HR-8683-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Valerie Foushee (D-NC)
What it does
This bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to formally write the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program into statute. Currently, OPT exists only as a Department of Homeland Security regulation. The bill would authorize up to 24 months of work authorization for F-1 student visa holders in any field related to their studies, and up to 48 months for those in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), or nursing fields. It would also direct DHS to classify nursing as a STEM field for purposes of the extended authorization period.
Who benefits
International students on F-1 visas who want to work in the U.S. after graduation — roughly 200,000–300,000 OPT participants annually. STEM and nursing graduates would benefit most, gaining up to 48 months of work authorization. U.S. employers — particularly in technology, healthcare, engineering, and research sectors — who recruit international graduates. Universities and colleges that attract international students, who pay full tuition and generate significant revenue. Hospitals and healthcare systems facing nursing shortages. Indirect beneficiaries include communities and patients served by internationally trained nurses and STEM workers.
Who is hurt
U.S. citizen and permanent resident workers in STEM and nursing fields who may face increased labor market competition, particularly recent graduates entering the same job market. Labor unions representing technology and healthcare workers who argue OPT suppresses wages. Employers who do not sponsor international workers and compete against those who do. Taxpayers who fund Social Security and Medicare may be indirectly affected, as OPT workers are currently exempt from those payroll taxes — a status this bill does not change. Workers in fields adjacent to STEM where the boundary of eligibility may be contested.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that OPT has existed only as an executive regulation since 1992, leaving it vulnerable to elimination by any administration — as nearly occurred in 2020 when a draft rule proposed ending STEM OPT. Codifying the program into statute would provide legal certainty for students, universities, and employers who have built long-term plans around it. They further argue that the U.S. faces documented shortages in STEM and nursing fields, and that international graduates trained at American universities represent a ready, highly skilled workforce that strengthens U.S. economic competitiveness and fills critical gaps in healthcare delivery.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that OPT functions as a large-scale guest worker program that was never authorized by Congress, and that codifying it rewards decades of executive overreach by making permanent a program that bypassed the legislative process. They contend that the program displaces American workers and suppresses wages in STEM fields, citing the payroll tax exemption as an additional subsidy that gives employers a financial incentive to hire OPT workers over equally qualified U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Critics also argue that extending the authorization period to 48 months effectively creates a multi-year work visa outside the normal H-1B cap and congressional oversight structures.
Constitutional context
The Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) grants Congress plenary authority over immigration, including the terms of nonimmigrant status. This bill exercises that authority directly by writing work authorization conditions into the INA. Because OPT currently rests on DHS regulation rather than statute, it has faced legal challenges; codification would place it on firmer constitutional footing and reduce vulnerability to Administrative Procedure Act challenges like those at issue in DHS v. Regents (2020). Post-Loper Bright (2024), courts no longer defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, making explicit statutory authorization more legally durable than regulatory programs.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority by moving OPT from executive regulation into statute, reducing the executive branch's unilateral ability to modify or eliminate the program; DHS retains rulemaking authority to set terms and conditions, subject to APA review and post-Loper Bright independent judicial scrutiny.
Historical precedent
OPT has existed as a DHS/INS regulation since 1992, and a 2016 DHS rule expanded STEM OPT to 24 months; no prior Congress has codified the program into the INA, making this legislation without a direct statutory precedent.