International students have long been a lifeline for universities; one could even argue that they are a cash cow. They bring global perspectives, help fill enrollment gaps, and—very importantly—pay tuition at higher levels that subsidize the tuition of domestic students. For decades, countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia competed fiercely to attract them, framing higher education as a key export industry. The rhetoric was about openness, soft power, and talent pipelines for the future economy.
But the tone has shifted. Where governments once boasted of global reach, they now speak of migration limits, labor market integrity, and protecting local housing. Canada has imposed strict national caps on the issuance of study permits. Australia has raised English requirements and created a more challenging “Genuine Student” test. Britain has barred most students from bringing dependents and scrutinized its post-study work route. The United States has not formally revised its student visa rules, but visa issuances are declining, policy proposals threaten additional restrictions, and a new $100,000 fee on H-1B visas has made the pathway from study to skilled work far costlier. Even the Netherlands and Germany, traditionally stable destinations, are wrestling with limits, fees, and housing crises. The lone exception is New Zealand, which has moved in the opposite direction by explicitly courting more international students.
In short, many Western governments are “tightening the screws” on international students by limiting family accompaniment, imposing stricter language and financial requirements, capping enrollments, raising employer costs, or simply slowing visa approvals. These changes reveal not just new priorities in immigration policy, but also the fragility of universities that depend on international revenue streams.
Britain: Dependents Out, Graduate Route Still In
In January 2024, the United Kingdom barred most international students from bringing dependents, a change the Home Office framed as necessary to reduce net migration. That move undercut one of Britain’s main draws, especially for master’s and doctoral students who often come with families. At the same time, the government ordered a review of the post-study “Graduate Route” visa, which allows students to remain in Britain for two to three years to work.
Critics feared the program might be scrapped, but the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) found no evidence of systemic abuse and recommended retaining it. The result is a kind of policy compromise: Britain remains open to students who want to study and work, but it is far less accommodating to those who expect to bring spouses or children with them. The message is clear—international education is still welcome, but only in a narrower, more transactional form.
[RELATED: Japan’s Push for More International Students Faces Growing Scrutiny]
The United States: Same Rules, Colder Climate
Across the pond, the United States has taken a different path. The basic structure of student visas remains unchanged. International graduates remain eligible for twelve months of Optional Practical Training (OPT), with STEM students entitled to an additional 24-month extension. On paper, this appears more generous than Britain’s Graduate Route. Yet, the reality is less reassuring. Fewer F-1 visas were issued in 2024 than in 2023, with early 2025 data pointing to further declines. Meanwhile, the administration has revived a proposal to impose fixed visa terms, replacing the long-standing “duration of status” system that gave students flexibility.
Most recently, the U.S. introduced a dramatic new barrier: a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visa petitions filed by employers seeking to hire highly skilled foreign workers. Existing H-1B holders are exempt; however, for students hoping to remain in the U.S. after completing OPT or STEM OPT, this fee makes sponsorship far more uncertain. Though many employers will simply balk at the cost.
Here, the similarity to Britain is clear—both countries are narrowing pathways for long-term settlement and signaling caution about migration through education. The difference is in method: Britain has tightened eligibility rules for students directly—for example, banning most dependents—while the U.S. has chosen to burden employers financially, effectively chilling the labor market for international graduates. The result is the same: a colder climate for students who once saw the U.S. as the world’s most reliable destination for higher education and post-study work.
Canada: The Harshest Cap
Canada, long a darling of international students, has pivoted sharply. In 2024, the government imposed a national cap on study permits aimed at halting net growth. By year’s end, approvals had fallen nearly 50 percent from the year before. For 2025, Ottawa tightened the screws further by reducing the cap by another ten percent. That dramatic contraction will hit not only universities but also the many colleges and private institutions that built their budgets around international demand.
Australia: Language Tests and “Genuine Student” Rules
Australia’s migration strategy has also narrowed the funnel. From March 2024, applicants have had to clear a higher English threshold and pass a new “Genuine Student” test, replacing the looser Genuine Temporary Entrant requirement. Authorities claim this will improve integrity, but the effect is noticeable: fewer students pass through, and those who do face greater up-front burdens.
The Netherlands and Germany: Mixed Signals
On the continent, signals are more mixed. Dutch politicians have urged universities to reduce English-language programs and limit foreign enrollments, citing housing shortages and concerns about cultural balance. Universities have resisted, and in mid-2025, the government softened a proposed rule that would have forced existing programs to justify their language of instruction. In Germany, policies remain stable, although some states charge tuition to non-EU students, and selective waivers—for example, a 2025 agreement that waived visa fees for Indian students—reveal the push and pull of politics.
[RELATED: France’s Public Universities Face Funding Gap Despite Educating Majority of Students]
New Zealand: Swimming Against the Tide
One outlier is New Zealand, which in July 2025 unveiled an explicit growth strategy. It aims to double international education revenue by 2034 and will soon expand in-study work rights to 25 hours per week. While its competitors close doors, Wellington hopes to pry them open.
The Big Picture
So is everyone tightening the screws? Almost. Canada and Australia have taken unmistakably restrictive turns. Britain has tightened in some respects but spared its post-study work route. The U.S. remains formally open but is now less welcoming in practice, adding the blunt instrument of a six-figure H-1B fee to discourage long-term foreign hiring. Continental Europe sends mixed signals. Only New Zealand has broken from the pack, betting that students squeezed out of Canada or the U.S. might choose Auckland or Wellington instead.
The broader lesson is clear: the days when governments treated international students as unambiguous assets are over. Policymakers now weigh them against migration targets, housing shortages, and political optics. For universities, this means the international student “gravy train” is far less reliable than it once appeared. A model built on ever-growing flows of high-paying foreigners was always risky; today it looks downright precarious.
If the U.S. and U.K.—long the world’s two most prestigious destinations—send the message that international students are welcome only in limited, highly transactional ways, then those students will respond rationally: they will take their talents, tuition, and long-term contributions elsewhere. For American institutions in particular, the danger is not just the loss of revenue, but the loss of credibility as the global leader in higher education.
For insights into higher education worldwide, explore our Minding the World column.
Image: “University of South Australia” by Rexness on Wikimedia Commons
“If the U.S. and U.K.—long the world’s two most prestigious destinations—send the message that international students are welcome only in limited, highly transactional ways, then those students will respond rationally: they will take their talents, tuition, and long-term contributions elsewhere. For American institutions in particular, the danger is not just the loss of revenue, but the loss of credibility as the global leader in higher education.”
Perfect!
I would just add — not only loss as global leader in higher education — but also in scientific leadership and accomplishment.