Report on US Higher Education Policy Shift and its Conflict with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

Recent administrative actions within the United States are fundamentally altering the landscape of higher education, with significant negative implications for the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Through financial leverage and legal agreements, the administration is compelling universities to reduce international student enrollment, a policy that directly conflicts with global commitments to quality education, economic growth, innovation, and international partnership.

Undermining SDG 4: Quality Education

The policy shift represents a direct assault on the principles of SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. By restricting access for international students, the U.S. is actively limiting educational opportunities and undermining the global nature of its academic institutions.

The Columbia University Precedent

A settlement with Columbia University serves as a critical case study. Forced by the withholding of over $400 million in research funding, the university agreed to a clause mandating it to “decrease financial dependence on international student enrolment.” This action sets a dangerous precedent that threatens the financial viability and academic quality of institutions nationwide, directly impeding progress on SDG 4 by:

• Reducing the diversity of the student body, which is a key component of a quality 21st-century education.
• Diminishing university revenues, which are often used to fund scholarships and resources for domestic students, thereby affecting educational equity.
• Creating a climate of exclusion rather than the inclusive environment championed by SDG 4.

Contradicting SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure)

The move to limit international talent has severe repercussions for sustainable economic growth and innovation, goals central to SDGs 8 and 9.

Economic and Employment Impacts

The economic contributions of international students are substantial and their reduction poses a direct threat to SDG 8. Key economic data includes:

• A contribution of nearly $44 billion to the U.S. economy in the 2023–24 academic year.
• Support for over 378,000 jobs.
• A projected 30-40% decline in new international enrollment could trigger a significant economic contraction in university-dependent communities.

Erosion of Innovation and Competitiveness

Restricting the flow of global talent undermines the nation’s capacity for innovation, a cornerstone of SDG 9. International students are vital to the fields that drive technological advancement and industrial growth.

• In 2025, international students comprised 71% of full-time graduate students in computer science and 73% in electrical and computer engineering.
• A quarter of U.S.-based billion-dollar startups were founded by entrepreneurs who first came to the country as international students.

This policy weakens the research and development infrastructure and compromises the country’s ability to compete and innovate on a global scale.

Increasing Inequality and Weakening Institutions (SDG 10 & SDG 16)

The administration’s strategy actively promotes inequality and undermines the integrity of academic institutions, running counter to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

Systemic Barriers and Discriminatory Practices

The policy creates systemic barriers that increase inequality based on national origin. The methods being implemented include:

1. Targeting post-graduation work pathways like the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program for elimination.
2. Reforming the H-1B visa process to disadvantage recent graduates.
3. Proposing the abolition of the “duration of status” policy, which would create bureaucratic hurdles and increase deportation risks for students.

These actions institutionalize discrimination and deny opportunities to individuals, directly opposing the objective of SDG 10.

Undermining Institutional Autonomy

The use of coercive legal settlements to enforce immigration policy on universities compromises the principles of SDG 16. By leveraging financial pressure and investigations, the administration is weakening the autonomy and integrity of academic institutions, transforming them from centers of open inquiry into instruments of a nationalist agenda.

Retreat from Global Partnerships (SDG 17)

The overarching policy represents a significant retreat from global cooperation, which is the foundation of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The demographic reality is that U.S.-born college-age populations are declining, and international students are essential for sustaining academic programs, particularly in STEM fields. By closing its doors, the U.S. is not only harming itself but also abandoning its role as a global partner in education and research.

Conclusion

The policy to curtail international student enrollment in U.S. higher education is in direct and profound conflict with multiple Sustainable Development Goals. It undermines commitments to quality education (SDG 4), harms economic growth and innovation (SDGs 8 & 9), promotes inequality (SDG 10), weakens academic institutions (SDG 16), and signals a retreat from the global partnerships essential for progress (SDG 17). This inward turn threatens to erode the nation’s leadership in education and innovation, inflicting long-term damage on both its domestic prosperity and its standing in the global community.

Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • The article’s central theme is the policy shift affecting higher education in the U.S. It discusses how financial pressure and legal settlements are being used to “compel universities to reduce their enrolment of international students,” directly impacting access to and the financial model of tertiary education. The policy is described as a “reengineering of American higher education’s relationship with the world,” which fundamentally alters the nature and quality of the educational environment.

