College costs would soar for some low-income students under Republican bill
Nearly 4.5 million low-income college students would lose some or all of their federal financial aid if Republicans in the House get their way.
That's according to an analysis from the left-leaning Center for American Progress, shared exclusively with The Hechinger Report. The report looks at the ways a GOP House budget bill would affect Pell Grants, the federal financial aid program that covers college expenses for students from low-income families.
The changes, which would take effect this July, would reduce aid for students who do not take a full load of 15 credits per semester, typically five classes. That would be a departure from how things are now: Under current rules, students can be eligible for the maximum Pell Grant of $7,395 if they take at least 12 credits, or four classes. For students who take fewer credits, the money is prorated based on the number of courses in which they're enrolled.
The proposal - which passed out of the House Education and Workforce Committee earlier this month on a party-line vote and will be considered as part of the larger reconciliation bill meant to fast-track the budget process - would eliminate Pell Grants for anyone taking fewer than eight credits each semester.
Supporters of the bill say it would encourage students to take more classes and graduate more quickly. "We don't want students to take classes just to take classes, we want them to get credentials to signal their skills in the workplace," Sara Robertson, press secretary for the Republican majority on the House Education and Workforce Committee, wrote in an email. "Completion rates are already abysmal for Pell students. That is not the kind of 'access' we want."
About 53 percent of Pell recipients who attend four-year colleges earn a degree, compared with 73 percent of their peers.
But student advocates worry it could set in motion a downward spiral for many low-income students, forcing them to work more hours to cover tuition and living costs and making it harder to keep up with their classes. Others may need to take on additional loans. In all, critics say the changes would punish students who already struggle to maintain their course load.
Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
Sara Partridge, author of the Center for American Progress report and the group's associate director of higher education, called the proposal an example of "legislation without an eye to the realities of today's students."
"A majority of them work," she said. "Many of them have child care, other caregiving responsibilities, and it isn't necessarily feasible for every student to take on more coursework per semester. And, as a result, many students may be forced to take on additional debt."
The analysis found that, for students taking 12 credits or fewer per semester, the Republican budget proposal could increase the cost of an associate degree by up to $3,700 and a bachelor's degree by $7,400. About 1.3 million students could lose Pell entirely, and another roughly 3 million could see their awards reduced.
The analysis based its estimates of how many students will be affected on data from 2011-12, the last time the government released national data on how many credits students were taking. It applies that breakdown to more current enrollment figures. Partridge and other experts say the estimates are likely conservative, because the share of students attending part time has risen over the last decade.
Students at community colleges would be especially hard hit, according to the report. An estimated 80 percent of Pell recipients at community colleges would see a cut and a third would lose eligibility for the federal grant altogether.
Related: The Hechinger Report's Tuition Tracker helps reveal the real cost of college
At Ivy Tech Community College in Indianapolis, the proposed rules could affect nearly 33,000 students who could lose, in total, about $19 million in financial aid, according to Mary Jane Michalak, the college's senior vice president for legal and public affairs. About 70 percent of Ivy Tech students attend part time and their average age is 27. Nearly a quarter financially support children or other family members.
About 7,000 Ivy Tech students would lose Pell entirely under the proposed changes, but, Michalak wrote in an email, their "less-than-half-time status is often a reflection of life circumstances, not a lack of ambition."
"For these students, taking even one or two classes per term is a major commitment layered on top of already full schedules," she said. "Flexible and incremental pathways are often the only viable route to a credential of value."
Chris Rose, a Pell Grant recipient and student at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, said getting through college without financial means is already difficult. He was raised primarily by his grandmother - his father has been incarcerated since he was 1 and his mother has been in and out of jail. "We just don't have the generational wealth to pay for the cost of higher education," he said, describing Pell as a "lifeline." He has also received help from The Scholarship Foundation of St. Louis, a private grantmaker.
Rose, a marketing major who expects to graduate in 2026, said he has typically taken 15 credits each semester. But at times he's taken only 12, for example, when he was dealing with family problems and had a harder time concentrating on his studies. Under the proposed legislation, that decision would have resulted in nearly $1,500 less in grant money.
To make up such a shortfall, Rose said he would have needed to borrow more or get a job. And it would be a constant stressor. "When you don't come from money, you're already worried about money," he said.
