The bill eliminates the Optional Practical Training (OPT) employment authorization for F‑1 students after they complete their studies and requires denial and refund of any OPT applications pending at enactment. It also amends the H‑1B statutory rules to require employers to pay the greater of the prior U.S. worker’s wage (measured over the preceding two years) or a statutory wage floor that starts at $150,000 and is CPI‑adjusted annually; limits H‑1B visas for beneficiaries who will perform any work at a third‑party worksite to one‑year validity unless the assignment is specific and continuous; and directs approval priority to petitions that offer higher compensation.
These changes are consequential for employers that rely on H‑1B labor and for international STEM graduates. Eliminating OPT removes the most common post‑degree work pathway for foreign students; raising wage floors and prioritizing higher pay reorders incentives for hiring, contracting, and offshore work.
The bill also inserts a statutory prohibition preventing federal agencies from authorizing work programs not enacted by Congress, which narrows administrative flexibility going forward.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill terminates OPT and ends post‑completion F‑1 work authorization, denies and refunds pending OPT applications, raises H‑1B wage requirements to the higher of a 2‑year comparable U.S. worker wage or a CPI‑indexed statutory floor (beginning at $150,000), limits third‑party H‑1B terms to one year unless assignments are specific and continuous, and requires USCIS to prioritize petitions offering higher pay.
Who It Affects
Large tech employers, staffing and consulting firms that place H‑1B workers at client sites, universities and their international students, immigration attorneys, and agencies that administer nonimmigrant work programs (DHS/USCIS/DoS). Employers with lower‑paid technical roles and startups are directly exposed to increased wage bills and operational changes.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces longstanding regulatory practice (OPT and Departmental guidance on wage levels and placement) with statutory mandates that change economic incentives: it narrows the pipeline of foreign STEM labor, raises baseline labor costs for H‑1B hires, and forces shifts in contracting and hiring models — potentially accelerating offshoring, automation, or hiring freezes in affected roles.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Congress would remove the Optional Practical Training pathway that lets F‑1 students work in the United States after graduation. Under the bill, any OPT application pending at enactment is denied and fees must be refunded.
That change ends a common transition from student status to the labor market; students and employers that planned on timed on‑ramps for talent will lose that option overnight.
For employers who use H‑1B visas, the law rewrites the wage test. Instead of relying mainly on prevailing wage tiers or lower local medians, an employer must offer the higher of two figures: (1) the wage paid to a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident who did identical or similar work during the two years before the application, or (2) a statutory floor that starts at $150,000 and rises each July 1 by cumulative CPI changes.
This changes how employers calculate offers, pushes many roles into much higher pay bands, and requires new payroll and recordkeeping to document the two‑year comparator wage.The bill also tightens rules for workers placed at third‑party worksites. If any portion of the H‑1B beneficiary’s work will be performed at a client or other third‑party site, the visa may be issued for no more than one year; the assignment must be specific, non‑speculative, and continuous for the requested period.
Practically, that means staffing and consulting firms will face more petitions, more frequent renewals or new petitions, and stricter documentation about client engagements.Finally, when USCIS grants H‑1B status during a fiscal year, it must prioritize petitions that offer higher compensation over lower‑paying petitions regardless of filing order. The bill also contains a rule of construction preventing federal agencies from creating work authorization programs that have not been enacted by Congress, which closes off administrative shortcuts to replace OPT or similar programs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill terminates the OPT program and mandates denial and refund of any OPT applications pending on enactment.
It requires employers to pay H‑1B beneficiaries the greater of (a) the wage paid to a U.S. worker in identical or similar work over the prior two years, or (b) a statutory wage floor of $150,000 in year one, with annual CPI indexing thereafter.
If any part of an H‑1B beneficiary’s work will occur at a third‑party worksite, the visa may not be valid for more than one year and the third‑party assignment must be specific, non‑speculative, and continuous for the petition period.
USCIS must prioritize approving H‑1B petitions that offer higher compensation over lower‑paying petitions, effectively replacing first‑come, first‑served or lottery ordering with a pay‑ranked approval system.
The statute explicitly bars federal agencies from granting work authorization through programs not enacted by Congress, curtailing agency authority to create or expand student work programs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative findings framing intent to protect U.S. wages
The bill’s findings catalogue concerns about H‑1B use, OPT expansion, and wage suppression; they function as legislative context for later statutory changes. That matters because courts use findings in statutory interpretation and because agencies and adjudicators will read them as the policy rationales underpinning new enforcement priorities.
