The Department of Homeland Security has proposed a rule that would set time limits for how long individuals with F or J status—which includes international students, faculty, staff, and visiting scholars—can remain in the U.S.

Currently, such individuals are admitted to the U.S. for “duration of status,” or “D/S”, and are permitted to remain in the country as long as they are participating in their F or J program. The proposed, new rule would replace this “duration of status” with a fixed expiration date, requiring individuals with F and J status to timely file an application for extension of status if the length of their program would go past the expiration date.

The public comment period for the proposed rule ends on Sept. 29. The Office of Visa and Immigration Services (OVIS) and Office of General Counsel (OGC) are preparing a comment on Dartmouth’s behalf opposing the proposed rule change.

OVIS has also posted an update on its website and is including information about the proposed rule during new international student orientations to ensure students understand that the rule is not yet in effect. OVIS and OGC are continuing to monitor this issue closely and will provide updates to our international community as new information becomes available.

Two new executive orders were issued in early August. The first, Ensuring Transparency in Higher Education Admissions, seeks to address the consideration of race in higher education admissions by expanding data reporting requirements for highly selective universities. Dartmouth has fully adhered with the U.S. Supreme Court decision that banned the consideration of race in higher education admissions, and is assessing how the new order impacts our procedures.

The second, Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking, adds an additional review of federal research grants by a senior leadership appointee at each agency. While the peer review process will be maintained, the additional review will assess whether grants recommended for funding align with Administration priorities. At this time, Dartmouth continues to receive research funding, with awards from all federal agencies being made at our negotiated indirect cost rate.

Nonetheless, Dartmouth leaders are closely monitoring the potential impacts of these and other recent federal agency announcements, providing information to our local congressional delegation to bolster their support. We also continue to closely align our advocacy efforts with those of our peers through professional organizations like the AAU.

Vice Provost for Research Dean Madden submitted a declaration in support of an ongoing lawsuit by the Association of American Universities challenging a new Department of Defense policy that limits indirect costs rates to 15% on new and existing research grants. Submitted under oath, the declaration outlines how the policy harms Dartmouth by undermining research infrastructure, hampering job creation, and threatening future breakthroughs.

After months of deliberation and feedback from the research community, the Joint Associations Group (JAG) on Indirect Costs released its final recommendation for replacing the existing system for funding the indirect costs of university research. Vice Provost for Research Dean Madden spoke with the Chronicle of Higher Education about what JAG is calling its “FAIR model,” noting that much remains to be seen about its implementation—which will also have to gain legislative approval.

President Trump signed Congress’ budget reconciliation bill into law following its passage in the U.S. House. Among other impacts, it introduced a tiered system that imposes a tax rate of 4% on institutions like Dartmouth that have an endowment value of $750,000 to $2 million per student. That is nearly triple the 1.4% rate paid on net investment income by Dartmouth and its peers today.

Despite the endowment’s role in powering Dartmouth’s academic mission and its deep economic and educational impact on the region—funding everything from financial aid and research to new infrastructure—we are now one of 15 universities that face a financial penalty that the vast majority of higher education institutions do not. We are continuing to conduct financial modeling to assess the long-term impact of the increase.