Some researchers are also concerned that the change to Pell could steer students away from more challenging classes that can also lead to more lucrative careers. Taking a five-class course load as a science major, for example, while holding a job or taking care of family, may seem too daunting, said Veronica Minaya, a senior research associate at the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University. (The Hechinger Report is an independent unit of Teachers College.)
Related:The return of student loan debt collection: What borrowers need to know
Supporters of the bill say that concerns about the proposal's harm to low-income students are overblown and that changes to Pell will result in a more effective use of federal dollars.
"Obviously there's a trade-off here. But if people are not completing the number of credits that they need to remain on track for finishing their degrees, that's also going to carry costs," said Preston Cooper, senior fellow at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute.
He also noted that the longer a student is enrolled in college, the less likely they are to graduate.
"The federal government has limited resources, and we need to think about how we can best deploy those resources in order to maximize student success," said Cooper. "People who are only taking one or two courses per semester, it's going to be very difficult for them to actually finish their programs. And federally subsidizing that pathway might not be setting those students up for success."
Supporters of the bill also point to a new proposed stream of funding for low-income students known as workforce Pell. The approach has bipartisan support and would allow students to use federal student aid to pay for programs that take between eight and 15 weeks to complete and lead to a job that's in demand in the state where they live.
Opponents say there are more effective ways to encourage on-time graduation, such as year-round Pell, which allows students to take 12 credits per semester and six in the summer.
"Reward the behavior you want to see, but don't punish people who can't do it," said Jill Desjean, director of policy analysis at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators.
Advocates said the Republican proposal represents a marked shift in the political conversation around low-income students in college.
"Until recently, we were talking about doubling Pell," Minaya said. "Instead of thinking, 'Let's punish those who are not enrolling full time,' I think the government should encourage them and think about, 'How can we help you to enroll full time?'"
Contact investigations editor Sarah Butrymowicz at butrymowicz@hechingerreport.org or on Signal: @sbutry.04.
Contact senior investigative reporter Meredith Kolodner at kolodner@hechingerreport.org or on Signal: @merkolodner.04.
This story about Pell Grants was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter.
The post College costs would soar for some low-income students under Republican bill appeared first on The Hechinger Report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNBC
25 minutes ago
- CNBC
Elon Musk's favorability among Republicans dropped 16 points since March, Quinnipiac says
Elon Musk's official role in the Trump administration recently came to an end. Many Republicans won't be sad to see less of him, according to the results of Quinnipiac University's latest public opinion survey. While a majority of Republicans still hold a favorable view of Musk, the number fell to 62% in the poll out Wednesday, down from 78% in March, Quinnipiac said. Overall, the Quinnipiac poll found that 30% of self-identified voters surveyed in the U.S. hold a favorable opinion of Musk, according to polling from June 5 to June 9. Republican and Democratic voters remain deeply divided in their views of the world's richest man, who contributed nearly $300 million to propel President Donald Trump back to the White House. Only 3% of Democrats surveyed said they held a favorable of view of the Tesla CEO, who was once seen as an environmental leader appealing to liberal values. Musk didn't respond to a request for comment. Musk and Trump had a very public falling out last week that started with Musk's disapproval of the president's spending bill and escalated into an all-out war of words that played out on social media. Musk said on Wednesday that he regretted some of the posts he made about Trump last week, adding that "they went too far." Even with a slide in his favorability, Musk is still popular among Republicans after his time running the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an effort to dramatically slash the size of the federal government. Among the Republican respondents to the early June poll, 80% rated Musk and DOGE's work as either excellent or good, while 13% said it was either not so good or poor. In the March poll, 82% of Republicans surveyed said they thought Musk and DOGE were helping the country. Read the full survey results here.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats react to Trump's push for Texas redistricting
