Trump Should Make Foreign Students Pay Reciprocal Tuition

President Trump’s recent defense of issuing up to 600,000 visas for Chinese students has sparked criticism among his supporters, who see it as a contradiction to his "America First" stance. This comes as his administration is also moving to tighten visa durations for foreign students and journalists, highlighting a complex issue regarding tuition rates for international students in the U.S.

Explainer As A Former DC Cop, The Federal Takeover Was The Right Move

American universities are often perceived as being sold at a discount to foreign students, particularly from nations that charge American students significantly higher tuition rates. For instance, at Western University in Ontario, local students pay $6,000 annually, while Americans are charged $46,000. Similarly, at Polytechnique Montréal, Quebec residents pay $3,000, compared to $30,000 for foreign students. In the U.K., American students at Oxford face tuition bills of $52,000, while British students pay $12,700.

The disparity raises questions about the fairness of charging foreign students the same tuition as domestic students at U.S. universities. For example, both international and out-of-state students pay $80,739 at UCLA, $42,400 at Ohio State, and $64,884 at the University of Michigan. Critics argue that this system undermines American taxpayers who subsidize these institutions.

To address this imbalance, a proposal suggests implementing a two-tier tuition system for foreign students. Tier One would apply to students from adversary nations, such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, who would be charged significantly higher tuition rates—approximately 13 times the U.S. average. This could result in tuition fees of around $368,000 at public universities and nearly $500,000 at private institutions.

Tier Two would encompass students from allied nations, who would face a markup that reflects the average premium American students pay abroad, estimated at 7.5 times the domestic rate. This would translate to about $212,000 per year at public universities.

Proponents of this model argue that it would relieve pressure on U.S. students, as foreign enrollment has surged, particularly in STEM programs. With over 1.1 million foreign students currently in American universities, a higher tuition barrier could limit the influx to only the most qualified candidates, thereby freeing up spots for American students.

Additionally, the revenue generated from these higher tuition rates could be redirected to support American students through scholarships, debt relief, and faculty expansion. As of 2025, American students have accumulated a record $1.814 trillion in student debt, and utilizing foreign tuition dollars could help alleviate this burden.

Critics have raised concerns that such policies could stifle innovation or diversity within U.S. academia. However, historical trends suggest that American universities thrived before the influx of international students, and targeted restrictions have not hindered academic progress.

This proposed tuition structure is framed not as isolationism but as a strategic approach to protect national security while maintaining educational opportunities. By requiring foreign adversaries to pay a premium, the U.S. could ensure that its educational resources are not exploited by those who may pose a threat to national interests.

In conclusion, implementing a reciprocal tuition policy could serve as a significant step towards restoring fairness in higher education, protecting American interests, and ensuring that foreign students contribute their fair share to the system that supports them.