US DHS Proposed OPT Fees, What Employers Must Know

Proposals to impose substantial new fees on Optional Practical Training (OPT) for F-1 international students have drawn significant attention from US employers. Where such fees are proposed through a formal Federal Register notice, they would typically be assessed in connection with the student visa framework administered through the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), but the practical burden may fall on international students and the employers that hire them. Any such measure introduced through notice-and-comment rulemaking is a proposed rule, not law, and nothing is fixed until the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issues a final rule.

This article explains what a proposed OPT fee rule would change, who may pay, how employers could be exposed financially, which hires are at risk, how to file comments, and the alternatives worth considering now.

Search-intent summary: A proposed DHS rule imposing large OPT fees would have real commercial consequences for employers of international graduates. Below you will find who may pay, employer cost scenarios, which hires are exposed, step-by-step comment instructions for any open comment period, and practical alternatives if OPT becomes more expensive. Remember: a proposed rule is not final law.

What a proposed OPT fee rule would change, quick summary

Under the current framework, F-1 students who complete a course of study at an institution certified by SEVP may apply for Optional Practical Training to work in a field related to their degree. Students pay the standard filing fee set by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for the Form I-765 employment authorisation application; there is presently no additional per-student OPT charge of the magnitude contemplated in recent fee proposals. A proposed rule imposing substantial OPT fees would change this materially, introducing significant new charges tied to initial post-completion OPT and, potentially, to subsequent OPT periods.

Fee responsibility under such a proposal could be assigned to the SEVP-certified institution that issues the Form I-20 and authorises the student’s training, or to the student directly, depending on the final rule text. DHS typically frames fee measures as cost-recovery or policy instruments tied to its administration of the student visa programme. The scope of any such rule, and in particular whether it captures STEM OPT extensions, will depend on the final rule as published.

For employers in technology, professional services and life sciences, where OPT and STEM OPT have long functioned as an early-career hiring pipeline, fees of the magnitude discussed would be large enough to reshape recruitment economics. Even if a fee is nominally charged to schools, the realistic question is how that cost ripples through to students and the companies that employ them.

Short overview of the federal rulemaking process

Federal rulemaking generally follows a defined sequence under the Administrative Procedure Act. First, DHS publishes a proposed rule (an NPRM) in the Federal Register. Second, a public comment period opens, commonly 30 or 60 days, during which any interested party may submit feedback. Third, DHS reviews the comments and may revise the proposal. Finally, DHS publishes a final rule, which sets an effective date. Until that final rule issues, any proposed fees are not in force. The comment stage is the primary moment for employers to influence the outcome, so confirming the exact comment deadline in the published notice is essential.

Who may pay new OPT fees, schools, students or employers?

Where a proposed rule assigns legal responsibility for a fee to the SEVP-certified school, that is the formal answer. The commercial answer is more complex, because institutions have several lawful routes to recover the cost, and DHS has in the past acknowledged that schools may pass fees to students, spread them across tuition, or seek payment from employers.

Because a fee of this scale would be large, few institutions would simply absorb it as an operating expense across all programmes. The more likely outcome is some form of pass-through. This is why the structure of any OPT fee proposal matters to corporate hiring teams: the party that is billed is not necessarily the party that ultimately bears the cost. Understanding the pass-through mechanics is the first step in assessing exposure.

How institutions typically pass through costs

Schools that recover regulatory and administrative costs generally use one or more of the following mechanisms:

• Tuition surcharge. The institution raises tuition or adds an international-student surcharge that spreads the cost across the affected cohort. This dilutes the per-student charge but raises the overall price of study, which can shrink the international applicant pool over time.
• Dedicated administrative fee. The school levies a specific OPT processing or authorisation fee on the individual student seeking training authorisation, closely tied to the actual charge.
• Fee agreement with a sponsoring employer. Where a student already has an employment offer, the school may enter an arrangement under which the prospective employer agrees to cover or reimburse the fee as part of the hiring package.

Each mechanism carries different consequences for the student, the school and the employer, and the choice will vary by institution, programme and the strength of the student’s employment prospects.

Legal and contractual constraints for passing fees to employers

An employer cannot be billed directly unless there is a contractual basis for it, typically a tripartite understanding between the school, the student and the company. Where employers do agree to cover a fee, counsel should document the arrangement carefully, addressing what happens if employment ends early, if the OPT authorisation is denied, or if the final rule changes the fee amount. Reimbursement structures may also raise tax and compensation considerations that warrant review before any commitment is made.

How employers may incur costs, direct and indirect pathways

Even where a proposed fee is assessed against schools, employers can be affected through several channels. Mapping these pathways is essential for accurate budgeting and risk assessment.

