America Trains the World’s Best STEM Talent. Why Make Them Leave?
The United States’ ability to attract and retain the world’s most talented scientists, engineers, and other highly skilled workers has long been an important source of its economic and technological strength. International students are particularly important to this talent pipeline, especially in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), where they earn a substantial share of advanced U.S. degrees. Yet, despite their importance to U.S. competitiveness, the U.S. immigration system often makes it difficult for these graduates to remain in the country after completing their education.
Most recently, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed to make that pathway considerably more expensive by requiring universities to pay $70,000 before initially recommending an F-1 student—a foreign national studying in the United States on a student visa—for Optional Practical Training (OPT). The proposal could make universities less willing to recommend students for OPT and make the United States a less attractive destination for top international students. While OPT itself needs reform, given the growing concerns about fraud in the program, a $70,000 fee isn’t the answer. Instead, policymakers should pursue targeted reforms that strengthen program integrity while preserving opportunities for legitimate participants. Such measures could include audits of employers that show signs of engaging in fraudulent activities, more rigorous verification procedures, and improved data matching to identify and prevent fraudulent activity.
International students contribute to the U.S. economy in part by supplying STEM talent that is critical to many of the nation’s most strategically important industries. National Science Foundation (NSF) data show that temporary visa holders earn a substantial share of U.S. graduate STEM degrees. In 2024, temporary visa holders earned 58 percent of all U.S. doctorates in computer and information sciences and 51 percent of engineering doctorates. These are precisely the types of skills the United States needs to compete in advanced industries such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, biotechnology, and advanced manufacturing.
High-skilled immigrants can also generate benefits that extend beyond filling STEM jobs. Research has found strong relationships between high-skilled immigration and U.S. innovation. One study using state-level patent and H-1B data, for example, found a strong positive relationship between the number of H-1B workers and patents issued in a state. More recent research examining changes in industries’ exposure to H-1B workers also finds benefits for American workers. Researchers studying the long-run effects of H-1B immigration found that a 1 percentage point increase in an industry’s exposure to H-1B workers raises the long-run income of college-educated U.S.-born workers in non-STEM occupations by about 1.2 percent.
The benefits also spread to downstream industries through supply chains, a pattern the researchers find consistent with H-1B workers generating productivity gains. In other words, allowing highly skilled international graduates to remain and work in the United States can benefit not just the immigrants themselves but also American workers and the broader economy.
OPT currently plays an important, if imperfect, role in keeping many of these graduates in the United States. The program was designed to allow international students to gain practical work experience directly related to their fields of study. It also gives employers an opportunity to assess their skills and determine whether to sponsor them for an H-1B visa. Most F-1 students can receive up to 12 months of OPT, while graduates in qualifying STEM fields can receive an additional 24-month extension.
However, DHS’s proposed $70,000 fee could make that pathway prohibitively expensive without creating an alternative. Under the proposal, a university would have to pay $70,000 before initially recommending an F-1 student for OPT and another $30,000 for a subsequent recommendation. For a STEM graduate using an initial OPT period followed by a STEM extension, the fees could therefore reach $100,000. Faced with costs of that magnitude, many universities would be unwilling to recommend students for OPT, and many students would be unable to shoulder the cost themselves.
The practical consequence could be that talented graduates who would otherwise remain in the United States instead take their skills elsewhere. The AI prodigy from India, the semiconductor engineer from Taiwan, or the biotechnology researcher from Europe may choose not to build his or her career in the United States if remaining here is too expensive, difficult, and uncertain. Moreover, U.S. universities could also suffer as fewer international students choose to study in the United States given the challenges of gaining postgraduation work experience.
That does not mean policymakers should preserve OPT in its current form. DHS has legitimate concerns about abuse of the program. Over the years, investigations have uncovered cases of fraudulent employment arrangements in which shell companies provided international students with falsified job offers and employment verification documents, allowing them to remain in the United States without engaging in legitimate practical training.
For instance, in 2020, a businesswoman was sentenced for conspiracy to commit visa fraud after providing false employment documents to approximately 2,693 foreign nationals seeking to remain in the United States on F-1 or H-1B visas. More recently, DHS reported identifying over 10,000 OPT participants working for highly suspicious employers. Such cases highlight weaknesses in the program’s oversight and the need for reforms that ensure OPT serves its intended purpose of providing legitimate, field-related work experience rather than facilitating immigration fraud.
To retain talent while addressing fraud, policymakers should first withdraw the proposed $70,000 OPT fee and instead pursue targeted reforms that address fraud without discouraging legitimate participation in the program. For instance, DHS could conduct employer audits that prioritize companies exhibiting signs of suspicious activity, such as employing unusually large numbers of OPT participants relative to their size or operating out of unverifiable business addresses. Policymakers should also strengthen employment verification requirements to ensure that participating employers are legitimate businesses and that students are engaged in work directly related to their fields of study. For example, employers could be required to provide verifiable business registration information and confirm that students’ job responsibilities offer legitimate practical training opportunities.
Finally, federal agencies could improve data matching by cross-checking employment information across immigration, tax, and other government records to identify discrepancies that may indicate fraudulent activity. For example, agencies could compare reported employment information with available payroll and tax records to flag cases in which students claim to work for companies with no corresponding evidence of employment. Together, these measures would help preserve the program’s intended benefits while addressing opportunities for abuse without imposing unnecessary costs on legitimate employers, universities, and international students.
Such reforms are particularly important as the United States faces growing international competition for the very talent that OPT helps attract and retain. Indeed, other countries are actively trying to attract the same scientists and engineers. Canada has launched a C$1.7 billion initiative intended to attract foreign scientists while also encouraging Canadian researchers working abroad to return home. France’s €100 million Choose France for Science initiative was also launched to attract top researchers working abroad. In May 2025, the European Commission also announced a €500 million initiative aimed at making Europe a global “magnet for researchers.” China has also introduced a new visa aimed at attracting young foreign science and technology talent. These policies reflect a broader reality: Countries increasingly recognize scientific and technical talent as a strategic economic resource.
Such reforms would better protect the integrity of the immigration system without driving away the very scientists and engineers the United States needs. At a time when countries around the world are spending billions to attract high-skilled talent, the United States should not respond by charging its own universities $100,000—$70,000 for initial OPT and another $30,000 for a STEM extension—to keep the talent already studying here.
