Trump Should Make Foreign Students Pay Reciprocal Tuition

President Trump’s recent defense of issuing up to 600,000 visas for Chinese students landed like a thunderclap. His MAGA supporters cried betrayal: how does “America First” square with opening the floodgates to our top rival? The irony is rich — this comes as his administration also moves to tighten visa durations for foreign students and journalists. The contradiction exposes a bigger problem: America’s universities, the Birkin Bag of higher education, are being sold at a discount. And the bargain is going to the very nations that overcharge American students studying abroad.

It doesn’t take long overseas to feel the sting of reciprocity denied. At Western University in Ontario, locals pay $6,000 a year. Americans pay $46,000, eight times more. At Polytechnique Montréal, Quebecers pay $3,000. Outsiders pay $30,000, a tenfold jump. At French universities, Americans pay 16 times more. At Oxford, Brits pay $12,700. Americans face bills of $52,000.

Across the globe, from Tsinghua University to the University of Hong Kong or Melbourne to University College London and beyond, the average premium American students pay hits 7.5 times that of a local resident. Yet when foreign students — many from adversary nations — arrive in the U.S., we often charge them the same full-freight tuition as domestic kids.

Does it really make sense at America’s public universities for both international and out-of-state students to pay the same $80,739 at UCLA, $42,400 at Ohio State, or $64,884 at Michigan? And what about private schools like UPENN, where American and foreign students pay $63,204, or Northwestern, where both pay $67,158? All while taxpayers subsidize the very system that makes those schools world-class?

The simple answer is “No.” The imbalance needs fixing, and fortunately a model already exists: the in-state versus out-of-state spread at America’s public universities. Extrapolate it globally, with a national-security filter, and you have a two-tier system that makes sense.

Make Foreign Students Pay Their Share

Tier One covers adversary nations as defined by the U.S. government under frameworks like 15 CFR 791.4 — China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Students from those countries should pay close to the top observed reciprocal rate: Let’s go with 13 times the U.S. average. With out-of-state tuition at public schools averaging $28,300, that’s $368,000. At private universities averaging $38,400, the price tag hits nearly $500,000. Sticker shock? Absolutely. But why should adversaries get a deal here?

Americans already pay those kinds of premium multiples abroad, and those do limit the scale of American demand overseas. Similarly, charging students from foreign adversaries appropriately will mitigate the consumers able to afford it, so don’t go thinking our institutions will take advantage of this new flood of cash to admit even more Tier One students. That won’t work. Not only is it unpatriotic, but demand will hit a ceiling too, benefiting Americans seeking newly opened, highly coveted admission slots.

But what if the higher tuition kills all foreign demand? Simply, it can’t. The U.S. government isn’t price-fixing, it’s only requiring a multiple. Therefore, universities can still lower prices in order to increase demand, meaning a more tolerable, say, $130,000 tuition for a Chinese student would mean an extremely affordable 1/13^th tuition of $10,000 for an American.

That said, no matter the price, American national security interests should never be compromised. Which is exactly why we should prevent students from non-allied nations from studying in sensitive educational fields. The FBI and Commerce Department have warned for years: adversaries exploit academic access to siphon technology. Artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotech, cybersecurity, hypersonics — these are not just disciplines, they are battlegrounds. Past crackdowns have revoked visas in these areas. The risk is clear.

Therefore, Tier One students must be banned from studying in those fields, and addressing this can be accomplished at the admissions stage or at the transfer stage. If a student possesses a passport from a foreign adversary, they can study literature or business and pay the new premium price to do so. A STEM discipline or other sensitive area listed above, no way.

Tier Two covers allies and partners, be that Canada, the UK, Japan, South Korea and others. Here the markup matches what average Americans face abroad: 7.5 times. That’s about $212,000 a year at a public university. Steep, yes. But fair. It reflects the value of access while sustaining exchange with nations that share our intelligence and research.

A Win for Students, Schools, and Taxpayers

The upsides are obvious. First, it relieves pressure on U.S. students. More than 1.1 million foreign students are currently enrolled in American universities. Chinese students alone number 277,000, down from 370,000 pre-pandemic. They cluster in STEM programs, crowding out qualified Americans. A $368,000 tuition bar filters the flood to only the most exceptional. That means more seats for Americans who’ve been paying into the system through taxes their entire lives.

Second, the revenue could reshape higher education finance. Even a fraction of Trump’s proposed 600,000 Chinese students under this model would yield billions. That money could go straight to scholarships, debt relief, tuition reduction, and faculty expansion. As of the end of the 2025 school year, American citizens attending U.S. universities accumulated a record $1.814 trillion in student debt. Yes, almost two trillion dollars! Imagine using foreign premium dollars to lower that burden. And, once again, because the policy sets ratios, not prices, universities can adjust their base rates if demand craters, while keeping the mandated multiples intact. Domestic students aren’t punished; foreign students just finally pay their share.

Third, it restores equity for taxpayers. U.S. higher ed isn’t self-sustaining. It’s underwritten by the public — federal subsidies worth $8,000 to $100,000 per student, Pell Grants, land grants, tax-exempt endowments, and more. Yet adversaries exploit that generosity, sending students who return home armed with U.S.-funded knowledge that strengthens their militaries. A reciprocal system flips the script. Instead of Americans subsidizing China, Chinese students would help subsidize Americans.

Critics warn this will chill innovation or diversity. History says otherwise. U.S. academia thrived long before mass international enrollment. Targeted restrictions have been on the table since 2020 without derailing progress. Others argue students will simply go elsewhere. Fine. American universities are not in the business of training adversaries on the cheap. If allies balk, they can lower the multiple premiums they charge Americans abroad. That’s what reciprocity looks like.

This is not isolationism. It’s strategic realism. America’s strength has always rested on openness. But openness cannot mean naïveté. Welcoming the world doesn’t mean handing rivals the keys to our labs. True reciprocity means keeping classrooms diverse, but on terms that protect national security and honor taxpayers.

The global education market is already tilting against us. Other nations treat Americans as cash cows while feasting on our openness. By repricing access, we reset the terms. America’s universities are ultra-premium goods. A Birkin Bag commands a premium because it is rare and coveted. So should our schools.

Trump has a chance to make reciprocal tuition his legacy. By charging adversaries 13 times, allies 7.5 times, and barring rivals from sensitive programs, he can protect security, restore fairness, and reinvest in America’s own students. It would prove that “America First” is more than a slogan. It’s policy.