AUSTIN (Nexstar) — After reports of President Donald Trump convening a meeting Monday with members of the Texas congressional delegation, Texas Democrats say it shows the party is worried about potential losses in 2026. A report in the New York Times detailed a White House meeting in which the president pushed Texas congressmen to pursue a mid-decade redistricting effort. Republicans who spoke to both the Times and the Texas Tribune did not seem keen on the idea, which would require Gov. Greg Abbott to call a special session of the legislature. None of the 25 Republicans who represent Texas in the U.S. House responded to requests for comment, but a source close to the situation confirmed to KXAN that a meeting at the White House will take place Thursday. Changing the congressional map to advantage the GOP would likely require splitting up districts which currently lean heavily toward one party to create more competitive seats, a move that could backfire if Democrats have a good year in 2026. However, changes to the congressional districts in large metro areas like Houston or Dallas could net Republicans some seats without throwing any of their own into jeopardy. And even without redistricting, Republicans have clear pickup opportunities in Texas' 28th and 34th congressional districts — two south Texas districts which swung heavily to Trump in 2024. The current Texas congressional map is already overwhelmingly Republican, with 25 Republicans to 12 Democrats, though one heavily-Democratic seat is vacant. That leaves Republicans with nearly 66% of seats in a state in which Trump received 56% of the vote. Democrats say that the current map is already unfair, and a mid-decade redraw would be a sign of desperation for Republicans ahead of the 2026 midterms. State Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, said that Republicans' policies have been unpopular and that the GOP is trying to minimize losses in next year's House races. 'Donald Trump is desperate to cling on to the power that he's had, and he knows just how upset people are about what the Republicans have done in just a few months that they've been in office,' Wu said. 'People are pissed, and they know what's coming.' Wu cited policies passed out of the legislature in Texas, including a ban on all hemp-derived THC products as well as the school voucher program, championed by Abbott, as ways lawmakers have ignored voters. He attributed this to the safe districts which exist under the current maps. The congressional districts drawn in Texas currently do not favor competition — just two House races were decided by fewer than 14 points in the 2024 elections. The current maps — including for the state legislature — are undergoing litigation in El Paso over allegations that the maps were drawn to disadvantage Black and Latino voters. The Supreme Court has shown opposition to racial gerrymandering in recent years, striking down maps in Alabama and Louisiana for disadvantaging Black voters in those states. Wu described the current map as a 'racial gerrymander' and said that if Republicans want to draw an even more favorable map, they will likely succeed in doing so. This would not be the first time Republicans have attempted mid-decade redistricting in Texas. Back in 2003, as Texas was quickly changing from Democratic to Republican, the legislature redrew the maps to heavily advantage the GOP. Democrats lost five seats in the 2004 elections as a result. Democrats then walked out to try and prevent Republicans from meeting quorum and being able to vote on the maps. When asked what should be done about it in the event Republicans try it again, Wu did not give a clear answer, but accused Republicans of playing politics. 'Anytime you hear them talk about redistricting, especially if it's in the middle of the cycle, all this is about political games and trying to destroy our democracy,' Wu said. Congressman Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, also did not give a clear strategy, but said he has faith in the Austin-area Democrats. 'I hope they will do everything they can to protect the interest of our neighbors in Central Texas and not let some radical gerrymandering occur just because President Trump is desperate to be protected,' Doggett said. Any attempt by Republicans to redraw the maps would need to happen soon, with the filing deadline for the 2026 primary elections coming up at the end of the year. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iowa governor vetoes bill restricting private pipelines' use of eminent domain
Gov. Kim Reynolds vetoed a bill Wednesday aimed at CO2 pipelines and eminent domain. She's pictured at her 2025 Condition of the State Address Jan. 14, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Gov. Kim Reynolds Wednesday vetoed a controversial bill pertaining to eminent domain and carbon sequestration pipelines in Iowa. House Republican leaders initiated an effort to reconvene the Legislature to override the veto, but Senate GOP leaders indicated that was unlikely. House File 639 would have increased insurance requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines, limited carbon pipeline permits to one 25-year term and changed the definition of a common carrier for pipelines, making it more difficult for the projects to use eminent domain. Reynolds, in a statement, said she shared the bill's goal of 'protecting landowners' but the bill lacked the 'clear, careful lines' drawn in good policy. