Consumers Affected
294,000
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a multistate coalition in submitting a comment letter opposing a proposed DHS rule that would require institutions to pay up to $100,000 for each international student recommended for Optional Practical Training. The coalition argued that the proposal exceeds DHS’s legal authority, imposes an unauthorized tax, and fails to adequately assess its impacts; it urged DHS to withdraw the proposal.
No remedy was imposed. The coalition urged DHS to withdraw the proposed rule.
This announcement concerns a proposed immigration-related fee, not a privacy enforcement action. Universities should review employer and student agreements for clauses allocating OPT-related costs, reimbursement rights, fee disclosures, and responsibility for future government fee changes; employers should check workforce and immigration-service agreements for pass-through charges and payment obligations. The release does not identify privacy-related vendor, customer, or employee data-processing requirements to update.
Entity
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Industry
OtherOfficial Press Release
https://portal.ct.gov/ag/press-releases/2026-press-releases/attorney-general-tong-opposes-attempt-to-impose-unlawful-tax-on-international-students
optional practical training fee.pdf?rev=6ecbdaf2927d41f78656
https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/ag/press_releases/2026/optional-practical-training-fee.pdf?rev=6ecbdaf2927d41f786565db93a11081d&hash=E8F0713F08BE305AE5C971ABED336330
Connecticut Attorney General Enforcement Page
https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Privacy/Privacy-Resources
"the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)"
"under the Immigration and Nationality Act"
"Violates the Administrative Procedure Act"
"unlawfully intrudes on Congress’ taxing power"
"the proposed rule exceeds the Trump Administration’s legal authority, imposes an unconstitutional tax, and fails to adequately consider the substantial harms to states and educational institutions."
"11/12/2026"
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison led a coalition of 17 attorneys general in an amicus brief supporting a lawsuit challenging the termination of Temporary Protected Status for Somali nationals. The coalition asked the appeals court to reverse a lower court decision and block the revocation; this press release describes no privacy-related allegation, penalty, or remedy imposed.
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones joined a coalition of attorneys general in filing an amicus brief challenging DHS’s practice of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests without determining whether individuals are likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The release reports that a district court had previously granted a preliminary injunction in the underlying case; it does not report a penalty or a new remedy imposed on DHS by this brief.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a coalition of 22 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief challenging DHS’s policy and practice of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests. The press release describes a court challenge, not a privacy enforcement action or monetary penalty.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong joined a coalition of 21 attorneys general in submitting a comment letter opposing a DHS rule that allows certain affirmative asylum applications to be referred to removal proceedings without an asylum officer interview. The coalition argues the rule violates federal law and harms asylum seekers, including unaccompanied children; this was a policy opposition letter, not a privacy enforcement action.
Attorney General Jay Jones joined a coalition of 26 states to sue the Trump administration over unlawful conditions attached to counterterrorism and emergency funding. The conditions would require states to share voter data with DHS and assist in immigration enforcement, which the coalition argues violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Spending Clause.
Other enforcement action: Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, joined by 18 other states, sued the Trump Administration over its unlawful $100,000 fee for H-1B visa petitions. The lawsuit alleges that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act by exceeding congressional authority and bypassing required rulemaking procedures, harming educational institutions and employers.