Landscape Shift: What the Trump Administration Means for International Education

The start of 2025 has brought dramatic change to the U.S. policy landscape with the inauguration of Donald Trump and the start of a new Congress. In just a few short weeks, there has been a flurry of activity—including executive orders and cabinet appointments—that could have major implications for international education.

To make sense of these developments, International Educator sat down with Jill Allen Murray, NAFSA's deputy executive director of public policy. Allen Murray’s team leads NAFSA's advocacy efforts, analyzes policy proposals, builds relationships with key policymakers, mobilizes advocates, and collaborates with coalition partners.

In the wide-ranging discussion, Allen Murray shares her perspective on the Trump administration's first actions; the potential impact on students, scholars, and international educators; and NAFSA's priorities and approach in this new era.

Editor’s note: This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Could you give us a broad overview of what has happened so far and how those actions affect international education? What are the implications for the field?

Sure. Since the inauguration of President Trump and the start of the new Congress, there have been a series of executive orders and appointments. Some confirmations have started to shape policy.

It’s quite helpful to look at the current administration web page that David Fosnocht [NAFSA director of immigration practice resources] has put together and continues to update. This conversation is a moment in time, and time will pass between when you and I speak and when people read [the interview]. So, going forward, the administration web page will be the most up-to-date view of what those executive orders contain.

But I can give you a brief synopsis of where we are right this minute. The executive orders are, in many cases, directives to a particular agency or set of agencies to head in a certain direction, but [the orders] don’t quite set policy. For policies to be set and enacted, nominees must be confirmed, come into office, and then start to outline regulatory changes or other ways in which they can actually proceed to implement the policy that was outlined in the executive order. Basically, the executive order is an outline, a general instruction. In some cases, we don't yet know what the impact on the field will be.

The executive order on birthright citizenship has generated a lot of discussion. Can you explain the potential impact of this order for the international education community and share your perspective on the likelihood of it actually taking effect?

During the IE30 event [on LinkedIn] that we did earlier this month, this was one of the actions I discussed. It's written in a broad enough way that individuals who are here temporarily—which would include international students and faculty and their families—could have a child here but that child would not be deemed a citizen, if the order were to take effect. Obviously, there's been a move by a court to say, “This is not happening.” So that's something that would affect children of international students or international scholars.

Birthright citizenship is firmly established in constitutional law, since it's included in the 14th Amendment. So, the executive order represents Trump’s attempt to rewrite or reinterpret the 14th Amendment.

I would suspect it's unlikely that the administration could successfully end birthright citizenship without the courts and possibly action to alter the Constitution. It’s unlikely to really have an impact, and that’s important to acknowledge.

However, it's still a radical position for the administration to take and an important statement of its values and intentions.

Beyond the executive order on birthright citizenship, what are some other actions the new administration has taken that could affect the international education community?

There was the creation of the gender “X” passport [marker] under the Biden administration. Trump signed an executive order with a directive that passports use sex, not gender, markers and that there be only two options [for sex markers]. Then, Secretary of State Marco Rubio set out a policy saying, “We will only be issuing passports that have male or female options on them.” So, right away, the administration is saying, “There's no more gender ‘X.’” Now, it remains to be seen how the existing gender X passports are dealt with—whether people with gender X passports will be able to hold on to them, whether they’ll face complications when they have to renew their passports, or whether the administration will go further and try to force people to get new passports. This is something I know our study abroad professionals are paying attention to.

I think the most wide-ranging order had to do with extreme vetting of individuals. NAFSA’s web page on this issue notes that this could impact international students because it allows—even though the wording of the order is a little vague—for people of certain nationalities to experience some kind of bar or extreme vetting. Again, the devil is in the details, and they haven’t put the policies in place that will translate the executive order into practice.

Pivoting to legislative developments, I'm curious about what you think about the passage of the Laken Riley Act and the impact this could have on international education.

Yes, that’s now been signed into law. So, interestingly enough, it is already in the power of the federal government to pressure recalcitrant countries to accept their deported nationals. Recalcitrant countries are those that are not accepting their foreign nationals as deportees—or, in some cases, are not quickly enough acknowledging that foreign nationals the United States intends to deport are their citizens. So, the executive branch already had the power to stop issuing visas to nationals from those countries.

