A Tale of Two Reports: Contradictions in International Student Mobility in the Trump 2.0 Era

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."

Two major 2024 reports reveal dramatically different realities in international student mobility, telling stories of prosperity and vulnerability in U.S. international education.

Like Dickens' London, the Open Doors 2024 Report tells a tale of triumph and resilience: international enrollment growing 6.6% to 1,126,690 students, generating $50 billion in economic impact. Its metrics celebrate traditional indicators of U.S. dominance: record-setting numbers in STEM fields (56% of all international students), graduate enrollment of 502,291 students (+8% growth), and expanding Optional Practical Training enrollment of 242,782 (+22%). The narrative suggests a system that has not just recovered from pandemic disruption but emerged stronger.

Like Dickens’ Paris, the Global Enrolment Benchmark Survey, published by NAFSA, Oxford Test of English, and Studyportals, tells a tale of deeper instabilities beneath these headlines. It exposes critical vulnerabilities: dangerous market concentration, widespread institutional concern (58% of U.S. institutions citing visa and policy barriers), and mounting accessibility challenges (more than half of U.S. institutions reporting affordability as a major obstacle). Like Dickens' Paris, it suggests a system whose rigidity may become its undoing.

The question isn't which report is “right” -- they focus on starkly different metrics -- which tell dramatically different tales. But, it does raise the question of which metrics are the ones that really matter in today’s geopolitical context -- and what future they foretell if current trends persist.

Like Dickens' Tale of Two Cities, these reports signal surface prosperity that masks simmering signs of slow, steady shifts. Year-to-year comparisons often make the headlines, inducing a kind of "change blindness" that obscures the deeper structural changes reshaping international student mobility. Larger trends loom and merit a deeper look.

Two Reports, Two Realities

Geographic Concentration and the Challenge of Diversification

The contrast between Open Doors' celebration of record enrollment (1,126,690 students) also highlights a critical vulnerability: a dramatic market concentration shift has occurred over the past decade, with China and India's combined share of international students rising from 45% in 2014 to over 54% in 2023, creating unprecedented concentration risk in U.S. higher education.

The Benchmark Survey reveals institutions' growing awareness of market concentration risks, with diversification emerging as a universal priority—yet significant obstacles remain. More than half of U.S. institutions identify affordability and cost of living as major barriers, while 58% cite government policies and visa issues as significant challenges. These barriers appear particularly acute in emerging markets: African countries report higher obstacles to entry than Asian countries, suggesting structural impediments to market diversification.

The Open Doors report notes that diversity in student origins has grown over the last decade, even as India and China remain dominant sources. However, heavy reliance on two source countries, low overall international student ratio, emerging market access barriers, and academic field concentration - suggest a system that may be more vulnerable than aggregate growth numbers indicate.

Graduate Growth and the Employment-Driven Future

Open Doors documents a clear transformation: undergraduate enrollment declined by 1% while graduate programs grew by 8%, with Optional Practical Training showing the strongest growth at 22%. This shift aligns with intensifying STEM focus, now accounting for 56% of all international students. These trends reflect multiple underlying factors in G20 economies with strong labor market demand for technical talent, the higher earning potential of STEM careers, and immigration policies that favor advanced degree holders - particularly in fields deemed crucial for economic competitiveness.

Open Doors data from 2014-2024 reveals a stark disciplinary realignment: STEM fields collectively dominate international enrollment, dwarfing other fields. Math and Computer Science now leads with over 280,000 students (25% of total enrollment), followed by Engineering (19%. This dramatic concentration in technical fields, exemplified by Computer Science's substantial growth, reflects fundamental shifts in global labor markets, earning potential disparities, and immigration policies increasingly favoring technical expertise.

The strong growth in STEM fields and OPT, combined with shifting institutional priorities and funding patterns, indicates evolution toward a more career-focused model. However, this raises important questions about maintaining the broader educational mission of international exchange, particularly as institutions face budget pressures and navigate an increasingly competitive global landscape.

Aggregate Economic Gains but Growing Accessibility Barriers

While Open Doors celebrates a $50 billion contribution to the American economy, the Benchmark Survey exposes growing concerns about financial accessibility and institutional stability that challenge this model's sustainability.

The institutional perspective reveals mounting pressures. The Benchmark Survey shows that more than half of U.S. institutions identify tuition and cost of living as significant obstacles for students. Affordability concerns were significantly higher in African countries than in Asian ones (43% vs. 31%).