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets,' Reynolds said in a letter announcing her decision to veto. Reynolds followed her critique of the bill by noting that Iowa could lose its 'leadership position' as a top biofuel production state if legislation stopped the infrastructure necessary to enter ultra-low carbon markets. Central to the bill is a carbon sequestration pipeline project led by Summit Carbon Solutions that would transport liquid carbon dioxide, captured from biorefineries across Iowa, to underground storage in North Dakota. Farmers and the biofuels industry have been supportive of the Summit pipeline, and therefore opposed to the bill, because it would give Iowa access to the carbon capture and sequestration technologies necessary to make products like sustainable aviation fuels. In a statement following the governor's veto, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said without carbon capture projects, and entry to ultra-low carbon fuel industry, Iowa could face 'very real, very severe economic consequences.' 'This is a classic example of why our system of government has checks and balances,' Shaw said. 'Any thoughtful review of this bill would determine that it would lead to higher energy prices for Iowans, hamper future economic development, hold back job creation, and stifle new markets for Iowa farmers. IRFA thanks Gov. Reynolds for listening to Iowans, studying the actual legislation, and ignoring the rhetoric that was as inaccurate as it was loud.' A press release from Iowa Corn Growers Association said entrance to the aviation fuel industry alone could result in nearly 6.5 million bushels of new corn demand, which it said is necessary for farmers dealing with high input costs and decreased profit margins. Farmers 'need expanded market growth and access to continue raising corn profitably; allowing them to continue growing Iowa's agricultural industry and economy,' the statement said. Opponents of the bill, including several lawmakers, argued the bill was aimed solely at carbon sequestration projects, rather than protecting landowners from eminent domain as supporters claimed. 'Eminent domain' allows the government to force private landowners to allow use of their property, for a fee set by the courts, for infrastructure projects deemed in the public interest. Eminent domain has long been used projects such as public roads and utilities. Leadership from Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, or SIRE, said its CO2 pipeline project connecting to Nebraska's Tallgrass Trailblazer pipeline would be impacted by the bill's insurance and permit limit clauses, even though the SIRE project secured voluntary easements for 100% of its path in Iowa. Reynolds cited this example in her explanation, and said the 'arbitrary' term limits and insurance requirements would make it 'difficult for companies like SIRE to justify the additional investment' in Iowa. 'Those who crafted the bill said they don't want to stop CO2 pipelines that rely entirely on voluntary easements,' Reynolds said. 'But that is exactly what the bill does.' Summit Carbon Solutions thanked the governor for her 'thoughtful and thorough review' of the bill. In a statement, the company said the pipeline project 'opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' 'Summit remains committed to working with landowners through voluntary agreements—just as we have with more than 1,300 Iowa landowners to date, resulting in $175 million in payments,' a spokesperson said in the statement. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project.' Opponents to the pipeline project, who were supportive of HF 639, argue the pipeline would negatively impact their properties and health, and that sequestering CO2 does not constitute a 'public use' deserving of eminent domain rights. Landowners opposed to the project lobbied state lawmakers for four years before a bill was debated, and ultimately passed, in the Senate and sent to the governor. Since the bill landed on the governor's desk, landowners have encouraged Reynolds to support Iowa GOP values on protecting property rights. Reynolds said the debate of when the government, or companies with government approval, can take private property is a 'debate as old as the Republic.' 'I've consistently said that if eminent domain is used, it must be rare, fair and a last resort,' Reynolds said. 'But HF 639 isn't just about eminent domain.' Reynolds said the bill sets a precedent that 'threatens' the state's 'energy reliability, economy and reputation as a place where businesses can invest with confidence.' Mary Powell, a Shelby County landowner opposed to the pipeline, said the veto shows that the state motto of, 'Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain' are 'just empty words' to the governor. 'Governor Reynolds chose to support the millionaires and billionaires at the expense of Iowans and their property rights,' Powell said in a statement. Another landowner, Don Johanssen from Cherokee County, said the governor's decision was 'beyond words,' especially as the bill would have given landowners 'some liability coverage' from hazardous pipelines. The bill would have required pipeline operator to carry insurance that covered any loss or injury from accidental, negligent or intentional discharges from the pipeline, and to cover insurance increases that landowners face due to the pipeline. 'This is a sad day for Iowa that will be long remembered,' Johanssen said. Reynolds said the bill would impact 'more than just CO2 infrastructure' and would change permitting rules 'across the board,' giving 'uncertainty into critical energy projects.' Opponents of the bill called the insurance requirements 'untenable.' The American Petroleum Institute's Midwest Regional Director Mike Karbo said the bill had 'unprecedented and unfeasible requirements' that would have hindered future projects in the state. 