Congress is fighting to protect an immigration programme that America itself created but now seems intent on dismantling. A bipartisan pair of US legislators is pushing legislation to safeguard Optional Practical Training, a scheme that allows hundreds of thousands of international graduates to work in the United States for up to three years. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has signalled its determination to kill it entirely.
OPT is obscure in the Australian policy debate. It should not be. What happens to overseas graduates in America directly shapes where Australia's best students choose to go, which employers will locate here, and how we compete for the global talent that drives research, innovation, and economic growth.
The legislative fight reflects a deeper tension about immigration policy that transcends partisan politics. Representatives Sam Liccardo (D-CA) and Jay Obernolte (R-CA) are attempting to place OPT into statute, removing it from the discretionary authority of immigration agencies. This matters because the programme has never been enshrined in law. President George H.W. Bush created it through executive authority in 1992; it has existed in regulatory grey space ever since.
In 2024 alone, 165,524 international students in STEM fields used OPT, according to Department of Homeland Security statistics. More broadly, 56 per cent of all international students who entered the US on F-1 visas between 2006 and 2022 enrolled in OPT at some point. Graduate students and STEM majors participate at higher rates; STEM PhDs, at 76 per cent, are the most likely to use the scheme.
Liccardo argues that the alternative to OPT is clear and costly.
"The alternative to OPT is to educate these brilliant people and to then send them back to their countries of origin, where they'll start companies to compete against us."The logic is unassailable. America trains the world's most talented engineers, scientists, and innovators at its universities. OPT gives them a bridge to contribute to the American economy rather than departing to become competitors elsewhere.
The threat from within
Joseph B. Edlow, Trump's pick to head the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, promised during his May 2025 nomination hearing to end OPT. He characterised the programme as having been "mishandled" and voiced support for removing employment authorisation from international students after they graduate. The Senate confirmed him despite this commitment.
No rule eliminating or restricting OPT has been issued yet. But the threat alone has consequences. Universities report that international student enrolment has declined significantly as prospective students respond to policy uncertainty. When the pathway to remain and contribute to the economy disappears, the incentive to study in America evaporates.
The United States faces a genuine policy choice. Supporters of ending OPT, including restrictionist groups like the Centre for Immigration Studies, argue the programme displaces American workers and suppresses wages. Critics of the scheme point to research suggesting OPT workers earn less than equivalent domestic workers. These are not frivolous concerns and warrant serious policy debate.
However, the counterargument rests on evidence. Countries competing with the US for international talent, including Canada, Australia, and India, all offer post-graduation work pathways. Each year that America restricts its own pathways, it cedes advantage to rivals. Australian universities, in particular, have invested heavily in attracting international students; generous post-study work visas have been a key selling point.
What Washington does next will ripple far beyond US shores. If OPT survives because Congress acts to protect it, America retains its talent advantage and Australian institutions face stiffer competition. If the programme is dismantled, America's universities will struggle to attract the world's best students, and Australia will find itself the destination of choice for many who would once have studied in Boston or Silicon Valley. Neither outcome is certain; both carry costs and benefits that extend across the Pacific.