- Information-collection comments have a separate December 7, 2026 deadline.
Checked against the Federal Register
The Department of Homeland Security published an October 8, 2026 rule proposal that would charge schools new fees for recommending F-1 students for Optional Practical Training. The proposed amounts are $70,000 for an initial recommendation and $30,000 for a later one. They are not in effect.
The proposal affects students seeking OPT, schools that recommend them and employers that hire graduates through the program. DHS has set November 9, 2026 as the deadline for comments on the rule. No start date is set; if finalized, the fees would begin 60 days after publication of a final rule.
For students, the immediate change is none: the proposed school fees are not charges they currently owe. Schools would be responsible for payment, though DHS says they could seek money from students, employers or other sources.
OPT allows eligible students to work in jobs related to their field of study, before or after completing their academic program. The regular period can last up to 12 months at each education level. Eligible graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics may qualify for a 24-month extension.
A school’s designated official recommends the student through the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, or SEVIS. The student then applies to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for employment authorization. The proposal would place the new payment before the recommendation.
DHS says USCIS would not approve work authorization if the school had not paid. The proposal concerns OPT, not Curricular Practical Training, and does not tie the charge to a particular employer or job.
Schools would pay before students can seek work authorization
The proposed school charges would be separate from the existing application fee students pay to USCIS. The new amounts attach to the school’s recommendation, not to a student’s direct payment to the department.
| OPT-related item | Payer under the proposal or current process | Amount and timing |
|---|---|---|
| Initial OPT recommendation | School | Proposed $70,000, before the recommendation |
| Later OPT recommendation, including a STEM extension | School | Proposed $30,000, after the initial fee has been paid |
| USCIS employment authorization application | Student | Current fee of $470 online or $520 on paper |
| Curricular Practical Training | Not covered by this proposal | No new OPT fee proposed |
Schools would have to pay before their designated officials recommend a student in SEVIS. USCIS would then decide the employment authorization application. The proposal does not replace the student’s existing application fee.
The school remains the party required to pay DHS. But the rule acknowledges that institutions could shift some or all of the expense to students, employers or other funding sources. It does not require a particular cost-sharing arrangement.
The proposed effective date protects earlier recommendations, not later requests
The proposal is prospective. It would apply to OPT recommendations issued on or after the effective date, which DHS proposes to set 60 days after publication of a final rule.
The timing would separate earlier activity from later requests:
- A student already approved for OPT before the effective date would be protected under the proposal.
- A recommendation issued before that date would also be protected.
- A later OPT request would fall under the fee provisions if the proposal becomes final.
- For the first covered recommendation, a school would owe the initial $70,000 even if the student had taken part in OPT before, provided the initial fee had not previously been paid. The later $30,000 charge would apply after payment of the initial fee.
DHS is also considering whether to charge the initial amount again if a student moves to a higher educational level and seeks another OPT period. That is an alternative under consideration, not the proposal’s baseline rule.
Schools may pass costs on as students and employers face uncertainty
The legal payment obligation would sit with schools, but the practical burden could spread. DHS acknowledges that institutions may seek funding from students, employers or other sources. It has not required schools to absorb the full charge themselves.
That leaves students facing uncertainty about whether schools would keep recommending them for OPT or pass costs along. Employers recruiting graduates through OPT could also face a smaller pool of candidates or new costs in arrangements with schools. Those are possible effects, not outcomes DHS has established.
DHS estimates that 2,478 schools would be affected and puts annual economic costs at $4.1 billion. Separately, DHS estimates annual fees of $8.4 billion to $16.5 billion, with a primary estimate of $12.4 billion. The $4.1 billion figure is an estimate of economic costs, not the total of fees transferred to the Treasury. The payment structure could influence decisions by schools, students and employers, but the proposal does not establish how they will respond.
DHS says the fees are intended to address fraud and abuse, encourage stronger school oversight and protect U.S. workers. A DHS spokesperson said:
“Optional Practical Training was never meant to be a back door into the American workforce, a subsidy for cheap labor, or a prize for those who game the system,” and “DHS is upskilling OPT to require foreign students to justify their worth to employers. American workers should not have to compete against a program that has been turned into a pipeline for cheap foreign labor.”
The proposal also says the fees would be deposited in the Treasury. Whether the charges would meaningfully reduce fraud remains a question raised about the proposal, rather than a result already demonstrated.
The proposal names no Democratic challenger or post-election timetable
The proposal does not identify a Democratic challenger, specify which midterms the headline refers to or set out a post-election strategy. It invites public comments, and DHS says it may revise the rule after reviewing them. That process does not establish a partisan plan.
DHS cites INA 214(a) among the authorities for its proposed action. The rule does not describe that provision as the basis for a Democratic challenge, or name a legal or political route Democrats would take.
A legal analysis predicts a court challenge if the fees are finalized, pointing to their size and their deposit into the Treasury. That prediction is not a filed lawsuit and does not identify Democratic plaintiffs. No Democratic challenge is specified in the proposed rule.
Comments go to the federal docket on two separate deadlines
People and organizations wishing to weigh in can submit comments through regulations.gov under Docket No. ICEB-2026-0100. The rulemaking notice is available in the Federal Register.
The deadlines and steps are:
- Submit comments on the proposed rule by November 9, 2026. The Federal Register notice says comments must be received by that date, while a law firm advisory gives November 7, 2026, as the deadline; the official November 9 date governs.
- Identify the part of the rule being addressed, explain the recommendation and provide supporting information.
- Send comments on the information collection separately by December 7, 2026, and include OMB Control Number 1653-0038.
- Follow the docket for posted comments and any final rule.
The information-collection deadline is distinct from the deadline for comments on the proposed rule. DHS may revise the proposal after considering comments; if it issues a final rule, the proposed 60-day period would determine when the fee requirements begin.
