Rice at Brown University: Iraq War Reflections, AI, and Visas

(BROWN UNIVERSITY, PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND) Condoleezza Rice used a campus forum at Brown University on November 5, 2025 to link the lessons of the Iraq War with today’s debates over artificial intelligence and the United States’ tightening rules for international student visas, as the Ivy League institution steps up opposition to a proposed federal policy change it says would push talent away from American universities. In a conversation moderated by Brown President Christina H. Paxson, the former national security advisor and secretary of state reflected on foreign policy at a moment of renewed conflict abroad and rising concern on U.S. campuses over how new visa rules could reshape research and workforce pipelines.

Rice, whose tenure in the George W. Bush administration was defined in part by the Iraq War, spoke about how her own path into diplomacy began long before she served in the Cabinet.

“Josef Korbel opened up the world of diplomacy, things international, the Soviet Union — and all of a sudden, I knew what I wanted to be. I wanted to be somebody who lived in and worked in that world,” she said, recalling an early academic turning point that set her on a path from student to senior policymaker.

She described that pivot as a personal course correction from a different ambition altogether.

“I started out life as a piano performance major, and it was my plan not to be Henry Kissinger, but to be Van Cliburn… And that summer I went to the Aspen Music Festival and met 12-year-olds who could play from sight everything that it had taken me all year to learn.”

Her appearance drew students and faculty at Brown University who wanted to hear about decisions made during the Iraq War and how those choices inform U.S. strategy amid current crises, including the violence in Israel and Gaza and the war in Afghanistan. Rice did not dwell on the past alone. She also touched on the fast-moving spread of artificial intelligence across national security and economic life, citing her experience at the intersection of policy and technology. She serves on the board of C3.ai, an AI software company, and leads the Hoover Institution, which has made technology policy research a core theme of its work. Those roles, she suggested, have kept her focused on how democracies confront new tools that can both bolster and threaten their competitiveness.

The timing and location of the event gave added weight to the U.S. immigration questions looming over campuses in 2025. Brown has become one of the most outspoken universities opposing a Department of Homeland Security proposal to end the long-standing “duration of status” system for students and scholars on F, J and I visas. Under the proposal, the federal government would replace open-ended status periods tied to academic progress with fixed admission terms of up to four years and limit changes of academic program or field of study. The plan also calls for reapplication for status extensions, new biometric checks, and tighter rules that university leaders say would force students into repeated, costly filings while creating new risks of falling out of status mid-degree.

In a formal letter to DHS, Brown’s associate provost for global engagement, Asabe Poloma, warned that the change would damage higher education and the broader economy.

“These changes would deter talented individuals from choosing the United States as a destination for study and scholarship, undermining the competitiveness of American higher education, weakening the research innovation enterprise and disrupting workforce pipelines in critical areas of national need,” Poloma wrote on September 29, 2025.

The university has argued that these students are often the researchers powering labs, the teaching assistants supporting core classes, and the early-career professionals who fill shortages in engineering, data science, and health fields central to U.S. competitiveness.

That stance reflects practical problems already surfacing on campus. As of August 28, 2025, Brown University reported that about 15 international students were facing difficulties obtaining visas to study in the United States. Administrators say the cases illustrate the rising costs and delays students encounter when consular processing slows or when policy shifts ripple across agencies. While not every problem is connected to the pending DHS rule, university officials point to the cumulative effect of tighter travel bans and visa restrictions imposed this year, which have upended plans for students from several countries and placed added strain on international offices that help students manage their status.

Rice, whose career bridges foreign policy and university leadership, spoke to an audience keenly aware of how immigration flows shape research universities. Her presence at Brown University also underscored a broader coalition forming among schools. Brown and Rice University have publicly voiced support for their international student communities in 2025 and urged policy reversals where new rules have made study in the United States harder. The two institutions, which share a name with different origins—Rice University in Texas and Brown University in Rhode Island—now share an advocacy push centered on keeping top students in American labs and classrooms. The argument is straightforward, they say: at a time when the U.S. wants to lead in AI and other advanced technologies, visa policies should not create friction that drives talent to Canada, Europe, or Asia.

Students, faculty and alumni at the event drew a line between Rice’s national security experience and the campus debate over how the United States competes for minds. The Iraq War, which recast U.S. alliances and strained the military, remains a cautionary tale about unintended consequences. In the same vein, technologists argue that restricting lawful, high-skill mobility can produce strategic setbacks that benefit rival economies. Rice’s own portfolio in recent years—at Hoover and in the private sector—has centered on that intersection. Supporters of the DHS proposal say clearer time limits could improve compliance and integrity in student programs. Brown’s leadership counters that the existing “duration of status” framework already gives the government tools to remove those who abuse the system, without ensnaring compliant students who need time to finish complex degrees or change majors once.

