Explained: DIGNITY Act of 2025 and what scrapping ‘intent to leave’ could mean for international students

For decades, the most awkward moment in an F-1 visa interview has not been about grades, universities, or finances. It has been the question no one answers honestly: “What will you do after your studies?”The “correct” response, students know, is to talk about returning home — even when the system itself quietly channels them towards Optional Practical Training, employer sponsorship and long-term work visas.

This contradiction is baked into US immigration law through the ‘intent to leave’ requirement, a rule that presumes every student applicant is a potential immigrant unless they prove otherwise.Now, a bipartisan immigration bill — the DIGNITY Act of 2025 — is proposing to dismantle that legal fiction for F-1 students. If it succeeds, it could redraw one of the most misunderstood fault lines in the US student visa system.

The problem no one names: ‘Intent to leave’ and the reality of student migration

Under current US law, F-1 student visas are governed by Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The provision assumes that all non-immigrant visa applicants secretly intend to immigrate unless they can prove strong ties to their home country.For international students, this translates into an unusual burden. At the visa window, they are required to demonstrate that they will not want what the system later encourages them to pursue: work experience, skill retention and, potentially, legal long-term stay.

Consular officers evaluate ties through a narrow lens: Property ownership, family location, career certainty. These markers that often disadvantage younger applicants from mobile, globalised families. It is why academically sound, fully funded students are frequently refused visas under a single line: Failure to establish non-immigrant intent.Over time, this has turned the F-1 interview into a test of narrative discipline rather than educational merit.

What the DIGNITY Act of 2025 is really trying to fix

Introduced in the US House of Representatives in July 2025, the DIGNITY Act is not primarily a student visa reform bill. It is a sweeping immigration package that attempts an old Washington balancing act: Tougher enforcement paired with regulated legal pathways.Its headline components include temporary legal status for certain undocumented immigrants, expanded border security, reforms to green card backlogs and stricter employment verification.

Embedded within this broader framework is a quieter, but consequential, proposal — removing the ‘intent to leave’ requirement for F-1 students.In effect, the bill acknowledges a basic reality policymakers have long avoided: modern international education is no longer a short-term cultural exchange. It is a feeder system for global labour markets, research ecosystems and innovation pipelines.By eliminating the requirement for students to prove they will leave, the Act would move F-1 visas closer to a dual-intent framework — similar to H-1B or L-1 visas — where applicants are allowed to study and legally aspire to long-term opportunities, subject to separate approvals.

Why this matters more than it sounds

Scrapping ‘intent to leave’ would not make the F-1 visa easier in every sense. Students would still need to prove academic preparedness, financial capacity and genuine educational purpose. Fraud checks, security vetting and institutional scrutiny would remain intact. But it would fundamentally change the tone of the process.First, it would reduce the subjectivity that currently dominates visa decisions. Officers would no longer need to guess whether a 20-year-old truly plans to return home in five years — a prediction no one can make honestly.Second, it would allow students to speak candidly about legal post-study pathways like OPT without fearing automatic rejection. The current system penalises honesty while rewarding carefully scripted answers.Third, it would recalibrate US competitiveness. As countries like Canada, Australia and the UK openly design post-study work routes to retain talent, the US has continued to rely on a rule that treats ambition as concealment.

The uncomfortable trade-off students must still watch for

There is, however, a parallel policy conversation unfolding alongside the DIGNITY Act — and it complicates the picture. The US Department of Homeland Security has been exploring changes to how long students are allowed to stay in the US under F-1 status, potentially replacing the traditional “duration of status” model with fixed-term admissions. For students in PhD programmes or research-intensive degrees, this could introduce new layers of administrative uncertainty.In other words, while Congress debates making visa intent more realistic, regulators may simultaneously make visa maintenance more procedural. For students, the benefit of honesty at entry could come with higher compliance demands later.

Where the bill stands and what students should realistically expect

As of now, the DIGNITY Act remains a proposal. It must survive committee scrutiny, pass both chambers of Congress and avoid being diluted by electoral politics — a steep climb for any comprehensive immigration reform.For current and near-term applicants, nothing changes yet. The ‘intent to leave’ rule still applies. Visa officers continue to operate under existing law. Students must still demonstrate non-immigrant intent, however artificial that performance may feel.But the introduction of this clause signals something important: policymakers are finally acknowledging that the language of student visas has lagged behind the economics of education.

Why this shift, if it happens, is long overdue

For years, the US has depended on international students while pretending they are temporary guests with no future stake in the country. The DIGNITY Act challenges that contradiction — not by promising students permanent residency, but by allowing them to be truthful.Education migration has always been about possibilities, not guarantees. Removing the ‘intent to leave’ requirement does not change outcomes; it changes honesty. And in a system strained by distrust, that alone would be a meaningful reform.