US States decry four-year study visa plan as illogical and flawed

Sixteen state attorneys general and major higher education groups are urging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to drop a proposed rule that would end the longstanding “duration of status” for F-1 and J-1 students and replace it with fixed time limits. The proposal, published on August 28, 2025, would cap most international students’ stays at four years and require a new extension of status (EOS) application for additional time. The rule remains a proposal; as of October 17, 2025, no final rule has been issued and nothing has changed for current students.

Under the plan, DHS would replace the D/S policy—which lets students remain in the United States 🇺🇸 as long as they maintain full-time status—with set terms and tighter controls on school transfers and program changes. English study would be capped at 24 months, and the post-completion grace period would drop from 60 days to 30 days. DHS says the change is meant to fight fraud. Critics counter that schools already report student status and progress through SEVIS and that DHS has not shown that fixed terms would reduce abuse.

The public comment window lasted 30 days and closed on September 29, 2025. State attorneys general from California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and 12 others called the plan “illogical” and “arbitrary and capricious,” warning it would hurt students, campuses, and local economies. The American Council on Education (ACE), joined by 53 associations, urged DHS to withdraw the rule, saying it would “severely disrupt the academic careers of international students.” According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the opposition reflects deep worries about adding red tape to an already complex area of student immigration.

Policy changes — key elements

The proposed framework would impose a general four-year limit for F-1 and J-1 participants, with any extra time dependent on DHS approval through a new EOS process. DHS has not set guaranteed timelines, and the rule provides no appeal rights if an extension is denied. That uncertainty alarms university officials who say delays could push students out of status mid-degree, especially those in PhD and medical tracks that commonly run beyond four years.

Other core elements include:

• DHS approval required for school transfers or program changes, adding steps beyond current campus-level approvals.
• English language study capped at 24 months, limiting longer language pathways tied to degree entry.
• Grace period cut to 30 days after program completion, compressing time for next steps like Optional Practical Training (OPT) applications or departure planning.
• New reporting and tracking burdens on schools, which already manage SEVIS records and compliance checks.

Opponents note the proposal mismatches academic timelines: only 34% of all college students—domestic and international—finish undergraduate degrees within four years, and many graduate and doctoral programs take seven or more years. For those students, the forced extension of status application could occur mid-research or mid-dissertation, with unclear processing times and no appeal, increasing the risk of disruption or forced departure.

Impact on applicants, institutions, and local economies

State leaders say the rule would discourage international students from choosing U.S. institutions, harming global competitiveness and slashing tuition revenue that supports domestic students.

• Economic impacts cited:
  • International students contributed $6.4 billion to California’s economy and supported over 55,000 jobs in the 2023–2024 academic year (California filing).
  • DHS estimates the proposal would cost schools nearly $90 million nationally.
  • NAFSA projects existing visa limits—without this rule—are already set to cut $7 billion from the U.S. economy and cost 60,000 jobs.
• Legal and policy objections:
  • Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul: “The Trump administration’s proposal would harm our institutions of higher education and our economy,” and would burden international students and reduce U.S. competitiveness.
  • California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the plan a “direct threat” to campuses, the state’s economy, and the diversity that strengthens communities.

Universities warn that shifting from the D/S policy to fixed terms would create “unnecessary bureaucracy” and “massive backlogs” in the EOS process, leaving students and campuses stuck waiting.

Operational and academic ripple effects

Universities fear broader ripple effects if international enrollments fall:

• Course offerings, advising services, and housing options could be reduced.
• Institutions would need to hire more staff to manage:
  1. EOS extension requests,
  2. DHS approvals for transfers,
  3. New reporting requirements.
• Students could face higher costs and compressed timelines for OPT, postgraduate study, or travel due to a shortened 30-day grace period.

Critics argue DHS has not demonstrated how ending D/S would improve compliance beyond existing tools. Schools already report enrollment, program changes, and progress through SEVIS, and DHS can enforce against bad actors. Opponents say the proposal would add friction for compliant students while offering little new leverage against actual violators.

Next steps, current status, and recommended actions

As the comment record now sits with DHS, the agency can revise, withdraw, or finalize the rule. If finalized, it would take effect after a set period following publication—often 30–60 days—but no effective date has been announced. For now:

• The current D/S policy remains in place.
• There is no change to how schools manage SEVIS records today.
• No new extension application (EOS) exists at this time.

Students and schools tracking the proposal can review it on the Federal Register. Stakeholders suggest these practical planning steps:

1. Keep copies of enrollment records and program timelines that show on-time progress.
2. For students in long programs, plan for the possibility of an extension of status request if the rule is finalized.
3. For academic advisors, map degree milestones against a four-year cap and identify cohorts most at risk of mid-program extensions.
4. For campus international offices, prepare communications that explain the EOS process if it launches, while noting that nothing has changed yet.

Advocacy groups argue the short 30-day comment period limited feedback on such a far-reaching change. They also note the risks to research labs and hospitals that depend on graduate researchers and residents, many of whom exceed four years. If delays develop in the EOS process, labs could pause projects and hospitals could face staffing gaps, potentially pushing students close to status loss with no appeal if an extension is denied.

Guidance for students, advisors, and prospective applicants

• Prospective students: watch for DHS updates and be ready for extra paperwork if the rule is finalized.
• Current students: maintain full-time enrollment and follow your Designated School Official’s instructions.
• Campus offices: continue normal SEVIS procedures and begin contingency planning for EOS-related staffing and communications.

ACE and partner associations urge DHS to maintain the flexibility that has anchored U.S. higher education’s appeal for decades, noting the existing system allows enforcement while letting serious students finish their studies. Whether DHS revises the proposal or moves forward as written will shape international education on campuses and in communities across the country.