Direct pathways:

• The school contracts with the employer to bill the fee directly, making the company liable per OPT hire.
• The student is invoiced and the employer agrees to reimburse, effectively converting an individual charge into a corporate expense.

Indirect pathways:

• Students bear the fee personally, reducing their effective take-home pay and potentially prompting demands for higher starting salaries to offset it.
• Schools spread the cost across tuition, raising the overall cost of study and gradually reducing the supply of international graduates in the talent market.
• Employers increase compensation or offer signing incentives to remain competitive for candidates who now face a significant additional cost.

Administrative and second-order costs:

• Increased HR and compliance workload to track which hires are exposed and under what billing model.
• Higher immigration counsel fees for sponsorship planning and alternative visa strategies.
• Longer and more expensive recruitment cycles if the OPT pipeline contracts and roles take longer to fill.

Because an OPT fee can flow through so many routes, employers should model more than one scenario rather than assume a single outcome.

Example cost models, three scenarios

The table below illustrates three realistic billing scenarios. The scenarios are presented as illustrative examples to support planning, not as predictions of how any particular institution will act. Insert the specific fee amounts from the applicable final rule when budgeting.

Scenario A appears least disruptive in the short term but carries long-term supply risk. Scenario B shifts the burden to candidates, which may reduce offer acceptance rates. Scenario C is the most expensive for employers and would likely prompt a rethink of whether OPT remains a viable entry point for certain roles.

Which hires are exposed, who to watch in your pipeline

An OPT fee rule would apply to F-1 students engaging in Optional Practical Training through SEVP-certified institutions. That scope would cover initial post-completion OPT and, depending on the final rule text, subsequent OPT periods and STEM OPT extensions, a critical point for employers reliant on longer training periods for science, technology, engineering and mathematics graduates.

Several categories sit at or near the edges of such a rule and deserve careful attention:

• Curricular Practical Training (CPT). CPT is authorised during a course of study rather than after completion and operates under separate rules; employers should not assume it is a straightforward substitute.
• Cap-subject H-1B candidates. Graduates who might otherwise bridge from OPT to H-1B face a changed cost calculus under such a proposal.
• Cap-exempt employers. Universities, affiliated non-profits and certain research organisations may have different strategic options.
• International students on other visa categories. Those not using F-1 OPT fall outside an OPT fee, but may be relevant to a broader hiring strategy.

STEM OPT and extensions: special considerations

STEM OPT extensions have historically allowed eligible F-1 graduates in qualifying fields to work for an additional period following initial post-completion OPT. If a subsequent OPT fee applies to these extensions, employers who depend on multi-year early-career retention in STEM fields could face a further charge at the extension stage. Talent teams should read the final rule text closely on this point and flag any STEM-dependent roles in their exposure audit, because the treatment of extensions will materially affect total cost.

Immediate actions for employers, HR and in-house counsel

Where a comment deadline is open, the time to act is now. The following prioritised checklist helps corporate teams move quickly:

• Audit your pipeline. Identify all current and planned OPT and STEM OPT hires over the next 12 to 24 months, noting degree field, institution and whether each hire is initial or subsequent OPT.
• Model financial exposure. Run the three billing scenarios above against your actual hiring plans to understand best- and worst-case costs.
• Engage university partners. Ask the institutions you recruit from how they intend to handle any finalised fee, and whether they anticipate billing students, employers or spreading the cost.
• Review contract and offer terms. Consider clauses addressing candidate reimbursement, conditional offers, clawbacks on early departure and relocation support.
• Coordinate with immigration counsel. Explore accelerated H-1B strategies, cap-exempt options and sponsorship timelines for high-value hires.
• Build a comment timeline. Assign ownership, draft a comment, and plan any joint submission with trade associations well before the published deadline.

Template outreach language to universities and candidates

Use neutral, information-gathering language when contacting partners. To universities: “We are reviewing the DHS proposed rule on Optional Practical Training fees and would value understanding your institution’s current thinking on how any finalised fee would be administered, for example, whether it would be billed to students, spread across tuition, or handled through employer agreements. This will help us plan our recruitment approach for your graduates.”

To candidates with pending offers: “We are monitoring a proposed federal rule that may affect OPT costs. No such fee is currently in effect, and we will keep you informed as the rulemaking progresses. Please do not delay any planned steps in your work authorisation process on the basis of this proposal alone.”

When to involve compensation and legal teams

Bring in compensation leaders as soon as the exposure audit reveals material cost under any scenario, because fee reimbursement, salary adjustments and signing incentives all affect total reward budgets. Involve legal counsel before committing to any employer-pays arrangement, before drafting reimbursement or clawback clauses, and before finalising a public comment, to ensure positions are legally sound and consistent across the organisation.

