Washington
Trump proposes $70K fee for international students to work in the U.S.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday proposed a $70,000 fee for international students seeking to work in the United States, the latest effort from the Trump administration to crack down on foreign enrollment.
A proposed rule would require schools to pay the fee for every student who participates in the optional practice training program, known as OPT, which allows students to work in jobs related to their major during or after their time in school. Students are generally eligible for one year of work post-graduation, though certain science, technology, engineering and math majors are eligible for an additional two years.
Schools would be required to pay the $70,000 for each new student’s initial application to the program, and a $30,000 fee for each renewal.
The change would represent a blow to American colleges and universities that heavily recruit students from overseas as a source of tuition revenue, as well as tech companies and other industries that hire many international students for technical roles.
The OPT program allows international students to gain hands-on experience and fill labor shortages in high-demand STEM fields, said Fanta Aw, CEO of NAFSA, an association that represents international education.
“Driving away the talents, perspectives, and aspirations of international students will only hurt American innovation, economic growth, workforce development, and global leadership,” Aw said in a written statement.
In a statement, DHS described the fee as a response to fraud and abuse of the visa program, which it called a “pipeline for cheap foreign labor.”
The public has 60 days to comment on the proposal before DHS can finalize it and put it into effect. The proposal also could face legal challenges from higher education groups or business associations that could delay it.
President Donald Trump’s administration has been putting pressure on international students in many ways as part of its wider efforts to crack down on immigration and reshape higher education.
Last year, the Republican administration began suddenly terminating the legal status of thousands of international students, detaining and deporting many of them.
This summer, the administration finalized a rule that sought to prevent international students from staying in the U.S. for more than four years without approval from the federal government. The move drew swift backlash from higher education leaders who said it would increase the burden on schools and noted that many programs are longer than four years by design. A federal court prevented the rule from taking effect in September.
California
Judge hands San Jose win in license plate reader case
A judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging San Jose’s network of license plate reader cameras, dealing a legal setback to opponents of a technology used to fight crime that has divided the city’s residents over fears of dragnet surveillance.
In a ruling delivered Friday, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey El-Hajj rejected arguments that the city’s practice of allowing warrantless police searches of its automated license plate reader (ALPR) data — derived from a network of more than 500 devices scattered across town — violates the California Constitution’s guarantee of privacy rights and prohibition on unreasonable searches. The ruling follows the lead of an earlier decision from a California Appellate Court that found drivers have no reasonable expectation of privacy when traveling through public streets.
Plaintiffs have the option to appeal the ruling and said they are reviewing their legal options. The city also faces a separate civil case targeting its ALPR system now working its way through federal court.
City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood welcomed the news.
“The court’s dismissal of the complaint is testament to the fact that the city’s ALPR system meets constitutional scrutiny and only gathers information that is already observed from the public rights-of-way,” Alcala Wood told San José Spotlight.
Backers of the technology contend it has emerged as a vital crime fighting tool, helping San Jose’s overstretched police force solve numerous crimes.
But the lawsuit, filed in November 2025, warns the vast trove of data generated by the camera network can be used to track drivers’ whereabouts as they travel throughout the city. The civil liberties organizations are representing two nonprofits that advocate for South Bay immigrants — Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
“We believe strongly that the ruling is wrong on the law, and all options for next steps are on the table,” Andrew Crocker, surveillance litigation director at EFF, told San José Spotlight.
Plaintiffs had asked the court to restrict access to the data by requiring law enforcement agencies to first obtain a warrant before conducting a search.
In explaining his ruling, El-Hajj cited a 2024 decision from California’s 4th District Court of Appeals, which determined that video evidence obtained using streetlight cameras operated by San Diego could be used in a murder prosecution. In the ruling, the court noted that people are aware they may be filmed by security cameras on city streets.
El-Hajj rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the sheer quantity of cameras in San Jose makes the city’s network a far more invasive law enforcement tool.
The controversy surrounding San Jose’s use of ALPR cameras became even more intense last month when Police Chief Paul Joseph revealed the San Jose Police Department fired an officer in April for allegedly sharing location data with his cousin.
Amid the public outcry, a group of councilmembers unveiled new safeguards for the technology, including proposals aimed at making it harder for city employees to use personal devices to access sensitive law enforcement data.
The City Council already passed an earlier package in March that has reduced the amount of time the city can hold onto the data from one year to 30 days.
However, so far the guardrails have still fallen well short of demands from many critics, who are calling on San Jose’s leaders to follow the lead of other Bay Area jurisdictions — such as Santa Clara County, Los Altos Hills and Mountain View — and cut ties entirely with Flock Safety, the controversial vendor contracted to provide the ALPR technology to the city.
“These cameras have been used to target immigrants already, but the reality is that we all will be subject to their far-reaching impact,” Huy Tran, executive director of SIREN, told San José Spotlight.
