Since President Trump returned to office in January, his administration has issued a series of executive orders and policy proposals, many of which directly impact international students. From day one, it has appeared that this community has been a deliberate target.
For years, conservative groups have pushed familiar accusations — that international students “take seats” from domestic students, pose national security threats, exploit visa programs, and fuel campus unrest. The administration and its allies have echoed these claims, suggesting international students displace US graduates in the job market. These ideological talking points — rooted in recommendations from the conservative America First Policy Institute (AFPI) — have now become a central part of the administration’s policy agenda.
Among its many policy proposals, AFPI outlines seven specific recommendations targeting international students. To date, the administration is actively pursuing five of the seven. We anticipate that the remaining two will soon be addressed through forthcoming policy changes.
In line with AFPI’s recommendations, the administration recently imposed travel bans on 12 countries, partial bans on seven others, and placed 36 additional nations under review. The stated rationale in many cases? Student visa overstays. But like so many recent policy decisions targeting international students, we must ask: Is this truly grounded in data or driven by ideology?
Questioning the Data Behind the Policy
The reality is the data the government uses to justify these policy decisions is deeply flawed. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), tracking international student overstays is difficult. The SEVIS database, the main system for monitoring student visas, tracks documents, not individuals. There are several factors that can lead to an inaccurate count, such as school transfers, receiving a new visa, or gaining permanent residency. Any of these reasons could cause a student to be inaccurately flagged as a potential overstay.
DHS also combines the F-M-J visa categories when calculating country-specific overstay rates, which inflates the numbers for students. The combined overstay rate for all three categories is 2.83%, and the actual suspected overstay rate for F visas in FY2023 was only 2.69%.
This issue is further complicated by the fact that DHS lacks exit data for individuals leaving the US by land, such as those crossing into Mexico or Canada, making overstay estimates incomplete at best.
Despite these data gaps, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) continues to rely on more than a dozen disconnected systems that track visa applications by case, not by individual, with ICE analysts acknowledging it can take days to piece together a single student’s history.
The Cost of Turning Away Talent
There is no shortage of evidence showing the consequences of limiting international student enrollment. Recent policy shifts in countries like Canada, Australia, and the UK have led to sharp declines in applications and public pushback from universities. The US is on a similar path.
In contrast, study after study has confirmed the immense value international students bring to the United States. Scholars, economists, and even the Department of Defense have emphasized how attracting global talent fuels innovation, drives job growth, and helps the US maintain its global competitiveness.
“The skill premium, as we call it, is very large, which is why highly educated workers earn so much more,” said Michael Lovenheim, a labor economist at Cornell University. “International students generate not only returns to themselves through higher wages, but they work in sectors that generate economic growth. They start businesses. They increase productivity and GDP.”
Indeed, immigrants are behind more than half of America’s billion-dollar startups. A 2022 report by the National Foundation for American Policy found that 55% of US unicorns (e.g., startups valued at $1 billion or more) were founded by immigrants. Nearly two-thirds had an immigrant founder or the child of immigrants, and almost 80% had an immigrant in a key leadership role.
In conclusion, international students are not a threat — they are an asset. They don’t steal seats or jobs. They drive innovation, create opportunities, and strengthen America’s global leadership. Policy rooted in flawed data and ideology not only harms students, it risks undermining the very foundation of America’s economic and academic strength.
Sources