How to file comments on a proposed rule (step-by-step)

The comment process is open to any interested party, including employers, and is the primary formal channel to influence a final rule. Follow these steps:

1. Read the notice. Review the full Federal Register notice so your comment responds to the actual rule text and rationale, and confirm the exact comment deadline stated in the notice.
2. Locate the docket. Find the corresponding DHS docket on Regulations.gov by searching for the Federal Register document number or docket number.
3. Open the comment form. Select the “Comment” option on the docket page and either upload a document or paste your comment text.
4. Structure your comment. Reference the docket, state clearly who you are and the nature of your interest, and ask for specific, well-reasoned changes rather than general objections.
5. Observe the deadline. Comments must be received on or before the date stated in the notice. File earlier where possible to avoid technical issues near the cut-off.
6. Consider a joint comment. Coordinating with technology, life sciences or professional services trade associations can amplify impact and share the drafting burden.

Because an OPT fee of significant magnitude would carry real commercial consequences, a substantive, evidence-based comment from affected employers carries weight in the administrative record.

Recommended comment themes and sample language

Effective comments are specific and grounded in demonstrable impact. Consider addressing:

• Cost-benefit concerns. Question whether the fee level is justified relative to the administrative costs it is intended to recover.
• Disproportionate burden. Explain the practical effect on students, employers and the US workforce, with concrete examples from your sector.
• Lower or tiered fees. Ask DHS to consider a materially lower fee or a structure scaled to institution type or employer size.
• Exemptions. Request exemptions for non-profit or cap-exempt employers, or for specific graduate categories.
• Workforce and supply-chain analysis. Ask DHS to analyse effects on domestic innovation, research output and supply chains.
• Extended comment period. Given the significance of the figures, request additional time for stakeholders to respond.

Keep the tone professional and constructive, and attach supporting data where you have it.

Alternatives if OPT becomes more expensive, strategic hiring options

If a final rule imposes significant OPT fees, employers may need to rebalance their reliance on OPT. The main alternatives, with practical trade-offs, include:

• H-1B specialty occupation visas. A longer-term route, but subject to the annual cap, a selection (lottery) process, and lead times; premium processing can accelerate adjudication once a petition is properly filed.
• Cap-exempt H-1B. Qualifying institutions of higher education, affiliated non-profits and certain non-profit or governmental research organisations can petition outside the cap, offering more predictable timing for eligible roles.
• Remote hires outside the US. Engaging talent abroad avoids the fee entirely but introduces employment, tax and compliance considerations in the relevant jurisdiction.
• Sponsorship acceleration. For high-value hires, moving earlier toward H-1B or permanent residence sponsorship can justify the investment.
• Other visa categories. Depending on the role and the candidate’s nationality, options such as O-1, TN, E-3, H-1B1 or L-1 may be worth exploring with counsel.

Practical timeline for switching a candidate to H-1B

Transitioning an OPT holder to H-1B requires planning around the annual electronic registration and selection process, petition preparation and adjudication. Employers should identify candidates to prioritise well in advance, prepare documentation early, and factor in the possibility of non-selection in the lottery. Where timing is tight, premium processing can shorten the adjudication window once a petition is accepted, but it does not overcome the cap itself. The “cap-gap” provisions can, in some cases, extend an F-1 student’s work authorisation while a timely-filed, selected H-1B petition is pending. Counsel should map each candidate’s work authorisation expiry against these milestones to avoid gaps in employment eligibility.

Likely next steps in the rulemaking and timeline

After any comment period closes, DHS reviews submissions and may revise the proposal before issuing a final rule. A final rule typically follows some months later with a defined effective date, though the precise timing depends on the volume and substance of comments received and any legal challenges. Given the magnitude of fees of this kind, heightened attention from trade associations and the prospect of legal and congressional scrutiny are realistic possibilities. Employers should treat any such proposal seriously while recognising that a final rule may differ materially from the proposal as published.

Conclusion and recommended next steps

A proposed rule imposing substantial OPT and STEM OPT fees would represent a potentially significant shift in the economics of hiring international graduates. Such a proposal is not law unless and until a final rule takes effect, but an open comment deadline makes timely action essential. Employers should audit their OPT and STEM OPT pipelines, model exposure under multiple billing scenarios, engage university partners, coordinate with immigration counsel on alternatives, and file a substantive comment, alone or jointly, before any deadline. Acting promptly preserves both the opportunity to shape the final rule and the time to prepare if it is finalised.

Sources

1. Federal Register, search for the specific DHS Optional Practical Training rule and document number
2. Regulations.gov, locate the DHS docket to submit comments
3. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
4. ICE, Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP)
5. USCIS, Optional Practical Training (OPT) for F-1 students
6. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, 8 CFR Part 214 (nonimmigrant classes, including F-1 students)