Federal Agreements Target Foreign Student Intake at Elite Institutions

Columbia Settlement Signals Shift in U.S. Higher Education Policy

In a troubling development for global education, the Trump administration is reported to have employed a combination of rules, policies, and legal settlements to pressure American universities into reducing their intake of international students. Critics argue that this reflects a broader ideological shift aimed at restricting foreign participation in U.S. higher education—a sector long celebrated for its openness and global reach.

Recent reports have drawn attention to a particularly contentious agreement between the administration and Columbia University, which includes an immigration-related clause viewed as part of this wider agenda. Analysts anticipate that similar settlements may soon be imposed on other institutions, potentially reshaping the future of international education in the United States. This approach stands in stark contrast to the consensus among economists and educators, who consistently highlight the academic, cultural, and economic contributions of international students. Nevertheless, officials, reportedly under the influence of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, appear intent on reducing the number of foreign students entering the U.S. and remaining after graduation to work.

A key example is the agreement signed on 23 July 2025 between the Trump administration and Columbia University, following the withholding of over $400 million in research funding due to allegations of the university’s inadequate response to campus antisemitism. As part of the settlement, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million to the U.S. Treasury and $21 million to a fund linked to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, with a Resolution Monitor appointed to oversee compliance. University leadership accepted the terms to safeguard over $1 billion in future federal funding.

Notably, the agreement includes a clause requiring Columbia to reduce its reliance on international students by reviewing its financial model and decreasing its dependence on their enrollment. This provision is seen as unusual, given that international students typically pay higher tuition fees, which financially benefit institutions. Economist Mark Regets of the National Foundation for American Policy described the move as economically irrational, arguing that reducing international student intake undermines both institutional sustainability and national economic interests. With the number of U.S.-born college-age students in decline, he asserted that attracting more international students would be a more viable path forward.

Earlier in 2025, Donald Trump reportedly proposed capping international student enrollment at Harvard University at 15%. Analysts believe future agreements may include similar clauses, particularly at institutions with large international student populations. For instance, Columbia’s international student enrolment stands at approximately 40%, while Brown University, which signed a separate agreement in July 2025 without such a clause, has an international student population of around 14%. Observers have attributed the inclusion of this clause to the influence of Stephen Miller, known for his hardline stance on immigration. He is believed to be using university settlement negotiations as a mechanism to advance broader immigration restrictions within higher education.

According to CNN, university leaders have been privately negotiating with Miller’s deputy to avoid the intense scrutiny recently directed at Harvard. The administration is reportedly preparing to expand its campaign against Ivy League and other elite institutions. These discussions have involved May Mailman, a senior White House strategist closely aligned with Miller and central to efforts demanding stronger institutional responses to campus antisemitism. In parallel with these settlements, the Trump administration has advanced several regulatory proposals aimed at limiting international student participation in U.S. academics and employment. During his confirmation hearing as USCIS Director, Joseph Edlow reportedly expressed support for ending Optional Practical Training (OPT) and STEM OPT extensions, which currently allow international graduates to gain work experience.

One proposed regulation would revise the H-1B visa selection process to prioritise higher salaries, a move likely to disadvantage recent graduates. Another would eliminate the “duration of status” provision, requiring students to obtain formal extensions to remain in the U.S. beyond two or four years of study. Additional administrative actions have included threats to deport students for minor infractions, a temporary entry ban on Harvard students, suspension of visa interviews, plans to revoke visas for many Chinese students, increased scrutiny of visa applicants’ social media activity, and broader travel bans affecting students from several countries.

The administration has also launched investigations into more than 50 universities, with officials suggesting that the Columbia settlement may serve as a model for future agreements. Experts have warned of the long-term consequences. A report by Professor Madeline Zavodny of the University of North Florida, published by the National Foundation for American Policy, projected that without immigrants, international students, and their children, the U.S. undergraduate population could shrink by nearly five million by 2037, two-thirds of its 2022 size. The graduate student population could decline by at least 1.1 million, falling to just 60% of current levels.

Zavodny’s research further found that international student presence supports domestic STEM education. For every 10 international students earning bachelor’s degrees, institutions typically awarded 15 additional STEM degrees to U.S. students. According to NAFSA, international students contributed $43.8 billion to the U.S. economy in 2023–2024 and supported over 378,000 jobs. However, the organisation warned that travel bans, visa interview suspensions, and reduced appointment availability could result in a 30% to 40% drop in new enrolments in autumn 2025.  International students also play vital roles as employees and entrepreneurs. They comprise 71% of full-time graduate students in computer and information sciences and 73% in electrical and computer engineering. Mark Regets noted that even those who return home help link the U.S. to global research networks. A separate NFAP analysis found that one-quarter of U.S. billion-dollar startup founders were former international students. If sustained, these policies risk diminishing the United States’ global leadership in higher education and innovation.

Editor’s Note

Recent changes in U.S. higher education policy are raising serious concerns. The Trump administration has been using legal agreements to influence how universities manage international student enrollment. One major example is the settlement with Columbia University, which includes a rare clause requiring the school to reduce its dependence on international students. This move could set a pattern for similar actions at other universities, especially those with large numbers of students from abroad. These changes go beyond just legal and financial issues. They could damage the United States’ reputation as a top destination for global education. International students don’t just bring in money; they also add cultural and academic value and help build important international research connections. Considering the constant emergence of new regulations and policy shifts, it is essential to adopt a broader perspective. Such measures have the potential to stifle innovation, impede workforce expansion, and undermine global collaborations.

Skoobuzz believes that it is imperative to engage in transparent and deliberate discussions while upholding the core tenets of openness, diversity, and academic freedom that have historically established American higher education as a globally esteemed institution.