The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently revealed a significant new regulation that could completely transform the landscape for international students and scholars in the United States. If passed, this rule would abolish the current ‘duration of status’ policy, instead imposing fixed admission periods for F, J, and I visa holders. This means students and academics would need to regularly reapply for visa extensions and undergo biometric checks. Furthermore, the proposal includes stringent new limitations on academic freedom, such as restrictions on changing programs, majors, or study levels, especially for those pursuing graduate degrees.
In response, Brown University’s Office of Global Engagement formally urged the DHS to withdraw the proposed regulation in a detailed comment submitted on September 29, 2025. As reported by The Brown Daily Herald, the university highlighted severe potential negative impacts on both individual students and the broader American higher education system.
Fixed Visa Periods: A Looming Challenge
The core of the proposed rule dictates that ‘authorized admission and extension periods’ for F and J visas would be directly linked to the specific program duration, with a maximum cap of four years. This new framework would also enforce stricter scrutiny on visa extension applications and introduce various limitations on altering academic plans or objectives.
Asabe Poloma, Brown’s Associate Provost for Global Engagement, articulated the extensive repercussions for the Brown community and US higher education in her letter to the DHS. She stated, ‘These changes would discourage talented individuals from selecting the United States for their studies and research, thereby eroding the competitiveness of American higher education, diminishing our research and innovation capabilities, and interrupting vital workforce pipelines in areas crucial to national interest.’ Her comments were published by The Brown Daily Herald.
Increased Financial and Logistical Burdens
Poloma’s letter further elaborated on the escalated costs for students, scholars, and educational institutions. International students could face the need for multiple visa extensions and incur expenses for legal assistance to navigate compliance. Universities, on their part, would contend with increased administrative workloads, particularly the constant monitoring of visa expiry dates. Moreover, the proposed rule imposes significant constraints on academic flexibility, potentially derailing students’ educational paths.
Severe Impact on Academic Flexibility
The new regulation imposes sweeping restrictions on academic program changes. For instance, undergraduate F-1 students would be prohibited from altering their program, major, or education level during their initial year, except in exceptional cases like institutional closures. Graduate F-1 students would face even more severe limitations, effectively being unable to change their program or field of study. Critically, students who complete a program at a specific level would be prevented from pursuing another program at the same or a lower level under F-1 status. Poloma criticized this as an ‘arbitrary and harmful’ provision, highlighting its potential to negatively impact Ph.D. students seeking master’s degrees or those pursuing dual degrees requiring extended study. Brown University’s letter also stressed the need for the DHS to broaden its criteria for visa extensions, urging them to factor in comprehensive program length and design during evaluations.
A Dire Warning for the Future of US Higher Education
Brown University’s formal objection echoes a growing apprehension felt throughout American higher education. The introduction of fixed visa periods, diminished academic freedom, and added bureaucratic hurdles could foster an environment of uncertainty, discourage brilliant international minds, and impose considerable strain on universities. Poloma’s letter powerfully concluded, as cited by The Brown Daily Herald, that ‘The proposed regulation risks severing critical educational and research avenues that are indispensable for innovation and workforce development in the United States.’ This ongoing debate highlights a fundamental conflict within US policy: how to reconcile immigration enforcement with the imperative to sustain the nation’s standing as a premier global destination for higher learning. For international students, scholars, and the institutions that host them, the implications are profound, with the potential to fundamentally alter the future of international education in America.