CA, NY, MA Most Vulnerable to International Enrollment Decline

(CALIFORNIA) A new Brookings analysis warns that a nationwide dip in international student enrollment would not hit every state the same. States with large clusters of research universities and private colleges—especially California, New York, and Massachusetts—face the biggest revenue shock if fewer students arrive from abroad. The concern is not only about campus budgets. It’s about the economic impact on cities and towns where housing, retail, transit, and service jobs depend on the steady flow of student spending.

International students make up a minority of total enrollment in most places. But they punch far above their weight in financial terms. They often pay higher nonresident tuition, rent off-campus apartments, and spend on food, transport, and local services.

According to recent national tallies referenced in the Brookings analysis and related summaries, international students contributed an estimated $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy and supported more than 378,000 jobs in the 2023–2024 academic year. The top five states by total economic gains from this spending were:

• California — $6.4 billion
• New York — $6.3 billion
• Massachusetts — $3.9 billion
• Texas — $2.5 billion
• Illinois — $2.1 billion

These headline figures underscore the risk: a drop in new enrollments or a slowdown in continuing students would widen budget gaps at universities and ripple across nearby communities. While the United States 🇺🇸 remains a top destination for higher education, recent policy shifts abroad, rising costs, and global competition have pushed families to explore other countries.

The Brookings analysis, as summarized by the Times of India and other outlets, says states with the largest shares of international students—often “blue” states with dense higher-education networks—are the most exposed.

What the Brookings analysis shows

The warning signs cluster in familiar places. California, New York, and Massachusetts enroll large numbers of international students across public research universities and selective private institutions. In those states, a retreat in international enrollment could cut into tuition revenue and reduce local spending in housing and services.

Beyond those three states, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Washington also have high exposure because they host sizable international student populations that power local economies.

Per person, the impact looks even sharper in certain areas. On a per-capita basis, the economic lift from international students is highest in smaller states and the District of Columbia. Massachusetts and New York rank near the top by per-capita gains, with California also above the national average even if it doesn’t lead on that measure.

This per-capita angle matters for policymakers: it shows how student spending supports city budgets, transit systems, and small businesses in dense education hubs.

Institutions most at risk

The Brookings analysis also flags the institutions most vulnerable:

• Small, private, and faith-affiliated colleges—especially those with limited endowments and high shares of international students—face an outsized threat.
• For some niche schools, international students can make up 30% or more of enrollment. If that pipeline slows, the financial hit could be immediate.
• Public universities are not immune. Many rely on higher nonresident tuition from international students to fund labs, student services, and faculty hires. Losing those dollars forces hard choices.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, these forces widen the gap between states and institutions that can rebound with domestic recruitment or new partnerships and those that rely heavily on international tuition to stay whole. The site’s reading of the data aligns with Brookings: exposure is highest where international students are a core revenue pillar rather than a modest add-on.

Why the pain is uneven

Four structural factors explain the gap in exposure across states and schools:

1. Higher tuition payments
   International students typically pay full nonresident rates. That premium helps balance budgets. Remove it, and deficits can appear quickly—leading to cuts in academic programs or hiring freezes.

2. Local spillovers
   Students spend on rent, groceries, transit, and health services. In states with university clusters and strong student housing markets, the multiplier effect for local businesses is higher. Lose those customers, and landlords, restaurants, and transit services feel the strain.

3. Institutional concentration
   States with top research universities and many private colleges, like Massachusetts, California, and New York, have concentration risk. A broad slowdown hits multiple campuses at once, compounding the damage.

4. Financial fragility
   Smaller colleges with narrow program offerings or weak reserves are less able to absorb shocks. One or two soft recruiting cycles can push them into merger talks or closure reviews.

These forces contribute to a widening gap between institutions that can pivot and those that cannot. Exposure is highest where international students are a core revenue stream rather than a marginal boost.

Budget and community fallout

Likely institutional responses to shortfalls include:

• Cutting majors or programs
• Furloughing staff or leaving vacancies unfilled
• Raising costs for domestic students
• Launching new certificate programs and online offerings (which take time to produce revenue)

Local economic effects can appear fast:

• Higher vacancies in student housing → downward pressure on rents
• Reduced foot traffic for retailers in college districts
• Restaurants cutting hours after staffing up for academic-year demand
• Transit agencies seeing fewer riders and lower fare revenue, affecting city budgets

For states less dependent on international students, the blow will be softer but still noticeable in university towns. This uneven outcome risks deeper divides: well-funded systems in less-exposed regions may continue investing, while more exposed states face hard trade-offs that stall upgrades to labs, student support, or community partnerships.

Policy and practical responses

Visa processing rules, security checks, and work authorization policies shape how attractive the U.S. looks to prospective students. Clear and predictable rules help families plan. Official guidance on student visas, including F-1 and J-1 categories, is available through the U.S. Department of State at the Student Visa page: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/study/student-visa.html.

Universities and state leaders are testing several strategies:

• Increased outreach to students in Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Africa
• Renewed attention to financial aid for out-of-state domestic students who could replace some nonresident tuition
• Stronger ties with local employers to build internships and training pipelines

However, not every institution can pivot quickly. Examples:

• A small religious college in New England that draws a third of its class from abroad cannot swap markets overnight.
• A California research university that relies on international master’s students to fund lab assistants cannot replace that revenue in a single budget cycle.

Brookings emphasizes that exposure is both state-level and institution-specific.

Academic program and staffing consequences

California, New York, and Massachusetts attract students to programs that are expensive to run—engineering, computer science, biotechnology. These departments often build staffing and lab space around steady international demand.

If demand softens, deans face options such as:

• Shrinking cohorts
• Merging labs
• Prioritizing certain specializations

Those choices have employment consequences for faculty, staff, and graduate assistants.

Reasons for cautious optimism

There are reasons to be cautiously optimistic:

• The U.S. still offers deep academic networks, strong research funding, and a large labor market.
• Many families will continue to choose American degrees despite cost and policy shifts.

But Brookings warns that relying on momentum alone is risky for schools in the most exposed states. Attention to student support, clear visa guidance, and stable post-graduation work pathways can help steady the flow.

Possible state and local policy actions

• Revisit public funding formulas that rely on nonresident tuition to fill gaps
• Create matching grants for institutions that diversify revenue
• Build consortia to share services and lower costs
• Adjust zoning to support flexible housing in college towns
• Expand small-business support for retailers dependent on student customers

If enrollment weakens further, expect:

• More mergers among small private colleges
• Deeper partnerships between public universities and community colleges to preserve student pipelines
• Larger systems using scale to protect student services and key programs
• Smaller schools focusing on partnerships, careful budgeting, and clearer value propositions

Key takeaway: International students do more than fill classrooms—they shape labor markets, city streets, and state tax bases. When they arrive, they help pay for teaching, research, and the local businesses that make college towns hum. When fewer come, the stress spreads fast. For California, New York, and Massachusetts, that stress could be felt first and most, but the ripple effects will cross state lines.