1B visa than other students given the multiple times they can enter the lottery.

As Keystone Education Group “The calculation is straightforward: three years of US work experience can be transformative for career trajectories and provides multiple opportunities to secure H-1B sponsorship.”

What is at stake

The following data – which shows the link between international students’ demand for STEM studies in the US and the availability of OPT – foreshadows how devastating a restriction or termination of this post-study work stream could be for US universities and colleges :

• Previous research has found that in the US use their OPT work benefit.

• In 2024/25, of all international students in the US were pursuing STEM degrees, rising to 64% at the graduate level. This means that more than half of all international students in the US are eligible for STEM OPT.

• Indian students, who compose 31% of all international students in US universities and colleges, are overrepresented in STEM fields. Indians also make up nearly half (48%) of all students in the OPT STEM stream. Chinese students, who make up the next largest share of international students in the US, are the second largest nationality in STEM OPT: 21%. Without STEM OPT, the idea of paying for a STEM degree in the US would hold less appeal for Indian and Chinese students, especially given cuts to major research programmes by the Trump administration.

• Vietnam, Nepal, and Nigeria are some of the fastest-growing international student groups in the US (growing +49%, +16%, and +9%, respectively, in 2024/25 compared with 2023/24). They are also the among . US institutions are increasingly reliant on these markets as a counter to over-reliance on China and India.

What is already happening

In our own analysis of , we found that India is but one of many student source markets for which F-1 visa issuances are tanking. In July and August of 2025, F-1 visa grants fell by -78% for India, -33% for China, -17% for Vietnam, -83% for Nepal, and -63% for Nigeria. As noted earlier, international students from these countries account for a large share of STEM OPT participants.

OPT = ROI

In July of 2025, the offered a succinct analysis of what the removal of OPT would mean for Indian students:

“Let’s be clear—it will hurt Indian students. OPT is their runway to repay loans, gain experience, and build global careers. Estimates suggest that the average Indian student spends $60,000–$100,000 on a US STEM degree. Without OPT, the ROI vanishes.”

The Times continued: “Without OPT, US universities become overpriced diplomas without job prospects. Why would anyone pay $100,000 for a degree that ends in deportation? NAFSA estimates international students (led by Indians) contribute $33 billion to the US economy. Kill OPT, and watch that cash vanish.”

Effects on domestic students, institutions, and workers

The bulk of international students in the US pay tuition fees that are two to three times higher than domestic fees – and those fees are essential for many institutions to keep STEM programmes running and research facilities competitive with those in Europe and Asia. Remembering that international students make up 54% of US master’s enrolments and 44% of doctoral enrolments in STEM fields, and that OPT is a major reason for those high proportions, the declines we would see if OPT were actually removed would be even more drastic than what happened in the summer of 2025. All students would feel the impact.

The end of STEM OPT would also severely disrupt the hiring ability of major tech companies and scientific organisations in the US, making it more difficult for them to maintain innovation levels. A recent featured Madeline Zavodny, an economics professor at the University of North Florida, who examined nearly a decade of data on Optional Practical Training. She concluded:

“The results indicate that the OPT program does not reduce job opportunities for American workers in STEM fields … a larger number of foreign students approved for OPT, relative to the number of U.S. workers, is associated with a lower unemployment rate among those U.S. workers.”

Longer-term impacts

an October 2025 working paper by researchers Michael Clemens, Jeremy Neufeld, and Amy Nice, analysed different scenarios that could play out according to specific levels of decline in the number of international STEM graduates in the US. According to the “plausible” scenario of a one-third reduction in US-trained foreign graduates:

“There would be 6 to 11 percent fewer high-skill STEM workers in the U.S. workforce overall (including both foreign-born and domestic STEM workers). The best available economic research implies that, within ten years, this one-third decline in foreign STEM graduates from U.S. universities would lead to long-run GDP losses of $240 to $481 billion each year.”

For additional background, please see:

• “US proposes new rules for student visas including term limits and other restrictions“
• “US: Study estimates that changes to international student policies could reduce GDP by up to US$481 billion per year“
• “There were more international students in the US than ever in 2024/25 but commencements are declining“
• “Canada and the US are losing international student enrolments to Europe and Asia” 

The post US: Student visa issuances fell by -36% in summer 2025; OPT uncertainty among factors affecting international student demand appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Two years on, HolonIQ’s conservative forecast is the more likely of the two; circumstances have changed enough that the weakest projection of 1.3 million students by 2034 may now be too high.

A newly released forecast from the HolonIQ team, now part of QS, reflects the events of the past two years. Those developments (notably, new policy settings from the US administration and geopolitical instability in general) are part of the reason that QS now anticipates a modest decline in international student enrolments in the US through 2030.

New factors are shaping demand

report forecasts a -1% annual contraction per year through 2030 on the heels of flat growth from 2019–25. QS explains that the larger context is a “reshaping of global demand [that is] driven less by academic considerations and more by geopolitics, visa regimes, labour market incentives, and demographic pressures.”

