The Trump administration is considering a proposal to charge international students $100,000 to work in the U.S. after graduating from American universities, according to people familiar with the matter cited in a Wall Street Journal report published Thursday. The proposed fee would apply to the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which allows international graduates to work in the U.S. for one to three years while remaining on student visas after completing their studies. Roughly 419,000 foreign graduates were working under the program in 2024, the latest year for which data is available.

If implemented, the proposal would significantly expand President Donald Trump’s efforts to tighten legal immigration. It could make studying in the U.S. less attractive for international students while affecting universities that rely on them for tuition revenue, as well as major Silicon Valley and Wall Street firms that recruit graduates from American universities for technical and financial roles. The move is also intended to accomplish a goal similar to the administration’s earlier proposal to impose a $100,000 fee on H-1B visas for foreign professionals.

Impact on Employers and Universities

That earlier H-1B proposal initially applied broadly before being narrowed following opposition from major technology companies. While H-1B visas are commonly used by IT and consulting firms to hire foreign professionals directly from overseas, many technology and financial companies instead recruit international students from U.S. universities and later transition them from OPT to H-1B status. As a result, an OPT fee would more directly affect those employers.

The proposal remains under discussion at the Department of Homeland Security, and it is unclear whether the White House will approve it. It is also not yet clear whether the proposed fee would be paid by international students or by their prospective employers. The fee would likely be tied to a new requirement announced earlier this month requiring international students to apply for an extension of their visas to use OPT, while DHS is separately working on broader regulations to rewrite the program that could be released as soon as this fall.

Regulatory Context and Opposition

A DHS spokeswoman told the Journal, “No policies should be considered final until formally announced. At DHS we are always having conversations about how to use all tools in our arsenal to protect the integrity of our legal immigration system.” The White House and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to Benzinga’s requests for comment.

Earlier this year, a federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on certain H-1B visa applications, ruling that the payment functioned as a tax that Congress had not authorized. The administration has also weighed requiring certain green card applicants outside the U.S. to post a $100,000 bond as part of a broader effort to tighten legal immigration and promote immigrant financial self-sufficiency.

The Journal also said the OPT program has long been a target of immigration restrictionists, who argue it allows employers to hire foreign graduates without safeguards ensuring they are not paid less than American workers. During Trump’s first administration, senior immigration officials, including Stephen Miller, pushed to eliminate the STEM OPT program, which provides up to three years of work authorization for graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields. They were ultimately overruled by more business-oriented officials, including Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

What the Numbers Show

The proposal also comes as some business leaders have argued that the U.S. should make it easier, not harder, for highly skilled international graduates to remain in the country. Earlier this month, billionaire investor Bill Ackman said it “makes no sense” for the U.S. to educate top talent at American universities only to send those graduates abroad, calling for immigration reforms that would allow highly skilled workers to stay and create value in the U.S.

Approval for President Donald Trump’s handling of the military conflict with Iran has fallen to 28%, according to a new AP-NORC poll conducted between July 23 and July 27. The survey indicates that two-thirds of Americans believe the war has not been worth fighting, marking a significant decline in public sentiment as the conflict extends beyond initial predictions. This erosion of support presents a tangible political risk ahead of November’s midterm elections, linking the administration’s foreign policy to domestic economic pressures and casualty concerns.

The data reveals a sharp contraction in partisan backing, particularly among Republicans. While broad opposition persists among Democrats and independents, approximately 37% of Republicans now disapprove of the war. This represents a notable shift from June, when Republican approval stood at 71%. Overall, Trump’s approval rating for the Iran situation slipped from 34% in June to the current 28% figure.

Public Preference for De-escalation

Voter preferences regarding military action show a clear mandate for restraint. Only about 2 in 10 adults favor the continuation of military action. In contrast, roughly 3 in 10 respondents support pausing attacks to negotiate another ceasefire, while about 2 in 10 want the United States to stop military action entirely. Nearly 7 in 10 voters prioritized achieving a permanent ceasefire.

Economic Pressures and Transparency Concerns

Pocketbook issues are rivaling national security goals in voter priorities. About 72% of respondents stated that preventing higher oil and gasoline prices was extremely or very important, compared to roughly two-thirds who cited stopping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon as equally critical. These economic anxieties are grounded in market realities; gasoline prices crossed $4 a gallon in July as fighting disrupted oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. Although Reuters reported that oil has since eased below $90, both major benchmarks remain on track for monthly gains of about 20%.

Ohio Republican Robert McClary expressed deep distrust in the administration’s rationale, stating, "I don’t have any trust in this administration at all and to why they brought us into this war." He added that Washington had "gotten yourself buried into this mess." Similarly, Florida Republican Ryan Sloan cited a lack of clarity as his reason for turning against the war, noting, "I just wish I’d have had more transparency about why things were going on the way they were."

What the Numbers Show

The divergence between national security objectives and economic priorities highlights a shifting voter calculus. With 72% of Americans prioritizing fuel price stability over nuclear non-proliferation (supported by roughly two-thirds), the conflict’s economic externalities are becoming a dominant political liability. The drop in Republican approval from 71% to 61% suggests that traditional base loyalty is weakening under the pressure of rising costs and perceived administrative opacity.