Abolishes OPT and requires denial/refund of pending OPT applications
This provision adds a new paragraph to 8 U.S.C. 1324a that terminates the Optional Practical Training authorization and prohibits post‑completion F‑1 employment authorization via that channel. It contains an explicit transition rule: all OPT applications pending on enactment must be denied and fees returned. Implementation will require immediate coordination across DHS components (USCIS, ICE Student and Exchange Visitor Program) to close pending files, reissue refunds, and update SEVIS and nonimmigrant status guidance for schools and students.
New statutory wage test: two‑year comparator or $150,000 floor (CPI‑indexed)
The bill replaces prevailing‑wage mechanics with a dual comparator regime. Employers must show the wage offered equals or exceeds either what a U.S. worker in identical or similar work earned over the prior two years, or the statutory floor beginning at $150,000. The floor is CPI‑indexed with annual adjustments each July 1. Practically, employers must document historic pay data for U.S. comparators, update payroll practices, and may face reclassification of roles previously paid far below the statutory floor.
Limits on third‑party worksites and one‑year visa validity
Two related rules target placements at client sites: any H‑1B with work at a third‑party site can be issued for no more than one year, and such placements must be specific, nonspeculative, and continuous for the entire requested period. This increases petition frequency for staffing firms, raises documentation burdens to prove bona fide client engagements, and creates scheduling challenges for long‑term projects that previously relied on multi‑year H‑1B terms.
Approval priority based on compensation
The statute requires that when issuing H‑1B status during a fiscal year, USCIS approve petitions offering higher compensation before lower‑paying petitions, regardless of filing order. The provision effectively supplants the lottery/first‑in mechanisms with a pay‑ranked approval process, and will require USCIS to define and operationalize how petitions are ranked, how ties are handled, and how this interacts with numerical visa caps.
Rule of construction limiting agency authority
The bill adds an explicit clause that no federal agency may grant work authorization through a program not authorized by an act of Congress. That constraint curtails the executive branch’s ability to expand student work programs administratively (for example, through regulation or policy) and signals congressional intent to control post‑study work pathways legislatively.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- United States workers in comparable roles — the wage floor and comparator test raise the floor on pay for occupations that compete with H‑1B hires, which can protect or increase wages for incumbents.
- Employers that already pay well above the new floor (large, high‑margin tech firms) — these employers gain a competitive edge because prioritization favors higher offers and their hiring practices need fewer operational changes.
- High‑wage staffing firms and niche consultancies — companies that source premium technical talent will find their petitions prioritized and face fewer disruptions than low‑cost outsourcers.
- Organizations seeking a predictable, statutory framework — some in‑house counsel and compliance teams benefit from clearer statutory directives instead of guidance‑driven standards, reducing ambiguity in long‑term planning.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small and mid‑sized tech companies and startups — many will face materially higher labor costs for roles previously filled with lower‑paid H‑1Bs, potentially pricing them out of key talent and straining early‑stage budgets.
- Staffing and consulting firms that place talent at client sites — one‑year visa caps and stricter documentation force more frequent petitions, higher administrative costs, and instability in client engagements.
- International STEM graduates and universities — elimination of OPT removes the standard post‑degree work pathway, reducing the value proposition for international students and complicating campus recruiting flows.
- USCIS and DHS components — the agency will need new procedures and IT changes to implement pay‑based prioritization, CPI indexing, and rapid denial/refund workflows for OPT, imposing administrative burdens that may require appropriations or reallocation of resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits a clear aim — protect U.S. wages and reduce substitution of foreign labor — against competing priorities of talent access and operational flexibility: raising wage floors and ending OPT strengthens pay protections but constricts the legal channels and cost structures employers use to source specialized labor, potentially prompting offshoring, automation, or a reduction in U.S. job creation that the policy seeks to promote.
The bill creates several implementation and enforcement headaches. First, the two‑year comparator test depends on employers maintaining reliable historical pay data and on adjudicators making often fact‑intensive determinations about whether work is ‘identical or similar.’ That invites disputes, audits, and litigation over job descriptions, performance histories, and classification nuances.
Second, replacing first‑come or lottery ordering with a pay‑ranked approval system confronts numerical caps. USCIS will need transparent rules for ranking petitions, handling ties, and determining which petitions fall within the annual H‑1B ceiling — administrative complexity that could produce delays, protests, and procedural challenges.
Third, the one‑year cap for third‑party placements risks destabilizing long‑duration client projects and could incentivize employers to shift work offshore or to different visa categories, defeating the stated aim of protecting U.S. jobs.
Finally, deleting OPT removes a long‑standing pathway for both talent pipelines and institutional compliance programs; the abrupt transition (denying pending applications) raises fairness questions and will likely prompt litigation alleging reliance interests and arbitrary administrative action. The statute’s ban on agency‑created work authorizations narrows executive flexibility to craft mitigations or phased approaches, concentrating the burden on Congress to legislate exceptions or carve‑outs in future sessions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.