Those factors are variously affecting demand in US institutions’ top student markets. For example:

• China: Increased higher education capacity, geopolitical tensions, and accelerating population decline are depressing demand.
• India: Volatile study and work visa policies in the US are the main deterrents, prompting a growing number of Indian students to choose a destination other than the US.
• South Korea: The ageing population means that a dwindling pool of college-aged students will consider study abroad.

QS expects demand from India to decline by -7% through 2030, with much of the drop-off fuelled by uncertainty around, or changes to, work rights in the US. QS notes: “Rising concerns about affordability, stricter US consular views, and long visa appointment backlogs also weigh on sentiment.” However, QS considers that lower demand from India could be temporary.

By contrast, lower demand from China is “likely durable” due to structural and political developments. QS expects a -4% annual Chinese enrolment contraction per year to 2030.

Vietnam is seen to offer the most potential for growth: “Vietnam’s expanding middle class, strong English-language preparation, and preference for business and STEM fields position it as one of the most reliable medium-term markets for US institutions.”

African countries also hold promise for increased inbound flows because of demographics, especially. However, at least half of the countries on President Trump’s current travel ban/restriction list are African – including the key Nigerian market. Between August 2024 and August 2025, new students from Nigeria and Ghana (another important source of students) fell -48% and -51%, respectively.

How will US institutions respond?

QS sees three general themes that may inform US institutions’ adjustment strategies: Regulated Regionalism, Hybrid Multiversity, and Talent Race Rebound.

Regulated Regionalism: Essentially, students in emerging markets become more interested in affordable regional alternatives (e.g., in Asia) and transnational education options (including those with a digital component). As a result, American universities need to “sharpen their value proposition” to compete for top students in priority fields (e.g., STEM) through such strengths as “research-intensive environments, industry linkages, and disciplined student-support services.”

Hybrid Multiversity: Concerned about affordability and increasingly aware of TNE options, students begin their studies at home (e.g., through joint programmes) and then finish them elsewhere. This requires US institutions to prioritise partnerships with overseas institutions, and it depends on supportive visa and post-study work policies that accommodate students who come for short-term courses.

Talent Rebound: This model sees the US government recognising the need to bolster the American labour force with specialised skills, leading it to “prioritise international talent attraction as part of a broader economic strategy.” Specifically:

“US agencies streamline visa processing for students in priority fields such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, quantum science, advanced manufacturing, health professions, and clean energy. Processing times accelerate, compliance systems become more efficient, and pathways from study to work – particularly through OPT and STEM OPT – are clarified and expanded. Discussion around structured, points-based transitions to employment gains momentum in high-demand sectors.”

Strategic realignment

More than half of international students in the US are from India (31%) and China (23%). After that, none of the top 20 markets make up more than 4%. QS rightly states that US institutions need to invest in further diversification amidst declining demand from India and China, and adds that “proactive engagement with policymakers and a commitment to flexible, skills-based education” will also be required.

Policy volatility could shake any projection

While QS’s modelling considers potential policy disruptions, no one is certain yet of just how extreme those disruptions will be in the next four years.

In a November 2025 post assessing the most recent Open Doors’ enrolment data, the Association of American Universities (AAU) :

“The data do not reveal the full extent of the effects of the Trump administration’s policies��seeking to limit��the ability of international students to enroll and complete their degrees at US universities and gain practical training or work experience following graduation.

This is because many of the administration’s policies, some of which have yet to be finalised or go into effect, were announced after universities had already completed the 2025-26 admissions cycle. Students starting at US colleges and universities this fall, therefore, have been somewhat insulated from the full scope of changes to international education and visas in the United States.

A widely anticipated change to OPT [Optional Practical Training] could especially hurt future international student interest in the United States as a higher education destination. Studies have shown that the OPT program is a key factor influencing international students’ decision to study in the United States. In a recent survey of current international students conducted by the Institute for Progress and NAFSA, a majority (54%) of current international students said they would not have enrolled at a U.S.-based university had OPT not been available to them. These attitudes indicate that the large decreases in graduate enrollment reported in the Fall 2025 snapshot may be a precursor to more pronounced reductions in the future.”

For additional background, please see:

• “US suspends immigration processing for nationals from 39 travel ban countries – but F, J, and M visa processing will continue“
• “US proposes new rules for student visas including term limits and other restrictions“
• “There are more international students in the US than ever in 2025, but commencements are declining“
  ��

The post Updated forecast projects marginal decline in foreign enrolment in the US through 2030 appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The “push” factors driving American interest in study abroad

Nearly 300,000 American students went abroad for exchanges and degrees in 2023/24, according to IIE Open Doors data, a +6% y-o-y increase. There isn’t yet more recent public data, but there are signals that many American students are applying to foreign universities due to the Trump administration’s historic defunding of research initiatives and battles with elite higher education institutions. magazine summarised the cuts in January 2026: “More than 7,800 research grants terminated or frozen. Some 25,000 scientists and personnel gone from agencies that oversee research. Proposed budget cuts of 35% – amounting to US$32 billion.”

