Banks and Grassley Urge End to OPT Program, Trump Administration

Two senior Republican senators intensified pressure on the White House this week to end the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program for international students, urging President Trump to halt work authorization for F‑1 graduates and warning of harm to U.S. workers. In a public push that sharpened months of internal debate, Jim Banks and Chuck Grassley called on the Department of Homeland Security to stop issuing employment benefits tied to student visas—a move that would hit recent graduates, especially in science and tech, who rely on the program’s post‑study work period and the STEM extension to launch careers in the United States 🇺🇸.

Banks described OPT as an “illegal loophole” that grants foreign students a tax and hiring edge over U.S. graduates, arguing that employers use it to sidestep American jobseekers in entry‑level roles. In a letter addressed to presidential adviser Stephen Miller and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, he pressed the administration to terminate the program immediately. Grassley echoed that demand, telling DHS to stop issuing work permits for student visa holders and citing “unfair competition” with Americans as well as risks of “corporate and technological espionage.” Their remarks underline a growing Republican push to scale back or kill OPT outright—a policy shift with major consequences for employers and universities.

How OPT works and its scale

OPT permits F‑1 students to work for up to 12 months after graduation, with an extra 24‑month STEM extension for eligible science, technology, engineering, and math fields.

Key facts:
– Nearly 500,000 foreign workers hold OPT status, many in STEM roles.
– By headcount, the program is almost as large as H‑1B but without H‑1B’s statutory cap and lottery selection.
– OPT is created by regulation, not statute—meaning a determined administration can curb or end it through rulemaking.

Banks and Grassley want the administration to use that regulatory leverage—and to do so quickly.

Proposed administrative changes behind the scenes

Administration officials have considered other changes that would narrow post‑study options. One draft proposal would:
1. Replace the “duration of status” model with fixed end dates for student stays.
2. Force graduates to depart within 60 days unless they successfully switch to another status.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the combined effect of ending OPT and imposing firm deadlines would:
– Shift the risk of career planning onto students.
– Make it easier for DHS to enforce status overstay rules.
– Allow DHS to deny any grace period beyond what is printed on official documents.

Political context and arguments

The current push reflects a broader conservative stance on employment‑based migration that began with:
– Higher H‑1B fees, and
– Calls to suspend guest worker programs during the COVID‑19 downturn.

Banks’ central argument:
– New college graduates unable to secure entry‑level jobs are displaced by OPT hires.
– He says OPT allows companies to prefer cheaper hires who are exempt from some payroll taxes.

Opposing view (employer groups and supporters of OPT):
– OPT fills genuine skills gaps.
– It allows companies to evaluate graduates before sponsoring them for H‑1B.
– Employers say ending OPT will create a hiring cliff, intensify pressure on the H‑1B lottery, and raise compliance burdens—especially for startups that lack immediate sponsorship resources.

Concerns from universities and immigration attorneys

Universities and immigration attorneys warn the fallout would be swift and wide:
– They view OPT as a critical bridge to H‑1B and, for many, to permanent residence.
– They estimate ending OPT would affect nearly 195,000 F‑1 students who participated in the program in 2023 alone.
– Students from India, a high‑demand source for U.S. tech jobs, rely heavily on the STEM extension as a runway to stable employment.

Universities argue that removing OPT would push talent to Canada and the UK, where post‑study work routes remain open.

Administration personnel and signals

Personnel choices have amplified concerns:
– Joseph Edlow, nominated to lead U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), has signaled support for ending post‑graduation work authorization.
– Agency comments have suggested OPT may “supplant” jobs Americans could fill—language advocates find troubling.

At the same time, government data show a complicated picture:
– One count places current OPT participation near 290,000 international students.
– Other year‑over‑year tallies measure a wider pool cycling through the program.
– Differences reflect varying data cuts, but the policy stakes remain the same.

Impact on enrollment and research pipeline

Enrollment indicators have already shifted:
– University admissions officers report a sharp decline in interest from abroad.
– Early‑2025 intake is down more than 40% compared with prior years.
– A recent survey found 54% of international students would have skipped U.S. programs if OPT were not available—evidence schools cite that post‑study work rights are central to the U.S.’s appeal.

Universities warn that losing this magnetism would thin the pipeline of researchers and engineers at a time when the U.S. seeks to strengthen domestic chipmaking, biotech, and AI.

Employer responses and sector impact

Employers that rely on campus recruiting are lobbying to preserve OPT, arguing:
– OPT helps fill skills gaps.
– The program provides an evaluation period before H‑1B sponsorship.
– Without OPT, firms will face fewer candidates, increased H‑1B lottery pressure, and greater compliance risk.

Startups, especially, warn they would be most affected.

Supporters of the senators counter:
– There are high numbers of domestic graduates in computer science and engineering.
– Companies should invest in training U.S. graduates.
– National security concerns exist: cases of mishandled sensitive data and potential exposure via open work pathways.
– Grassley’s mention of “corporate and technological espionage” reflects that national‑security framing.

Legal and regulatory path forward

Policy specialists expect DHS to outline options in the coming weeks, possibly through a notice‑and‑comment regulation. That course would likely invite legal challenges from universities and students who will argue:
– DHS has authority to define practical training as part of study.
– The agency has managed OPT for decades and should not abruptly revoke it.

Litigation would likely hinge on:
– Statutory text,
– Regulatory history, and
– The financial cost to institutions if enrollment falls further.

If DHS instead moves by policy memo to curb approvals quickly, litigation would likely arrive even faster.

Where to find official guidance

For the government’s current overview of OPT requirements, eligibility, STEM extension criteria, and employer obligations, USCIS posts material on Optional Practical Training. Readers can review the official USCIS page on Optional Practical Training, available here.

University advisors are preparing contingency plans, including:
– Earlier job search timelines, and
– More aggressive H‑1B sponsorship requests,
in case DHS shortens stay periods or tightens employment reporting.

“Banks and Grassley have made clear they want swift action. Backers of OPT are just as firm in their warnings that an abrupt halt would ripple through research labs, hospitals, and classrooms that depend on international talent.”

What this means for students right now

Students nearing graduation face an uncertain spring:
– Weighing job offers,
– Measuring visa odds, and
– Watching a policy debate that could determine whether their first step after commencement is a new job in the U.S. or a return flight home.

Important warning:
– Any abrupt termination of OPT or sudden change to student stay rules would have immediate, wide‑ranging effects on students, universities, employers, and research institutions.