The Laken Riley Act allows state attorneys general to sue the [U.S.] State Department to stop issuing visas for certain recalcitrant countries. So, the act makes it possible for this to happen on a state-by-state basis and gives the state attorneys general enhanced power. Under the Trump administration, I don't see state attorneys general using that new power, because the administration will be using it itself. I would see it being potentially problematic after the Trump administration leaves office, under another administration.

But the courts could play a significant role here. Immigration law is federal; it’s very likely that if state attorneys general try to use [the new power to sue the federal government to halt visa issuance to nationals from certain countries], it would have to go through the court system. So, there would be court challenges to that.

We've already briefly touched on concerns related to education abroad, but is there anything else you’re specifically keeping an eye on in that area—in terms of anticipated action from the new administration or new Congress?

You know, sometimes it's hard to predict what those things might be, but we stand at the ready. I would also say—this isn’t specific to the Trump administration—but [Senior Director of Education Abroad Services and Volunteer Engagement] Caroline [Donovan White] has been deeply involved in responding to efforts from other countries to make it harder for [U.S.] students to study in their countries, through increasing fees and other ways.

So, my team's working with her on this. We’ve written to certain embassies to voice our concerns about how these deterrents might force a decline in American students going to a particular country. We've seen a little bit of an uptick in those types of issues. It's happened in Australia and Italy, and, it was previously an issue in Spain.

Yes, it's interesting that we’ve seen this trend toward more restrictive immigration policies in so many countries around the world in recent years—in the United States and in other top receiving countries, like Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and others.

Yeah, that turn has been very interesting to watch because, not too long ago, we [in the United States] really felt like our competitor countries were able to recruit with better policies to attract prospective international students. And I think, more recently, it's not quite the same. You’re seeing certain countries cap their international student enrollment and implement other policies, and that actually helps to make the United States more attractive as an education destination.

Yeah, it’s also interesting to see the coalitions of people who are supporting different measures and what issues they say they’re trying to address. In some cases, we see more general anxiety about immigrant communities or high levels of immigration. But, in other cases, governments or coalitions point to issues around exploitation of international students or other immigrants or to housing shortages or other issues of scale as the motivation for more restrictive immigration policies. It’s interesting to see how these issues are playing out in different countries.

Well, I think those issues of scale are pretty important. These are good lessons for the United States. It’s important that we shape our international student policies in a really thoughtful way so that we don't have those issues around housing, for instance.

Yes, absolutely. So, what is NAFSA's approach on working with the new administration and Congress? What would you say is our general approach?

We've recently sent a two-page memo to the Trump administration with a short list of policy recommendations. That memo can be found on NAFSA’s current administration web page as well.

The memo includes study abroad and international student policy areas. What you'll see is that it’s written with the Trump administration as the audience, not our members. In the memo, we’re acknowledging the Trump administration’s focus on jobs and the U.S. economy, and we’re saying that the policies that we care about can be viewed in that context and can be helpful to growing the economy and making Americans more competitive. So, when you talk about making the United States a thriving country, one way to do that is to ensure that we have talent—and international talent is a piece of that. It's not something that requires an either/or approach. In the memo, there's a specific mention of STEM as a space in which we can approach that talent pipeline with a focus on domestic students and international students.

We were deliberate in how we crafted that [memo] because we're speaking directly to the [Trump] administration. And I think it's important to acknowledge Trump's words [during the campaign] about “stapling a green card to a diploma.” We actually quote him in the memo to say that there are areas of terrific agreement between the international education community and the new administration. But it's always a question of priorities. Trump might have said that during the campaign, but making green cards available to international students when they graduate from a U.S. university would require a change in law. So, if he wants to see that, then we would need for the Trump administration to prioritize it with Congress.

Speaking of Congress, what, if any, is NAFSA’s particular approach with the new Congress? How do we normally manage that relationship as a new Congress is seated every two years?

Yeah, it's not much different from Congress to Congress. Regardless of which party is in power in one or both houses of Congress, we work very hard to create strong relationships with the majority party and the minority party every time. Actually, what is most important to us is developing relationships with folks who sit on particular committees that govern the laws that matter for study abroad and for international education more broadly. Those committees are not always super obvious, and they're kind of diverse.

