Trump Administration Sets 15% Cap on International Undergraduate Enrolment at Top U.S. Universities

In a move set to significantly alter the dynamics of international education in the United States, the Trump administration has introduced a new policy capping the number of international undergraduate students at some of the nation’s most prestigious universities. The directive, which restricts international undergraduate enrolment to 15% and limits students from any single country to 5% of a university’s total undergraduate population, is already sending shockwaves through academic circles both in the U.S. and abroad.

Targeting America’s Elite Campuses

The policy is being applied selectively—nine high-profile universities have been identified in a memo published by the Wall Street Journal. These institutions, which represent a mix of Ivy League, public flagship, and research-intensive private universities, are:

• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
• University of Pennsylvania
• University of Arizona
• Brown University
• Dartmouth College
• University of Southern California (USC)
• University of Texas
• University of Virginia
• Vanderbilt University

While no official explanation has been provided for the selection of these institutions, White House sources indicated that these universities had shown a willingness to engage with the federal directive and provide feedback. However, education experts have raised concerns about the policy’s lack of transparency, particularly in how the targeted universities were identified and what metrics were used to determine international student impact.

A Sweeping Academic Overhaul

The cap on international students is just one element of the Trump administration’s ten-point “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” This broader initiative is designed to bring structural changes to U.S. higher education institutions, with a focus on standardisation, transparency, and financial restraint.

Key provisions of the compact include:

• Admissions and hiring processes must exclude race and gender as considerations.
• Universities must release anonymised admissions data broken down by race, nationality, and gender.
• All prospective students, including international applicants, must take standardised tests such as the SAT.
• Tuition must be frozen for five years, and institutions are expected to reduce administrative expenditures.
• Schools must publish graduate earnings data by academic programme to enhance accountability and aid informed decision-making.
• Institutions with endowments exceeding $2 million per undergraduate must offer full tuition waivers for students in “hard science” disciplines.

The administration frames these changes as an effort to promote fairness, academic excellence, and financial accountability, but critics argue that such sweeping mandates may disproportionately harm international students and underrepresented groups.

Compliance Mechanism: Audits and Federal Oversight

Universities that voluntarily adopt the compact will be required to submit to external oversight and independent auditing. These auditors will conduct anonymous surveys of students, faculty, and staff to assess whether the institution is adhering to the agreement. The results will be shared with the U.S. Department of Justice, creating a federal accountability mechanism tied not only to compliance but also to future funding eligibility.

In the event of non-compliance, universities risk having to repay federal education funds and return private donations received during the period of the agreement. This level of enforcement is unprecedented in higher education policy, raising concerns about academic autonomy and federal overreach.

Repercussions for International Education

The new cap is already having tangible effects. DePaul University in Chicago, although not among the nine targeted schools, has reported a 30% decline in international enrolment this fall, prompting a reduction in institutional spending. Education consultants anticipate a broader chilling effect across the U.S. as students from countries such as India, China, and South Korea reconsider their American education plans due to visa uncertainties and tightening quotas.

For international students, who contributed over $38 billion to the U.S. economy in 2024 through tuition and living expenses, the policy may reduce access to globally renowned American institutions. Furthermore, limiting students from any single country to 5% of total enrolment could disproportionately impact applicants from populous nations with high demand for U.S. education.

Universities, for their part, warn that such restrictions may undermine diversity, reduce research capacity, and force them to seek alternative funding sources to offset the financial loss associated with lower international tuition revenue.

Ongoing Tensions with Universities

The announcement comes amid heightened political tensions between the Trump administration and higher education institutions, particularly over policies relating to affirmative action, campus free speech, and allegations of antisemitism. Institutions like Harvard University continue to challenge the administration’s directives in court, while others, such as Columbia and Brown, have reportedly entered into financial agreements to avoid prolonged legal battles.

The current directive is seen by some as an extension of the administration’s efforts to assert control over how universities operate and who they admit. Critics say it represents an ideological shift from open global education to nationalist and protectionist academic policies.

The Road Ahead

While the directive is not yet a blanket federal mandate applicable to all institutions, its implementation at these nine top universities is likely to set a precedent. Other universities may choose to voluntarily adopt similar measures in anticipation of expanded federal oversight.

What remains to be seen is how this will affect global student mobility, U.S. soft power, and the international standing of American higher education. As other countries, including Canada, Australia, and the UK, continue to court international students with open immigration and post-study work policies, the U.S. risks losing its competitive edge.

The Association of American Universities (AAU) and National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) have both expressed concern over the long-term implications of this policy and are expected to issue formal responses in the coming weeks.

Conclusion