Trump proposes $70K fee for international students to work in the U.S.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday proposed a $70,000 fee for international students seeking to work in the United States, the latest effort from the Trump administration to crack down on foreign enrollment.
A proposed rule would require schools to pay the fee for every student who participates in the optional practice training program, known as OPT, which allows students to work in jobs related to their major during or after their time in school. Students are generally eligible for one year of work post-graduation, though certain science, technology, engineering and math majors are eligible for an additional two years.
Schools would be required to pay the $70,000 for each new student’s initial application to the program, and a $30,000 fee for each renewal.
The change would represent a blow to American colleges and universities that heavily recruit students from overseas as a source of tuition revenue, as well as tech companies and other industries that hire many international students for technical roles.
The OPT program allows international students to gain hands-on experience and fill labor shortages in high-demand STEM fields, said Fanta Aw, CEO of NAFSA, an association that represents international education.
“Driving away the talents, perspectives, and aspirations of international students will only hurt American innovation, economic growth, workforce development, and global leadership,” Aw said in a written statement.
In a statement, DHS described the fee as a response to fraud and abuse of the visa program, which it called a “pipeline for cheap foreign labor.”
The public has 60 days to comment on the proposal before DHS can finalize it and put it into effect. The proposal also could face legal challenges from higher education groups or business associations that could delay it.
President Donald Trump’s administration has been putting pressure on international students in many ways as part of its wider efforts to crack down on immigration and reshape higher education.
Last year, the Republican administration began suddenly terminating the legal status of thousands of international students, detaining and deporting many of them.
This summer, the administration finalized a rule that sought to prevent international students from staying in the U.S. for more than four years without approval from the federal government. The move drew swift backlash from higher education leaders who said it would increase the burden on schools and noted that many programs are longer than four years by design. A federal court prevented the rule from taking effect in September.
California
Judge hands San Jose win in license plate reader case
A judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging San Jose’s network of license plate reader cameras, dealing a legal setback to opponents of a technology used to fight crime that has divided the city’s residents over fears of dragnet surveillance.
In a ruling delivered Friday, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey El-Hajj rejected arguments that the city’s practice of allowing warrantless police searches of its automated license plate reader (ALPR) data — derived from a network of more than 500 devices scattered across town — violates the California Constitution’s guarantee of privacy rights and prohibition on unreasonable searches. The ruling follows the lead of an earlier decision from a California Appellate Court that found drivers have no reasonable expectation of privacy when traveling through public streets.
Plaintiffs have the option to appeal the ruling and said they are reviewing their legal options. The city also faces a separate civil case targeting its ALPR system now working its way through federal court.
City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood welcomed the news.
“The court’s dismissal of the complaint is testament to the fact that the city’s ALPR system meets constitutional scrutiny and only gathers information that is already observed from the public rights-of-way,” Alcala Wood told San José Spotlight.
Backers of the technology contend it has emerged as a vital crime fighting tool, helping San Jose’s overstretched police force solve numerous crimes.
But the lawsuit, filed in November 2025, warns the vast trove of data generated by the camera network can be used to track drivers’ whereabouts as they travel throughout the city. The civil liberties organizations are representing two nonprofits that advocate for South Bay immigrants — Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
“We believe strongly that the ruling is wrong on the law, and all options for next steps are on the table,” Andrew Crocker, surveillance litigation director at EFF, told San José Spotlight.
Plaintiffs had asked the court to restrict access to the data by requiring law enforcement agencies to first obtain a warrant before conducting a search.
In explaining his ruling, El-Hajj cited a 2024 decision from California’s 4th District Court of Appeals, which determined that video evidence obtained using streetlight cameras operated by San Diego could be used in a murder prosecution. In the ruling, the court noted that people are aware they may be filmed by security cameras on city streets.
El-Hajj rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that the sheer quantity of cameras in San Jose makes the city’s network a far more invasive law enforcement tool.
The controversy surrounding San Jose’s use of ALPR cameras became even more intense last month when Police Chief Paul Joseph revealed the San Jose Police Department fired an officer in April for allegedly sharing location data with his cousin.
Amid the public outcry, a group of councilmembers unveiled new safeguards for the technology, including proposals aimed at making it harder for city employees to use personal devices to access sensitive law enforcement data.
The City Council already passed an earlier package in March that has reduced the amount of time the city can hold onto the data from one year to 30 days.
However, so far the guardrails have still fallen well short of demands from many critics, who are calling on San Jose’s leaders to follow the lead of other Bay Area jurisdictions — such as Santa Clara County, Los Altos Hills and Mountain View — and cut ties entirely with Flock Safety, the controversial vendor contracted to provide the ALPR technology to the city.
“These cameras have been used to target immigrants already, but the reality is that we all will be subject to their far-reaching impact,” Huy Tran, executive director of SIREN, told San José Spotlight.
