Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit providing employment authorization under the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program to F‑1 nonimmigrant students unless Congress expressly authorizes such a program. In effect, it removes existing administrative authority for OPT and any successor program, requiring a new Act of Congress to restore or create OPT-like work authorization.
Progressives emphasize harm to students and innovation retention.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, narrowly worded statutory amendment that clearly states the legal prohibition it seeks to impose but provides minimal ancillary detail necessary to implement a substantial change to immigration-related employment authorization.
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit providing employment authorization under the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program to F‑1 nonimmigrant students unless Congress expressly authorizes such a program.
In effect, it removes existing administrative authority for OPT and any successor program, requiring a new Act of Congress to restore or create OPT-like work authorization.
The text does not specify transition rules, exceptions, or alternative post‑study work pathways.
Narrow but highly controversial; strong opposition from universities, employers likely; no mitigating provisions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, narrowly worded statutory amendment that clearly states the legal prohibition it seeks to impose but provides minimal ancillary detail necessary to implement a substantial change to immigration-related employment authorization.
Progressives emphasize harm to students and innovation retention.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize harm to students and innovation retention.
Likely strongly opposed.
They will view OPT as an important pathway for international graduates to gain U.S. work experience, support innovation, and sustain university enrollment.
They will see outright elimination without replacement or transition as harmful to students and the economy.
Mixed to somewhat opposed.
They will acknowledge legitimate concerns about domestic labor competition and the need for legislative authorization, but worry about economic disruption from an abrupt removal of OPT.
They will prefer phased reforms, cost/benefit study, or targeted limitations rather than a wholesale ban.
Generally supportive.
They will see the bill as restoring congressional authority, protecting American workers, and curbing what some view as an expansive administrative immigration policy.
They may press for permanent removal unless replaced with stricter, employment‑first alternatives.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but highly controversial; strong opposition from universities, employers likely; no mitigating provisions.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize harm to students and innovation retention.
Narrow but highly controversial; strong opposition from universities, employers likely; no mitigating provisions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, narrowly worded statutory amendment that clearly states the legal prohibition it seeks to impose but provides minimal ancillary detail necessary to impl…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.