A Turning Point for International Students: DHS Eyes Overhaul of Visa Rules
“If this rule really passes, I don’t think anyone should bother coming to the U.S. to study anymore. The uncertainty and sunk costs are just too great.”
That’s how Lili, a PhD student in sociology of education at the University of Southern California, put it in an interview with Chinatown Spotlight.
On August 28, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a draft rule targeting international students. The proposal would eliminate the long-standing “Duration of Status” (D/S) system and replace it with a fixed stay period of up to four years, after which students would need to apply for an extension. At the same time, the post-graduation grace period would be cut from 60 to 30 days, and work permits under OPT (Optional Practical Training) and STEM OPT would face stricter reviews.
On the surface, the draft simply scraps the D/S model in favor of a fixed four-year stay. But the changes could drastically reshape the academic paths of international students in the U.S.
The draft is currently open for public comment until September 29, 11:59 p.m. EST. As of now, more than 9,000 comments had been submitted—most opposing the proposal and urging DHS to withdraw it.
Graduate student unions at universities like the University of Chicago and University of Michigan are calling on international students to file objections to stop the rule from taking effect.
Screenshot of the U.S. government regulations public comment website: as of September 17, the draft had received 9,171 comments.
How the new rule would affect students
1. Higher risk of maintaining status
Under the new regulation, if students need to extend their studies, they must submit Form I-539 to the immigration office to apply for an extension of stay (EOS). This is not only an additional procedure, but also means that if the immigration officer decides the reason is insufficient, the application can be directly rejected.
Nowadays, extending one’s studies at various stages of education is not uncommon, but under the new regulation, if the immigration officer considers the reason insufficient, it could lead to an interruption of studies and failure to obtain a degree.
Doctoral students, with their long programs, would be especially vulnerable. Nearly all of them would need to apply for an EOS mid-way, yet the process can take months or even over a year. While applicants may keep on-campus jobs for 240 days while waiting, if approval doesn’t come in time, many PhD students risk losing essential teaching or research assistant positions that support them.
2. Higher risk when changing programs
Currently, transitioning between programs—like from high school to undergrad, or bachelor’s to master’s—requires only an update in the SEVIS system.
Under the new rule, students staying beyond four years would need to file I-539, or risk accruing unlawful presence. A safer option would be to leave the U.S. and reapply from abroad—costly in both time and money.
3. Restrictions on changing majors
The draft bans undergraduates from switching majors in their first year, and bars graduate students from switching majors altogether. Students would also be unable to pursue dual degrees or add a second major after enrolling.
4. Complications with OPT
Currently, bachelor’s graduates automatically receive 12 months of OPT, with STEM students eligible for a 36-month extension. Under the new rule, graduates would still be able to apply for OPT, but would also need to file I-539 to ensure status coverage. Because I-539 processing is slow and uncertain, any denial or delay could invalidate their OPT—even if they had a job lined up.
Therefore, although the new policy does not directly change the H-1B rules, in the overall environment of tightening immigration policies, any additional procedures almost all mean greater risks and pressure.
5. “Second Master’s” pathway blocked
The rule requires degrees to be earned in strict sequence: bachelor’s to master’s, master’s to PhD. This closes off the option of pursuing a second master’s degree, whether for career shifts or simply personal choice.
6. Harsher review environment
Even students who steer clear of politics could be caught in the crossfire. Earlier this year, the Trump administration even sought to strip Harvard of its ability to enroll international students, citing “failure to combat antisemitism.” The Supreme Court eventually struck this down, but cases like this leave students worried about arbitrary scrutiny under a new, stricter system.
Tepid response from universities
International students’ position in the U.S. had already begun to deteriorate during Trump’s first term, amid political shifts to the right and growing anti-globalization sentiment.
From 2017 to 2020, rumors of tighter F-1 and OPT policies circulated constantly. In September 2020, a nearly identical proposal to end D/S was floated, sparking swift protests and more than 30,000 public comments that stalled the rule until Trump left office.
This time, however, mobilization has been far weaker. By mid-September—halfway through the comment period—only about 9,000 comments had been submitted.
At Northwestern University, graduate student Zhang Ling told reporters:
“Unlike during the pandemic, when online visa rules were rolled back and everyone was up in arms, this time people seem quiet. Either they haven’t noticed, or they’ve given up hope of making a difference.”