Even before the cuts, American student demand for study abroad reached an all-time high. For example, Studyportals recorded nearly five times as many opportunities just after President Trump won the 2024 election as before it. Searches for Australia rose 467%, and they were even higher for Canada (+826%) and Ireland (+1299%) according to Studyportals CEO Edwin van Rest. The surge has since ebbed, but American search traffic is still considerably higher than before the election.

The expense of American higher education is another factor. The number of highly ranked universities outside of the US is growing, and Asia is especially notable in this respect. There are now many options for Americans who want a world-class education overseas – at much lower price point than at home. An article on included this illustrative anecdote:

“One family compared their daughter’s education at NC State to their son’s degree in Prague. Their takeaway? A $29,000 savings per year by choosing Europe. That’s not a typo. And their son still got a quality education, just without the $1,296-per-semester mandatory fees, the overpriced health insurance, and the meal plans tied to subpar dorms. In Prague, he paid a single €192 admin fee per semester—and nothing out-of-pocket for surgery, thanks to affordable health coverage.”

Data shows the shift

Recruitment agencies are noticing the uptick in American demand for study abroad. In September 2025, CBS News interviewed James Edge, owner of Beyond the States, a consultancy that helps American students to study in other countries. : “The shift is striking both in volume and in the kinds of families reaching out. From November 2024 through July 2025, [our] website visits went from 600,990 to 1,534,929 and strategy calls went from 2,215 to 29,373.”

The list of countries and institutions experiencing more demand from the US is long. Here are just a few examples:

• In 2024, American enrolments in UK universities rose to 23,500 – up from 17,000 in 2019. And in 2025, a +14% rise in American applications for study in the UK, the highest number ever.
  
• In 2025, the US was one of only three source markets in the top 25 that grew for Australia, with . This was the second-highest growth after Bangladesh.
  
• American applications to universities in the Netherlands have in the past five years.
  
• In Spain, IE University, known for its graduate programmes in business, has seen American enrolments over four years.
  
• Canada’s University of British Columbia (UBC) received +27% more graduate applications from Americans from January to March 2025 than in all of 2024. The University of Toronto and University of Waterloo also recorded spikes in interest.

Many governments stepping up recruitment of American students and researchers

It didn’t take long for European and Asian governments to capitalise on the Trump administration’s hostile rhetoric and actions toward elite US universities. In Spain, Norway, and France, governments have positioned their countries as a “refuge” for the world’s top students, researchers and scientists – and have rolled out substantial investments to recruit US talent as part of their strategy.

Over the past year:

Spain created the “EduBridge” initiative aimed at encouraging students in the US to transfer to Spanish universities.

Norway invested US$9.6 million to recruit researchers and has at US institutions including Boston College, Colorado State University, Columbia, NASA, Stanford, and the National Laboratories network. The first set of researchers have been hired the University of Oslo and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and each receives over US$700,000 to pursue their research.

France rolled out the Lafayette Fellowship, which funds Americans to complete master’s degrees in STEM, humanities, social sciences, and the arts at top French universities. Meanwhile, created a “Safe Place for Science” programme that offered to fund about 20 American researchers for three years. It received 298 applications in one month from researchers at institutions including Johns Hopkins University, NASA, Columbia, Yale, and Stanford.

The EU launched a two-year to attract American experts to relocate to Europe.

Germany launched the with about €600 million (over US$700,000) to support international researchers to come for both short-term and long-term stays. Since its inception in July 2025, it has funded 166 researchers from 25 countries, 16% of whom are American.

Hong Kong’s Education Bureau when President Trump revoked Harvard University’s ability to host international students on 22 May 2025 (this action has since been paused as Harvard fights back in legal courts). The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology was the first to invite Harvard students to transfer their studies to it, setting up “unconditional offers, streamlined admission procedures, and academic support to students.” Several other Hong Kong universities followed suit.

Japan’s��Council for Science, Technology and Innovation – chaired by former Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba in June 2025 – instructed officials to help institutions recruit researchers seeking to leave the US. One of Japan’s top universities, Tohoku University, has received more funding recently due to its research excellence, and as reported by it plans to “invest JPY30 billion (US$209 million) over the next five years to hire 500 researchers who want to leave the US … The plan does not stipulate a salary cap.”

Brain drain

The “brain drain” phenomenon has been a problem faced by many countries over the years. Usually the exodus of top minds and talents flows from poorer countries or countries with high unemployment, security issues, etc. to advanced economies. But as with seemingly everything else, the Trump administration has ushered in an unprecedented trend: brain drain is now happening from the US to other countries.

The post Foreign recruitment of American students and researchers is intensifying appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.