'Since there are no refineries in the state, critical energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, are crucial in ensuring Iowans have a reliable source of energy, and certainty is needed to develop the infrastructure network,' Karbo said. 'We thank the Governor for doing what is right for the future of energy development in the state.' Reynolds said HF 639 included 'a few helpful provisions' and the surrounding debate 'highlighted' areas for progress. 'I agree we can do more to limit the use of eminent domain, promote transparency, and ensure responsible land restoration,' Reynolds said. 'We can do better.' Reynolds, who is not running for reelection in 2026, said she is 'committed' to working with legislation to 'strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting and respect private property.' Taking one element from HF 639, Reynolds will ask the IUC to require all commissioners to be present for live testimony and ensure at least one commissioner is present at every informational meeting. In a statement from Iowa House Republicans, Speaker Pat Grassley said he has requested members sign a petition to reconvene the Legislature in a special session. 'This veto is a major setback for Iowa,' Grassley said in the statement. 'It is a setback not only for landowners who have been fighting across Iowa, but for the work the House of Representatives has put in for four years to get legislation like HF 639 passed. We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain.' Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, said he was 'very disappointed' in the governor's decision and that he was supportive of a special session to override the veto. Two-thirds of the Legislature must sign a petition to request a special session, and to override a veto, two-thirds of the members from each chamber must vote to pass the bill again. Sen. Jack Whitver, R-Grimes, the majority leader for the chamber, said he expects most of his caucus will 'not be interested in any attempt' to override the governor's veto. The bill likely would not have advanced in the Senate had it not been for a dozen Republican senators who vowed to block necessary budget legislation until the chamber debated eminent domain. The 12 were also joined by Senate Democrats in pushing for amendments, which were ultimately defeated, and approval of the bill. Senate Democrats said the fight for property rights will continue. 'I'm disappointed by the governor's veto of HF639, but, unfortunately, I cannot say I'm surprised,' Sen. Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, said. 'There is simply no amount of political posturing or legislative stonewalling that can deny the fact that Iowans' right to private property should never be infringed upon for private gain.' One of the 12 to disagree with the Senate majority, Sen. Kevin Alons, R-Salix, said signing the bill was 'the single option available' to protect the rights of impacted landowners. Alons pledged to 'never quit working' on the issue, but said that means 'very little' to landowners who have been impacted by the 'unprecedented, and unconstitutional land grab.' 'To be clear: the Iowa government has given this private company the right to take people's land for one reason: corporate earnings,' Alons said in a statement. 'This has nothing to do with public use. It's absolutely not necessary for the ethanol industry in our state … And it certainly is not what the founders had in mind.' Alons said when the Legislature returns in January, he and other lawmakers 'will use every tool at our disposal' to 'return property rights back to the people.' Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, who sponsored the legislation, wrote in a social media post he was 'profoundly disappointed' by the veto. Holt said the state constitution and the Republican platform are clear in their message that eminent domain is for public use projects. 'Today the Governor has chosen to ignore landowners, the vast majority of the Legislature, the Republican Party Platform and the Iowa Constitution by choosing the economic development argument of special interests,' Holt wrote. Holt said Reynolds, and the Senate had opportunities of the past several years to offer their own suggestions to the eminent domain issue instead of opposing House legislation. 'On behalf of the people of Iowa and their fundamental property rights, the Governor's veto should be overridden,' he wrote. 'This fight for who we are as Republicans is far from over.' House Democratic Leader Rep. Brian Meyer said parties in the House collaborated to 'protect property rights.' 'At the end of the day, there is only one group to blame for the failure of the eminent domain bill: Iowa Republican lawmakers,' Meyer said in a statement. The first phase of the Summit Carbon Solutions project was approved by IUC nearly a year ago, which granted Summit the right to condemn easements from landowners who do not want to voluntarily sign agreements to put the pipeline on their land. Per the Iowa permit, Summit still needs a permit from South Dakota, which it has been denied twice, to begin construction. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE