Washington Update

Coalition Files Lawsuit Challenging U.S. Department of Homeland Security Duration of Status Regulation 
On August 18, a coalition of eight organizations filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s final rule ending Duration of Status. The coalition is comprised of the following:  

• NAFSA: Association of International Educators;  
• The Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration; the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM);  
• The American Federation of Teachers (AFT);  
• Graduate Labor Organization, AFT Local 6516 (GLO);  
• International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW);  
• United Auto Workers Local 2322; and  
• The NewsGuild-CWA  

The complaint makes a number of arguments that the administration violated the Administrative Procedures Act in promulgating the regulation, which replaces “duration of status” admission for J-1 and F-1 visa holders with a fixed period of admission, up to the length of the program of study, not to exceed four years. The rule also imposes certain restrictions on F-1 visa holders’ ability to change programs, among other provisions. A detailed explanation of the final rule is available on the Department of Homeland Security’s webpage. 
 
APLU engaged repeatedly with the administration to raise concerns about the regulation, which will add unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles to international students and reduce U.S. competitiveness in the global competition to attract international talent. As the association noted in its comment letter, “Institutions anticipate decreased enrollment by international students, particularly at the graduate level in STEM doctoral fields, as a result of this rule…Uncertainty over the ability to complete their program will lead many qualified students to seek studies at universities in competitor nations.”  

U.S. Department of Justice Issues Opinion on Constitutionality of NSF STEM Programs 
The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion on August 12 concluding that three NSF STEM education programs—Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Hispanic-Serving Institutions program, the Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate, and the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation—are unconstitutional because their race-based eligibility criteria fail equal-protection scrutiny and cannot be severed from the underlying programs.  

The Bottom Line: As a result, the Office of Legal Counsel concluded NSF may no longer administer these programs but may redirect appropriated funds to other STEM education activities deemed lawful. 

The Office of Legal Counsel also determined that the Advanced Technological Education and ADVANCE Program contain unconstitutional elements that can be severed and the programs may continue if race- and sex-based preferences are removed. Tribal Colleges and Universities Program, Graduate Research Fellowship Program, Advancing Informal STEM Learning, and Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program were deemed constitutional. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Issues More Restrictive Guidance on Curricular Practical Training  
The Department of Homeland Security Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) issued new guidance on August 12 interpreting eligibility for Curricular Practical Training (CPT), which allows F-1 international students to participate in internships, cooperative education, and other work experiences that are an integral part of their academic program. 
 
Why it Matters: The new guidance differs substantially from guidance under the Biden administration reverting back to the direction of the first Trump administration guidance. SEVP now instructs designated school officials (DSOs) to “only authorize CPT if its absence would make the attainment of a degree an impossibility and if the work associated with CPT is required for all students pursuing that degree.” 
 
The guidance also emphasizes the legal responsibility of designated school officials when authorizing CPT. By signing or re-signing the Form I-20 to authorize CPT, designated school officers certify under penalty of perjury that the information is true and correct, including that the CPT is required or otherwise integral to the student’s curriculum. SEVP warns that improper CPT authorization may subject institutions and individual DSOs to administrative or legal consequences, including withdrawal of SEVP certification and potential penalties for providing false information. 

U.S. Department of Education Releases Proposed Regulations on Accreditation Reform 
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) released a pre-publication Notice of Proposed Rulemaking today on accreditation reform. The proposed regulations stem from ED’s Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking committee, which reached consensus on a far-ranging series of policy reforms that will fundamentally reshape the Department’s expectations for accreditors and thus also expectations of accreditors for institutions and programs. APLU developed a summary memo outlining deliberations from the U.S. the committee, including on issues such as: 

• Transfer of credit 
• Viewpoint diversity 
• Board composition/conflict of interest 
• Research integrity 
• Student outcomes 
• Academic freedom and the First Amendment 

Next Steps: The official version in the Federal Register is expected to be published tomorrow with final regulations published by November, in order to go into effect July 2027. The comment period on the proposed regulations is 30 days. APLU is developing a comment letter guided by member feedback. 

NSF New Funding Announcement 
The National Science Foundation (NSF) announced a suite of 12 new notices of funding opportunities on Monday, totaling over “$1.5 billion for foundational research, including basic and use-inspired inquiry across the sciences and engineering.” 

These new opportunities follow up on a previous announcement by NSF that it planned to use a fewer number of solicitations with broader applicable topics and some “structured experiments” in award structures.   

This announcement ushers in some significant changes to NSF proposal and review processes. Campuses and individual researchers should review changes when applying for NSF funding.