For example, the immigration subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee is meaningful because it governs the INA [Immigration and Nationality Act]. Any changes that would affect international students are under immigration law. So, we pay a lot of attention to who sits on the judiciary committees. We also have a couple of issues in front of the Committees on Foreign Affairs [in the House of Representatives] and Foreign Relations [in the Senate]. From time to time, things come up in the HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee in the Senate; the Education and Workforce Committee in the House; and the Appropriations Committees in both houses. We tend to pay a lot of attention to who is on those committees so that, when something might move forward, they have more power.

And I would say that moderates in both parties are particularly important because they have some really valuable influence, especially in the Senate.

Let’s talk about the particular challenges the field is expected to face in the next few years. How is NAFSA prepared to address those challenges?

Well, I think that the current administration web page outlines the series of policies that are likely to have us in a defensive posture. And it's our approach to get information out to the field very quickly. We are also hosting webinars to engage and educate the field when things are happening. And we'll continue to do that. Our internal rapid response strategy is in place; we knew how to do this before, and we know how to do it moving forward. And that's really our role here: to take the new policies that are coming out and to analyze, synthesize, and educate our community about how they impact our individual members, the international students who come to the United States, and Americans who are studying abroad.

I think it's also really important to acknowledge the advocacy that then comes afterward. It's not just about educating and keeping ourselves informed, but it's [also about] turning around and giving our own feedback—in particular to our members of Congress—when things are problematic and harm the work that we do. We have to make the case for why international education is so valuable, and we have to keep at it. Sometimes members of Congress don't want to hear it, and that might feel demoralizing to some people, if they feel like they're not being heard. But it is so important that our members continue to do that advocacy with us.

For example, in the Connecting Our World newsletters [from NAFSA Senior Director of Advocacy and Strategic Communications Erica Stewart],” there are action items—it’s important that people take those actions. Then, for those who are more willing to step up and participate, they can join us at Advocacy Day. Or they can reach out to say, “I want to be an ally, and I want to help you build relationships,” and you would do that by reaching out to Erica directly. So, I think there are terrific opportunities to engage with us when damaging policies come out.

Let's talk about partner organizations and our partners around the world. What role do those partners play in our efforts? How do we work with others to be more effective? I’m thinking specifically of the partner organizations in the U.S. for Success Coalition.

Regardless of what administration is in power and what party is in power in Congress, our job as advocates is always much easier if we are working in coalition with our allies. And the U.S. for Success Coalition is a great example of that. Of course, it’s singularly focused on international students rather than study abroad or international education more broadly. It does unify a number of organizations that care about these issues and allows us to align our messaging to provide real-time intelligence as things are coming out. Sharing expertise is an important part of NAFSA’s role, and NAFSA has some great expert staff that I work with on this. Heather Stewart [NAFSA Counsel and Director of Immigration Policy] is an example. She’s an immigration lawyer; when something has come out, I can turn to her and our partners in regulatory practice and say, “Can you get your eyes on this and give us some quick feedback?” So, we can share that expertise with our allies and ensure that we've all looked at any policy developments with that same fine-tooth comb and share our expertise, if you will.

Working with partners also allows us to align our advocacy efforts, so we're all on the same page in terms of what we're trying to accomplish and what we're going to take on and what we don't take on. [NAFSA Executive Director and CEO] Fanta [Aw] has been very clear in saying that NAFSA isn’t going to respond to every tweet that comes out. Sometimes, though, we will need to tackle something. The Laken Riley Act was an example of that where we said, “The impact of this could be problematic. We need to make sure that key senators are aware of that.” We didn’t engage our advocates, but within the coalition, we did share information and worked to give our analysis to a limited number of senate offices.

Let’s end by talking about whether you see any policy opportunities or reasons to be hopeful, regarding our values and the policy positions and initiatives we support. Whether it's in the administration, Congress, or even our relationships with state governments, do you see any specific opportunities?

I would go back to the acknowledgement of Trump’s support for a path to green cards for international students who have graduated from U.S. institutions. I think that's an opportunity. Elon Musk and others within the administration who support that path to stay in the country also want more international talent in the United States to work for businesses. Those influences are helpful. So, we'll just have to see how these debates proceed and how this all plays out. We'll see. •