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • The article explicitly details the economic consequences of reducing international student enrollment. It states that “International students contributed nearly $44 billion to the US economy and supported more than 378,000 jobs in the 2023–24 academic year.” Furthermore, it discusses the dismantling of work pathways like the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which affects the ability of graduates to find decent work and contribute to economic growth.

3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

   • The article highlights the critical role of international students in driving innovation. It notes their overrepresentation in key technology fields, stating they “made up 71% of full-time graduate students in computer science and 73% in electrical and computer engineering.” The text warns that these policies put “Innovation at risk,” pointing out that “A quarter of US-based billion-dollar startups were founded by individuals who first arrived as international students,” thereby undermining the country’s technological competitiveness.

4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • The policies described create inequality by restricting educational and professional opportunities based on national origin. The article points to a strategy of “national exclusivity” that “eclipses educational openness.” The dismantling of immigration pathways and the targeting of institutions “perceived as too globally oriented” are actions that reduce the mobility of people and create barriers, running counter to the goal of reducing inequality.

5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • The article describes a deliberate “turn inward” and a move to “narrowing the global footprint of American academia.” This approach is in direct opposition to fostering global partnerships. The text argues that U.S. prosperity is “deeply intertwined with global academic exchange” and that the new policies erode “America’s global leadership in education” by recasting universities as “gatekeepers of nationalism rather than engines of global knowledge.”

What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university. The article discusses policies aimed at actively reducing access for a specific group (international students) to tertiary education in the U.S.
   • Target 4.b: By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries… for enrolment in higher education… in developed countries. The policy of reducing international student enrollment is contrary to the spirit of this target, which promotes international student mobility. The article mentions that international students help “offset the costs of financial aid,” implying that their reduction could negatively impact funding available for all students.

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • Target 8.2: Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation. The article argues that restricting international students, who are crucial to STEM fields and entrepreneurship, “undermines the country’s technological competitiveness” and puts “Innovation at risk,” thereby hindering progress toward this target.
   • Target 8.6: By 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education or training. The article details plans to eliminate post-graduation work programs like OPT and reform H-1B visas to “disadvantage recent graduates.” These actions directly create barriers for young international graduates transitioning from education to employment.

3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

   • Target 9.5: Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors… encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers. The article shows that policies reducing the number of international graduate students in computer science and engineering directly threaten the pool of talent available for research and development, thus working against this target.

4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies. The article describes the opposite: the “aggressive dismantling of immigration pathways,” including the potential elimination of OPT and the “duration of status” policy, which would create bureaucratic hurdles and increase risks for students.

5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.6: Enhance… international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge sharing. The policy to “insulate elite institutions from foreign influence” and reduce the presence of international students directly undermines international cooperation in education and science, contradicting the goal of enhancing knowledge sharing.

Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 4 (Quality Education)

   • Proportion of international students in the student body: The article provides specific figures, such as “nearly 40% of the student body comes from abroad” at Columbia and “14% of students are international” at Brown. A decrease in this proportion would indicate a regression from Target 4.3.
   • Projected change in international student enrollment: The article mentions a “projected 30% to 40% drop in new international enrollment,” which serves as a direct indicator of declining access for this group.

2. Indicators for SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

   • Economic contribution of international students: The article quantifies this at “nearly $44 billion to the US economy.” Changes in this figure would measure economic impact.
   • Number of jobs supported by international students: The figure of “more than 378,000 jobs” is a clear indicator. A decline in international students would likely lead to a reduction in this number.
   • Availability of post-graduation work programs: The status of programs like OPT and STEM OPT extensions (whether they are active or eliminated) serves as a qualitative indicator for Target 8.6.

3. Indicators for SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure)

   • Proportion of international students in STEM graduate programs: The article cites that in 2025, international students made up “71% of full-time graduate students in computer science and 73% in electrical and computer engineering.” This is a key indicator of the talent pipeline for innovation.
   • Proportion of startups founded by former international students: The statistic that “A quarter of US-based billion-dollar startups were founded by individuals who first arrived as international students” is a powerful indicator of their contribution to innovation.

4. Indicators for SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

   • Policies governing student migration and stay: The existence or elimination of policies like the “duration of status” rule and changes to the H-1B visa process are indicators of whether migration policies are becoming more or less restrictive and, therefore, more or less equitable.

5. Indicators for SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

   • Number of international students enrolled: This serves as a proxy indicator for the level of global academic exchange and partnership. A decline, as projected, indicates a weakening of these partnerships.

Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com