The practical changes in the proposal would be felt in daily campus life, according to Brown officials. Fixed four-year admission periods would require many Ph.D. candidates to apply for extensions mid-program, adding legal and filing costs, while master’s students who shift into research roles could face disrupted timelines. International scholars on J visas, who often rotate through labs, would see more frequent checks and less flexibility to reconfigure projects. The proposal’s biometric requirements would introduce new appointments and longer waits, further complicating an already intricate process. Although DHS has not finalized the rule, universities are treating it as a call to register their objections now to avoid what they view as a preventable barrier to study and research.

The campus conversation also examined how new controls could interact with the U.S. strategic push on artificial intelligence and other dual-use technologies. Rice’s board seat at C3.ai and her leadership at Hoover placed her squarely in discussions about national security and critical infrastructure, which rely on advanced computing, algorithmic tools, and the data-rich environments that universities provide. She was invited to Brown precisely because the school is weighing how to remain open to the world while managing security risks that have grown more complex since the Iraq War era. For Paxson, who moderated the discussion and has steered Brown through multiple policy headwinds, the stakes are not abstract: the people affected are students sitting in classrooms just steps from where Rice spoke.

Audience members heard Rice weave her personal story into that wider debate about the United States as a magnet for talent.

“Josef Korbel opened up the world of diplomacy, things international, the Soviet Union — and all of a sudden, I knew what I wanted to be. I wanted to be somebody who lived in and worked in that world,” she said, connecting an early mentor’s influence to the reason many students choose U.S. schools today.

That sense of possibility is what universities fear could diminish if a maze of new hurdles deters applicants. Poloma’s warning—

“These changes would deter talented individuals from choosing the United States as a destination for study and scholarship, undermining the competitiveness of American higher education, weakening the research innovation enterprise and disrupting workforce pipelines in critical areas of national need”—
has been echoed in campus statements and faculty letters across disciplines that depend on steady international enrollment.

Brown’s opposition comes amid a year marked by new travel bans and visa restrictions that have already changed who can attend U.S. universities, and how easily. The number of students caught in administrative delays at Brown—about 15 as of late summer—may seem small for a university of its size, but administrators say each case represents months of uncertainty. Some incoming students defer or alter their plans; others lose funding tied to specific start dates. For lab-based disciplines, even brief absences can slow experiments, delay publications, and disrupt complex research teams built over years. The pattern is what worries Brown and peer institutions: a policy regime that, taken together, tilts against the kind of continuity that high-level research—and national competitiveness in AI and other fields—requires.

Rice’s visit also reminded the Brown University audience that big debates about strategy and policy ultimately rest on the decisions of individuals. Her candid remark about leaving behind a music career—

“I started out life as a piano performance major, and it was my plan not to be Henry Kissinger, but to be Van Cliburn… And that summer I went to the Aspen Music Festival and met 12-year-olds who could play from sight everything that it had taken me all year to learn”—
drew laughter, but it also framed a point. Academic paths evolve. Students change majors. Research priorities shift. Universities say that a visa system that anticipates change and supports it will be more resilient than one that freezes students into rigid timelines at odds with how higher education actually works.

Policy advocates on campus are directing comments to Washington while continuing to support students already affected by slowdowns. Brown officials have encouraged those navigating status issues to work closely with the university’s international office and to monitor updates from the U.S. government. The Department of Homeland Security has published information about visa and status rules on its website, and universities are urging students to consult official guidance as proposals move through the regulatory process. For authoritative updates on federal policy, readers can visit the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Rice closed her Brown appearance with the same blend of personal reflection and policy focus that framed the event. The audience came to hear about the Iraq War and stayed to consider how the United States should balance openness with security in the age of AI. For Brown’s leaders, the immediate concern is clear: stopping a DHS rule they believe would burden F, J, and I visa holders with fixed four-year timelines, new biometrics, and stricter controls on switching fields. For students, the worry is simpler still. They want to be sure that the country they chose for study will make it possible to complete their degrees, contribute to research, and, for some, stay and work in jobs at the frontier of innovation.

The convergence of issues—Rice on the world stage, Brown University pushing back on visa limits, and a policy debate with real consequences for labs and classrooms—gave the evening unusual urgency. It was a reminder that immigration policy is not a distant legal code but a set of rules that determine who gets to be in the room. As the United States competes in areas from AI to biomedical research, the people in those rooms will help decide whether the next decade looks more like a period of confident discovery or a time when the country cedes ground to places that make it easier to study, work, and stay. On this campus in Providence, that choice felt immediate—and, as Rice suggested in her reflections, shaped by decisions made one student, one program, and one policy at a time.