Donald Trump’s immigration policy once again faces the courts, this time over a measure affecting students, researchers, exchange visitors, and foreign journalists. A coalition of unions, universities, and educational organizations sued the Administration to try to block the new restrictions that, starting September 15, will set time limits for legally staying in the United States with certain types of visas.
The lawsuit was filed on Tuesday in a federal court in Massachusetts and challenges a regulation from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that replaces the system known as duration of status, in effect for decades. Under that scheme, international students with F-1 visas could remain in the country as long as they made adequate progress in their academic programs, without being subject to a fixed maximum term.
The new regulation establishes that students and exchange visitors with F and J visas, respectively, may be admitted for the duration of their program, but for a maximum of four years. Those who need more time must apply for an extension of stay.
The measure does not mean that all students must finish their degrees in four years. However, the plaintiffs argue that the requirement to apply for an extension introduces additional uncertainty for those enrolled in long programs, especially graduate and doctoral students.
“Students will lose opportunities, educational centers will lose talent, and society will lose billions of dollars in economic contributions based on one of the United States’ main exports: education,” the groups stated in their lawsuit.
What will change for foreign students?
In addition to the four-year limit, the regulation imposes new restrictions for some students who want to change programs or institutions and limits certain possibilities to start new studies.
The plaintiff groups argue that these provisions could force students who have already invested years and large amounts of money in their education to depend on discretionary extensions to be able to finish their studies.
The issue is especially relevant for doctoral programs and other degrees that can exceed four years. The plaintiffs argue that the new system could turn a process that previously depended mainly on academic progress into one subject to periodic reviews by immigration authorities.
The regulation is not limited to universities. Foreign journalists with I visas will also be subject to shorter admission periods. For most of them, the period of stay will be limited to 240 days. In the case of journalists with passports from the People’s Republic of China — except those with passports from Hong Kong or Macao — the limit will generally be 90 days. They may apply for extensions, although these will also be subject to limits.
The DHS argues that the new restrictions will allow greater control over foreigners who remain in the United States with these visas.
The agency states that the defined admission periods will allow periodic evaluations to verify that holders continue to meet the conditions of their status and detect possible abuses or fraud. A DHS spokesperson defended the policy as a way to ensure that student visas are used by people who genuinely intend to study in the United States.
The Administration has also pointed out that the previous system allowed some foreigners to remain for long periods with active visas.
However, the groups that sued the Government argue that using cases of possible fraud to justify a change that affects millions of students and other foreign visitors imposes a disproportionate burden on universities and applicants.
A new signal for foreign talent
The dispute also occurs at a time when the United States is beginning to face doubts about its traditional role as a preferred destination for foreign students, researchers, and professionals. For decades, its universities, labor market, and social mobility opportunities made the country a magnet for international talent. But, as EL PAÍS has documented, that perception has deteriorated during the Trump Administration, amid the tightening of immigration policies and greater uncertainty for those seeking to study or work in the country.
The change also coincides with efforts by other developed countries to attract highly qualified researchers and workers. Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom have promoted measures to facilitate the arrival of foreign talent, while the United States tightens some of the mechanisms that for decades helped its universities and companies incorporate it.
Data points to a shift in preferences among some professionals. According to the employment platform Handshake, the proportion of full-time job offers that included visa sponsorship fell to 2.3% in 2026, about one-fifth of the 2023 level. Enrollment of foreign students also dropped nearly 20% at the start of the last academic year.
The plaintiffs believe that imposing new limits and procedures may have consequences beyond the students themselves. In their lawsuit, they claim that the possibility of losing immigration status during studies may discourage foreigners from choosing U.S. universities.
For educational institutions, the risk is not limited to losing students. International students often represent an important source of income for universities and contribute to research and other sectors of the economy.
Immigration uncertainty is precisely one of the factors leading some foreign students and professionals to reconsider whether the United States remains the best place to build a long-term career. For those who come to the country intending to study and later join the labor market, having a predictable immigration pathway can be as important as the quality of a university or professional opportunities.
The lawsuit seeks to have a judge block the implementation of the rule and nullify it before September 15.
Read more Atlético de Madrid — Málaga live | Maximum equality in the first half