Recent data presents a stark picture: after years of climbing numbers, international student enrollment in the U.S. is hitting turbulence. The Open Doors 2023–24 report showed a record-setting 1.126 million international students, including 502,291 graduate students and 242,782 on OPT, marking significant growth.

Yet, the outlook is shifting dramatically. New projections from NAFSA and JB International project a 30–40% plunge in new international student commencements this fall—equivalent to 150,000 fewer students, triggering a potential $7 billion loss to the American economy and jeopardizing 60,000 U.S. jobs. All because of newly aggressive visa restrictions, heightened security measures, and increased institutional scrutiny leading to shrinking interest in the U.S. as a place to study.

This puts institutions in a similar position to where they were as the pandemic wore on: Looking for alternative sources of graduate students to buttress against the next crisis. One forward-leaning institution commissioned me to do a major analysis of the similarities and differences between their international and domestic graduate students. Among dozens of findings, five stand out:

In a dual track study designed to assess – side-by-side – the domestic and international audience, we surfaced that differences that go far beyond languages or locations:

1. Decision drivers vary wildly.

   The factors that motivate one audience simply don’t resonate with the other.

2. Institutional appeal diverges.

   The comparison set of institutions being considered are almost entirely different.

3. Format and delivery preferences differ.

   While more aligned, the expectations and preferences of the two audiences vary considerably.

4. Unexpected competitors.

   Domestic students who didn’t enroll often chose schools that surprised the institution.

5. Research and discovery behaviors differ completely.

   From channels used to trusted sources – to say nothing of the value propositions that resonate – the two audiences diverge considerably.

6. Touchpoints matter.

   When and how each group wants contact varies significantly.

It is likely that too few institutions did this planning. I don’t blame them. As I often say, “there is no money tree on campus.” This often means focusing on today and tomorrow but putting fewer resources toward the longer term. Now we face an implosion of international enrollment and its time to act.

My Take: It is clear that the U.S. higher education is at yet another inflection point. The remarkable rebound in international students following the pandemic has collided with new geopolitical and bureaucratic barriers. Institutions that have become reliant on the world’s interest in sending their sons and daughters to the U.S. for study must pivot swiftly—and thoughtfully—to engage and retain domestic audiences.

This will require differentiated strategies: they’re not optional; they’re survival tactics. In practice, that means redesigning communications, recalibrating recruitment channels, and adapting the student experience to align with domestic motivations—from messaging to modality to touchpoints. The next few months will test whether institutions can flex quickly enough—with clarity, empathy, and insight. The winners will be those who can balance macro-level shifts with micro-level understanding.