Universities, too, have been muted. As of press time, only a handful—Cornell, Yale, Boston University, and the University of Washington—had issued notices or held information sessions. None had taken a public stance against the rule. Yale responded promptly on August 28, publishing an explainer and hosting a Q&A for students, but such efforts remain rare.
Chinatown Spotlight reached out to the University of Chicago, Northwestern, University of Illinois Chicago, and DePaul for comment but received no reply.
Zhang Ling expressed frustration: “Universities don’t have much leverage on immigration policy, and with budget cuts, they’re struggling themselves. Most legal services they provide are very generic and not much help to us.”
At present, the stance of the school is also related to the political background of its leadership. Lili added that at her own school, when classmates asked the international office about the draft rule, staff dismissed the concern: “They told us it hasn’t taken effect yet, so there’s no need to explain anything. That’s practically tacit support. After all, our new president is conservative.”
Despite the bleak mood, many students still hope to build their futures in the U.S. Xiaofang, who just earned his PhD in Chicago and is heading to Hong Kong for a postdoc, admitted he’d like to return to the U.S. for research someday: “The system has problems, but the academic environment is still very strong, with excellent scholars.”
Beyond academics, personal belonging also matters: “I’ve lived here for years. I’m already disconnected from China’s academic world.” added Xiaofang.
Lili, who has long studied comparative education between the U.S. and China, said this sense of belonging could help international students break the “outsider mindset” imposed by immigration policy.
“Many international students spend a third or even half of their lives here. In many ways, they’re already part of the community. But keeping silent reinforces the stereotype that we’re just ‘cash cows.’ ”
In her research and observations, the integration of international students into the local community is not without social foundation. “In fact, quite a number of local people, especially second-generation immigrants, are very supportive of us. They just do not necessarily understand our situation. We actually can explore outward more and participate in the community.”
From openness to restriction: a historical turning point
U.S. policy on international students has never been static.
In the autumn of 1957, Cho-yun Hsu, who later became a well-known historian, boarded a cargo ship departing from Keelung, underwent a long voyage of 57 days, and finally arrived in the United States to study at the University of Chicago.
Just before Hsu’s departure, in 1953, the United States passed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which for the first time included foreign students in a clearly defined non-immigrant visa category. This system became the prototype of the F-1 visa and later evolved into the core channel for international students to study and work in the U.S.
The D/S system was introduced in 1978 and became standard nationwide in the early 1990s.
During this period, exchanges between China and the U.S. in study abroad also continuously intensified. In 1979, after the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the U.S., the first group of 52 rigorously selected government-sponsored students was sent to the U.S. Subsequently, the CUSPEA program promoted by physicist Tsung-Dao Lee sent nearly a thousand Chinese students to the U.S. for doctoral studies over ten years.
In the early 1980s, the United States shifted from manufacturing to a knowledge-based industry, increasing the demand for high-tech talent. The OPT system was introduced, allowing international students to work in the U.S. for one year after graduation. At the same time, self-funded study abroad from China gradually emerged, and large numbers of science and engineering graduates entered Silicon Valley and East Coast tech parks through OPT.
However, the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 became a turning point. For security reasons, in 2003 the U.S. fully implemented the SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System), requiring universities to report international student status in real time.
In the short term, administrative reviews became a shared memory for many Chinese students. In a 2023 post discussing “students from twenty years ago” in a new Unnamed Space, some netizens recalled collectively that “in the two years just after 9/11, the U.S. rejected 90% of visas, and Canada 70%.”
But as the system matured, reviews became “targeted” rather than “one-size-fits-all,” and the situation gradually eased. Strong appeals from universities and research institutions also pushed policy implementation toward pragmatism, as the U.S. did not want to lose large numbers of international talents due to excessive review.
After the 2008 financial crisis, attracting and retaining STEM talent became a national strategy. Against this backdrop, the Obama administration extended OPT to three years, providing science and engineering graduates with a more generous employment window, benefiting a large number of Chinese and other international students, and directly driving the development of the U.S. technology industry.
Now, with Trump back in office and nationalist, anti-immigrant forces resurgent, the “golden era” of international study in the U.S. appears to be ending, replaced by yet another winter.
Author: Bingzhu
Names like Lili, Zhang Ling, and Xiaofang are pseudonyms, per interviewees’ request.
Reference：
https://www.regulations.gov/document/ICEB-2025-0001-0001
https://www.regulations.gov/document/ICEB-2019-0006-0001
https://newmitbbs.com/viewtopic.php?t=163717&sid=cb0e207c22d676f42238ec13157cd93f