Status checked: November 4, 2026. This is a proposal, not an effective fee change.
A headline about a $70,000 OPT fee can quickly become a worried call from a student, a parent or an employer. The first question deserves a direct answer: the proposed fee is not currently payable. Brown University's international student office confirms that the proposal is not in effect and current OPT application fees remain unchanged.[3]
For immigration firms, the immediate task is to explain the proposal accurately and give clients a reliable place to check for updates.
What is being proposed?
Optional Practical Training, or OPT, provides eligible F-1 students with temporary employment authorization related to their studies.[1]
DHS published its fee proposal on October 8, 2026. Yale's international student office summarizes the proposed amounts as follows:[2]
| Proposed fee | Amount per student |
|---|---|
| Initial OPT | $70,000 |
| Subsequent OPT, subject to the prior-payment condition explained below | $30,000 |
These would be additional OPT program fees, separate from the existing Form I-765 application fee.[1]
Who would pay: the student, school or employer?
The proposal assigns payment responsibility to the SEVP-certified school before its designated school official recommends OPT. Brown notes that DHS anticipates schools could pass costs to students or employers.[3]
That distinction should guide client conversations. “The school would have to pay the government” does not establish who would ultimately absorb the expense. Firms should avoid assuming a university will fund it or that an employer has already agreed to cover it.
A useful question for planning is: What has the school actually said about how it would respond? Record the answer and its date rather than treating an assumption as a budget commitment.
The STEM OPT detail that a headline can miss
The proposed $30,000 subsequent fee requires prior OPT participation and prior payment of the $70,000 initial fee. Under the transition provision, an OPT recommendation dated on or after a future effective date would trigger $70,000 if that initial fee has never been paid. This could include a STEM OPT recommendation following an earlier OPT period under today's system.[1, sections V.A, V.C and proposed 8 CFR 214.13(i)]
For that reason, firms should avoid describing every future STEM extension as a $30,000 event. This is a reading of the proposed transition language, not an assessment of any particular student's future liability.
Why this matters on November 4
The rulemaking comment deadline is November 9, 2026, five days away. The separate information-collection comment deadline is December 7.[1]
The proposal contemplates implementation 60 days after publication of a final rule. November 9 is a comment deadline, not a payment start date.[1]
Yale notes that whether or when a final rule will appear, and whether it will differ from the proposal, remains unknown.[2]
This makes the topic timely for explaining uncertainty. It does not justify presenting a projected cost as a bill that clients owe now.
What should students and employers do today?
Yale advises students against abrupt changes to study, travel or employment plans and recommends discussing individual timelines with their international student adviser.[2]
For a law firm responding to questions, a short fact-gathering process is more useful than a generic warning:
| Information to confirm | Why it helps the conversation |
|---|---|
| The student's current situation and intended OPT step | Keeps advice tied to the actual question |
| Dates on existing records and the anticipated next recommendation | Gives the adviser a concrete timeline to assess |
| Written guidance from the school's international student office | Separates institutional guidance from social-media claims |
| The employer's actual hiring or budgeting question | Avoids confusing a planning concern with a present payment obligation |
| The source and date of any fee information already shared | Helps identify and correct outdated instructions |
These are suggested communication practices, not additional filing requirements. An attorney and the school's adviser should assess individual circumstances before a student changes plans.
A practical response process for immigration firms
An accurate article can still cause confusion if an old email template tells a different story. Consider reviewing the places where staff answer fee questions: consultation notes, intake responses, fee estimates and client updates.
For each communication, ask:
- Does the opening clearly identify the rule as proposed?
- Does it distinguish government payment responsibility from possible cost-sharing?
- Does it avoid promising a particular outcome or implementation date?
- Does it direct individual timing questions to the appropriate adviser?
- Does it show when the information was last checked?
Assign one person to maintain the firm's explanation. When the rulemaking develops, update the shared reference and identify which clients need a fresh conversation. That is easier to control than allowing several slightly different explanations to circulate.
Frequently asked questions
Is OPT being cancelled by this fee proposal?
The notice proposes fees; it does not itself cancel OPT.[1] Keep broader predictions separate from the text of this proposal.
Would this proposed fee apply to CPT?
Yale states that Curricular Practical Training is not covered by this OPT fee proposal.[2] That does not resolve questions about other CPT policies.
Should a firm add this amount to today's fee estimate?
Use the currently applicable fee schedule for present filing instructions. If discussing possible future costs, show the scenario separately and label its assumptions. Brown confirms that this proposal has not changed current OPT application fees.[3]
Keeping case information clear as policy develops
For immigration teams, policy news creates two jobs: understanding the legal development and keeping the case information used in preparation accurate. A dated source, a clear case timeline and an identified reviewer help connect those jobs.
To discuss your firm's broader case-preparation workflow, book an Infinity walkthrough.
This article provides general information as of November 4, 2026. Individual cases require advice from qualified counsel and the relevant school adviser.
Sources
- Federal Register: Optional Practical Training Fees (October 8, 2026). Sections V.A, V.C and proposed 8 CFR 214.13(i).
- Yale OISS: DHS Proposes New Fees for Optional Practical Training (October 8, 2026).
- Brown ISSS: DHS Proposed Rule on OPT Fees (October 9, 2026).
Related reading: October 16 USCIS fee changes, a separate fee development.