Comment on proposed changes to Optional Practical Training (OPT)

The Honorable Markwayne Mullin
Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, DC 20528

Re: Optional Practical Training Fees
DHS Docket No. ICEB-2026-0100
RIN 1653-AB01
OMB Control Number 1653-0038

Dear Secretary Mullin:

On behalf of the more than 50,000 members of the American Physical Society (APS) — the largest physics membership organization in the United States — we are writing to express our opposition to the proposed changes to Optional Practical Training (OPT) and STEM OPT policies outlined in DHS Docket No. ICEB-2026-0100, titled “Optional Practical Training Fees.”

Applying a $70,000 fee to OPT and additional $30,000 fee (aggregate $100,000 fee) to STEM OPT, paid by a student’s university, would functionally sever a critical talent pipeline for the U.S. science and technology enterprise and damage the American economic engine. Forcing high-skilled, U.S.-trained graduates in critical fields, including quantum science and artificial intelligence, to leave our country and pursue careers in competitor nations is counterproductive and will erode U.S. leadership in science, technology, and innovation.

While APS has many concerns about the proposed rule regarding legal and procedural issues, as well as unresolved questions around how university-paid fees would be implemented, we will focus on the impact to the physics community and associated economic consequences. As this comment will detail, the impact on the United States would be dire. For the last several decades, the United States has been a premier destination for international students studying STEM. These talented students are attracted by the opportunity to study and conduct research at our world-class universities. OPT serves as an extremely effective means for both attracting and retaining these talented students upon graduation.

With nearly half of all U.S. physics PhD graduates being foreign-born,1 three quarters of them remaining in the U.S. after graduation, and more than 80% using OPT, we stand to lose nearly one third of all U.S.-trained physics PhDs after graduation if this proposed rule is finalized.

Our innovation-driven economy has created workforce demands that cannot fully be met by our domestic talent supply. While many organizations, including APS, are working to increase the domestic STEM talent pool, foreign-born students remain a crucial source of additional talent. There are urgent workforce gaps for physics-relevant fields, including quantum science and technology, semiconductor manufacturing,2 and artificial intelligence.3 In quantum industries, for example, there were three times more job postings in 2023 than quantum-skilled graduates.4 Even doubling the number of U.S.-born graduates would not fill all open roles. Increasing the domestic talent pool is a years-long process that starts at the K-12 level. If we cannot retain foreign-born graduates, we will fail to close today’s pressing workforce gaps for leading-edge research and technology development.

OPT, and especially STEM OPT, is an important incentive for attracting international talent to the U.S. When polling prospective students abroad, a 2025 survey5 by NAFSA: Association of International Educators found that the number of students wanting to study in the U.S. dropped by 29% when asked whether they would still want to come if OPT/STEM OPT were eliminated. When it comes to retention of foreign-born, U.S.-trained talent, OPT is potentially the best tool we currently have. A 2026 survey6 by the Institute for Progress found that for current F-1 STEM PhD students, under the proposed $70,000 fee for 12-month OPT and $30,000 fee for the STEM extension, only 13% would likely try to stay, down from 80% under current rules.

Between 2022 and 2024, survey data7 of physics PhD graduates one year after graduation show that over three quarters of foreign-born physics PhD recipients were still in the U.S., and more than 80% were on OPT. OPT serves as the critical bridge for newly minted physics PhDs who pursue postdoctoral research at a university or who choose to work in industry, giving new graduates time to explore different career paths within their field, and giving employers time to work on sponsorship of longer-term work visas.8

After graduating, many physicists go on to work in diverse sectors beyond academia, working for employers ranging from small start-ups to the country’s largest companies for technology, biomedical work, defense, and more. Of physics PhD graduates surveyed in the last five years, 71% were working in industry.9 OPT is used by U.S. employers to keep domestically trained international talent in the United States, where their innovations and contributions to the economy directly benefit our country rather than competitor nations. Trained students staying in the U.S. directly contribute to the health, wealth, and national security needs of America.

Being a destination of choice for international talent has resulted in enormous benefits for the United States. Innovative immigrants from around the world who came to the U.S. first as international students have contributed to dozens of Nobel Prize-winning discoveries10 and launched roughly a quarter of billion-dollar companies.11, 12 Our ability to attract and retain the best talent, regardless of where they are born, is essential to America’s preeminence in science, technology, and innovation.

Given the priority the administration places on many physics-relevant critical and emerging technology fields, APS is confident that retaining physics PhDs in the U.S. workforce is a national priority, and that PhD-level graduates are “highly qualified.” However, the proposed rule puts these graduates’ universities in an impossible position. DHS claims that institutions can absorb or selectively fund the proposed fees for their "most qualified" graduates. However, public and non-profit universities operate under strict budget constraints, as well as state and federal statutes and regulations. Taxpayer appropriations, research grants, and tuition funds cannot lawfully or ethically be redirected to subsidize individual post-graduation employment fees for selected alumni. In practice, universities will simply be forced to eliminate international student participation in post-graduate training entirely.

Applying an aggregate $100,000 fee to STEM OPT would cause a sustained reduction in the inflow of U.S-trained foreign STEM workers into the U.S. labor force, even if international demand for U.S. training remained constant. This drop would hurt Americans — a recent economic analysis found that a reduction of one third in the annual flow of foreign STEM graduates at US universities would reduce the overall number of high-skill STEM workers in the United States by 6.2% and STEM PhD workers by 11.4%, reducing annual productivity growth in the U.S. economy by 3 to 6%.13 Crippling OPT is tipping a domino that will ripple through the whole US economy.

We ask again that you withdraw this rule change to preserve the integrity of our nation’s scientific and innovation ecosystem. Our ability to retain the best and brightest from around the world, and allow them to pursue scientific careers, is at the heart of U.S. economic competitiveness and national security. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,