For nearly half a century, the federal government encouraged international students and scholars to study in the U.S. by allowing them to stay for the duration of their training — regardless of how many years it took. The Trump administration now plans to tear up that long-standing policy, fueling concerns in the research community that the U.S. could lose out on talented foreign scientists. 

In mid-July, the Department of Homeland Security announced that future international students and postdoctoral researchers will be allowed to stay in the U.S. for no more than four years on nonimmigrant visas unless they apply for and receive an extension from DHS. Those already in the U.S. won’t need an extension if their training is set to end before September 2030, even if they’ve already been in the country for more than four years.

The department has said the change, which takes effect Sept. 15, is necessary to prevent “forever students,” who they allege manipulate the current system by enrolling in courses to avoid leaving the U.S. But immigration experts, academics, and advocates for students and postdocs warn the stricter policy will harm the nation’s scientific standing by deterring internationals, who made up nearly a quarter of life science Ph.D. graduates and 59% of postdocs in 2023, from coming to the U.S. for training.

The average biomedical Ph.D. takes five to six years to complete, meaning a majority of incoming foreign graduate students would need to apply for DHS extensions to complete their work. And while the length of postdoctoral appointments is more variable than graduate training, National Science Foundation survey data indicate that about a fifth of postdocs are likely to have worked in that role for more than six years.

“This rule puts the U.S. at risk of losing key individuals to global competitors,” said Thomas Kimbis, CEO of the National Postdoctoral Association. “We need to make our environment attractive and competitive. This rule moves us in the wrong direction.”

The duration of status policy, first implemented in 1979, allows foreign students and scholars to remain in the U.S. as long as they are making progress toward completing their studies. When it debuted the policy, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service said the approach would streamline international students’ admission into the country, as they’d no longer have to apply for annual extensions. 

But the Trump administration alleges this practice encourages fraud. In its publication of the new visa restrictions, posted on the Federal Register, Homeland Security said it had identified more than 2,100 foreign students who entered the country between 2000 and 2010 and who were still listed as students in April 2025.

The agency did not answer questions from STAT about the new policy and the process for evaluating extension applications, instead forwarding an already-issued press release. “For nearly half a century, the outdated ‘duration of status’ system has compromised national security and created an environment ripe for immigration fraud,” said DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin in the release. 

Elizabeth Goss, an immigration attorney in Boston, doesn’t buy that claim. She points out that the federal government has closely monitored foreign students for more than 20 years through a database known as the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System. 

“These people are already the most regulated population of nonimmigrant visa holders in the country,” she said. “I just think it’s an excuse to limit ultimately how many people are coming into the United States.”

Goss isn’t the only one with concerns. A draft version of the policy change posted last year garnered nearly 22,000 comments. The University of California system warned DHS that the department would be overwhelmed with extension applications, noting that one of its campuses estimated more than 4,500 students would need to apply for extensions each year. 

“The inevitable delays from this backlog, coupled with a complex and opaque adjudication process, will likely deter and delay the world’s most talented international visitors from visiting or studying in the U.S.,” wrote Katherine Newman, the UC system’s executive vice president for academic affairs. 

That prediction is consistent with survey results from the nonprofit NAFSA: Association of International Educators. A poll of more than 1,000 students and postdocs last year found that nearly half would not have come to the U.S. under a fixed period of admission. Similarly, 67% of prospective students said they’d be likely to enroll in U.S. programs if duration of status were in effect, compared with 57% if there were no guarantee they could remain in the country beyond four years.

While the Trump administration has expressed interest in reducing researchers’ administrative burden, this new policy will have the opposite effect, said Bastien Aymon, external affairs chair of Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Graduate Student Council. “We’re already busy enough just focusing on science, and we don’t particularly enjoy having to spend time worrying about submitting forms and then talking to, potentially, lawyers,” he said. “It’s obviously confusing and stressful.” 

Even before the rule change, there were signs international students might be shying away from the U.S. amid concerns over the current funding environment, visa fees, and travel bans. A survey by the Institute of International Education found that international graduate student enrollment dropped 12% last fall compared to the previous year, though a separate analysis of DHS data suggested enrollment may be holding steady for now. 

In a recent report laying out the White House’s vision for the future of American science, Michael Kratsios, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the U.S. has become too dependent on foreign students.

“This reliance on foreign talent sidelines American students, a deep domestic talent pool that remains under-supported by its own government,” he wrote.
“At the same time, we train extraordinary global talent at enormous expense, only to lose this effort when foreign governments recruit them to build up their own technological enterprises.”

That message concerns Andrew Read, Pennsylvania State University’s senior vice president for research. Read says it won’t be clear how burdensome the new DHS rule is until it takes effect, but he fears the move is yet another way the U.S. is making it difficult for international researchers to come and contribute to the nation’s scientific enterprise.

“We want to support the best talent in the world. A lot of that talent stays in the U.S. and some of it goes home, and then you end up with fantastic friends in other countries at the cutting edge of science and technology,” Read said. “We’re concerned with anything that is jeopardizing that really important role that U.S. universities play for both America and for the world.”

STAT’s coverage of the federal government’s impact on the biomedical workforce is supported by a grant from the Dana Foundation and the Boston Foundation. Our financial supporters are not involved in any decisions about our journalism.