The HolonIQ 2024 Global Student Flows report, noted differences in program price points chosen by students from different source countries. Chinese students tend to enroll in higher-priced programs (median $45K for undergraduate), while Indian students typically choose mid-range programs (median $28K), indicating varying price sensitivities and financial capacities that institutions must consider in their recruitment strategies.

High reliance on personal funding, increasing cost barriers, institutional budget pressures, and shifting global competition - suggest a system that may be approaching an inflection point. As universities face pressure to both maintain revenue and expand access, the traditional model of high-cost, high-revenue international student enrollment may require fundamental reconsideration.

Visa Barriers and the Fragility of Exchange

Immigration policy effects reveal perhaps the starkest divide between the reports. While Open Doors celebrates post-pandemic recovery, the Benchmark Survey exposes pervasive concerns about visa barriers threatening this growth. The modest expansion beyond pre-pandemic numbers masks significant regional and institutional variations.

An analysis from the Cato Institute documents how student visa denial rates have increased dramatically, reaching 36% in 2023, up from 15% in 2014. African students face even higher barriers, with denial rates exceeding 60% in many countries. The concentration of international students in STEM fields (56% of total enrollment) adds another layer of complexity, as potential restrictions on STEM visas for certain nationalities could disproportionately impact both student mobility and institutional sustainability.

HolonIQ's state-level analysis adds important context - the impact of any new immigration policies would likely be felt unevenly across the US. States like Texas show a notably higher concentration of Indian students compared to Chinese students, while states like California and New York maintain larger Chinese student populations, suggesting varying levels of exposure to country-specific policy changes.

This complex policy environment requires looking beyond traditional enrollment metrics to understand true system health. When over half of U.S. institutions report affordability and cost of living as significant barriers, and many anticipate budget constraints and program changes, the challenge becomes not just about visa approval rates but about maintaining sustainable, diverse pathways for international education and exchange.

Looming Immigration Overhaul in Trump 2.0 Era

Trump's stance on international student immigration remains contradictory. While proposing automatic green cards for international graduates on the "All-In Podcast," his campaign later clarified this would involve "an aggressive vetting process" limited to graduates "who would never undercut American wages or workers."

The FBI's 'China Initiative' under Trump's first term, while uncovering few security risks, significantly disrupted research collaborations with China. As Karin Fischer highlights, Trump allies are signaling interest in reviving and expanding this program, which could further strain international research collaborations. The initiative's revival would likely introduce new layers of bureaucratic scrutiny and compliance requirements, particularly affecting the STEM fields where Chinese students and scholars are most concentrated. This could accelerate the ongoing shift of Chinese students toward other destination countries, further destabilizing the current enrollment patterns.

As I've highlighted elsewhere, while international student enrollment at U.S. higher education institutions rebounded to pre-pandemic levels, international scholar mobility lingers at levels from 15 years ago, much of it driven by the U.S.'s strategic pivot away from China in science and technology during the first Trump administration, leading to stricter visa policies and increased scrutiny for Chinese scholars.

The policy risks extend beyond simple visa restrictions. Brendan Cantwell also notes that the Trump administration could also implement sophisticated constraints through export controls and technology transfer restrictions, particularly affecting STEM fields where the majority of international students concentrate. Moreover, Trump's appointment of over 230 federal judges during his presidency, including three Supreme Court justices, has reshaped the federal judiciary, and this transformed judiciary is likely to be more receptive to immigration restrictions than during Trump's first term.

For What and Whose Benefit?

These reports are reminiscent of another Dicken's classic: A Christmas Carol. Dickens' ghosts offer visions of international education's past, present, and possible future—telling a story not just of numbers, but of choices and consequences.

The Ghost of International Education Past reveals a stark contrast: while U.S. international education was founded on post-war cultural diplomacy, it now faces unprecedented challenges in today's fractured geopolitical landscape. The Ghost of International Education Present in these two reports reveals uncomfortable truths beneath surface prosperity. And, like Dickens' tale, the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come reveals what could happen if trends around accessibility, affordability, and geographic concentration persist.

As Rajika Bhandari asked over a decade ago, "An international education for what and for whose benefit?" Today, we must also ask "at what cost and what risk?" Geopolitical analysts argue the future may be nothing like the past, and the field must grapple with the implications of this complex landscape. Bhandari's decade-old question takes on new urgency in this critical moment.

The tale of these two reports serves not just as a contrast in metrics, but in the messages they foretell. Together, they haunt me with a renewed sense of purpose, urging us to rebuild a system that balances economic benefit with educational exchange, market concentration with diversification, and growth with accessibility. How about you?