A combination of restrictive visa policies and growing global competition is triggering a sharp decline in international student enrollment. A recent poll by NAFSA: Association of International Educators found that the United States is projected to see a 15% drop in overall international student enrollment this fall—a loss of approximately 150,000 students. NAFSA estimates this decline will result in nearly $7 billion in lost revenue and eliminate over 60,000 jobs from the U.S. economy.
The Policy Chokehold
Visa tightening has been a significant cause of these disruptions. Data from Inside Higher Ed found that F-1 and J-1 visa issuance dropped 12% from January to April 2025, followed by a 22% year-over-year drop in May. Last May and June, the State Department suspended visa interviews to implement new vetting procedures, including social media checks. The result was a bottleneck in key markets like India, China, Japan, and Nigeria, where appointment availabil ty became severely limited or nonexistent.
For India, student visas issued in the first half of FY 2025 plummeted by 43.5%. NAFSA’s report estimates that June 2025 F-1 visa issuances could decline by as much as 90% under these new policies. Furthermore, travel bans on nationals from 19 countries continue to block even admitted students with valid visas from entering the United States.
Unsurprisingly, a May survey by Study Portals found student interest in studying in the U.S. has dropped to its lowest point since the COVID-19 pandemic, with applicants increasingly looking to competitor nations like the U.K. and Australia.
An Existential Threat to Vulnerable Institutions
Colleges that lack large endowments and have small student bodies are susceptible to even a slight drop in enrollment. A Moody’s analysis warns that the most severe impact will be on small, private colleges, particularly those with a special focus or a Christian affiliation. These schools have come to rely on international students who pay full tuition to balance their books.
In June, Clark University in Massachusetts announced plans to lay off up to 30% of its faculty and to cut several degree programs in response to financial strain. While this restructuring was planned before the full scale of the international student crisis as known, a projected 40% drop in its new international cohort—which could represent a $2 million loss—will only deepen its financial hole.
Similarly, institutions like Drew University have been forced to take drastic measures, spending down their endowment and selling off campus land to meet operational costs. A loss of dozens of full-pay international students could be the final straw for schools already on the brink.
Ceding Ground in the Global Race for Talent
The effects on the United States’ standing as a world leader in scientific research are substantial. As NPR reported, more than half of the 1.1 million international students in the U.S. are from India and China, and they are overwhelmingly concentrated in STEM and quantitative fields. At the graduate level, this concentration is even more pronounced. At many top-tier programs in computer science, engineering, and data science at universities like Carnegie Mellon, UIUC, and Columbia, international students can make up over 70% of the student body.
The effects can be widespread. Spending by these students affects the local economy. Much of our vital research and innovations come from these students. Restricting their enrollment could impact America’s standing as a world leader in scientific innovation.
The Path Forward
The solution, as outlined by NAFSA and other advocacy groups, is clear: the administration must prioritize student visas by expediting appointments and processing for all F-1 and M-1 students and exempting them from the broad travel bans, while maintaining necessary background checks.
The United States is at risk of triggering a $7 billion brain drain that will cripple communities, shutter colleges, and, most critically, surrender our position as the world’s leader in science and innovation. In the global talent competition, we are not just losing applicants—we are losing an advantage.