Here's what the endowment tax in Trump's 'big beautiful bill' may mean for your college tuition
Instead of the existing flat 1.4% tax rate, there is now a new multi-tiered rate of up to 8%, with larger endowments subject to the highest rate. (Schools with fewer than 3,000 tuition-paying students are exempt, regardless of their endowment size.)
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this endowment tax will bring in $761 million over 10 years. Higher education experts say the new, higher tax rates could lead to revenue shortfalls and cause some schools to raise tuition prices, cut financial aid or both.
More from Personal Finance:Trump aims to slash Pell GrantsIs college still worth it? It is for most, but not allWhat to know before you tap your 529 plan
The exemption for schools with fewer than 3,000 tuition-paying students scaled back the plan from earlier versions of the GOP's marquee legislation. "It's not an endowment tax anymore, it's a research university tax," said Rick Grafmeyer, a partner at Capitol Tax Partners in Washington.
According to a recent analysis from Forbes, at least 11 colleges and universities — including many of the nation's top research institutions — will have their endowment earnings taxed at an 8% or 4% rate in 2026, while five will pay a 1.4% tax. Previously, 56 universities paid about $380 million under that endowment tax rate.
Yale University warned that the tax hike would have immediate consequences for the school's bottom line.
"Although the endowment tax is lower than what the House passed originally, it still means that Yale will pay an estimated $280 million in the first year it is in effect, and likely more in subsequent years," Yale's President Maurie McInnis said in a statement on July 3. Earlier versions of the proposal called for tiered rates as high as 21%.
The university announced before the bill passed that it had already implemented a temporary hiring freeze, lowered annual salary increases for faculty and staff members and delayed several construction projects at the school in anticipation of the tax increase and other federal actions.
Higher endowment taxes, along with restrictions on international student enrollment and major cutbacks of federal and state funds, put many colleges in a precarious financial position, according to Robert Franek, editor in chief of The Princeton Review.
"Colleges, both private and public, are facing unprecedented fiscal challenges this year and en masse," Franek said
"Most concerning, for prospective students, is these factors may cause tuitions to be higher and reduce the amount of financial aid schools award," he added.
At some colleges, the higher endowment tax exceeds the college's total financial aid budget, according to higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz, "making it difficult for colleges to continue to award very generous financial aid."
Typically, when it comes to offering aid, wealthier institutions have more money to spend. Those generous aid packages remove the most significant financial barrier to higher education and help attract lower-income applicants.
Tuition hikes are likely to follow the higher endowment tax, other experts also say. "We're already seeing evidence that institutions are raising their sticker prices more than they have been in the past," Phillip Levine, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and professor of economics at Wellesley College, told CNBC.
College tuition has surged by 5.6% a year, on average, since 1983, significantly outpacing other household expenses, a recent study by J.P. Morgan Asset Management found.
Going forward, "it doesn't seem like 5% or 6% is out of line or beyond what schools are willing to do, and that's at [both] public and private institutions," Levine said. "And they're doing this because they're expecting revenue shortfalls."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom praised for new online posting style: All Caps and mimicking Trump
California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is earning plaudits for his recent trolling of President Donald Trump by mimicking his social media habits, including all-caps posts. Newsom, a frequent foil for the president's social media outbursts, took to X Tuesday night to blast 'DONALD 'TACO' Trump,' -- a reference to 'Trump Always Chickens Out,' coined by a financial columnist over the president's back-and-forth tariff policies. Trump has been pushing several red states to gerrymander their congressional maps to give Republicans an upper hand, amid growing fears that the GOP could lose the House in next year's midterms. The maps are typically redrawn every ten years following the census, and not in the middle of the decade. Newsom sent Trump a letter Monday calling on him to end the 'unprecedented, mid-decade, hyper-partisan gerrymander to rig the upcoming midterm elections.' 'If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states,' he wrote. 'But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it.' Newsom subsequently posted on X that Trump had 24 hours to respond to the letter. On Tuesday, as the deadline passed, he wrote: 'DONALD 'TACO' TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, 'MISSED' THE DEADLINE!!! CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS,' THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!).' 'BIG PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH POWERFUL DEMS AND GAVIN NEWSOM — YOUR FAVORITE GOVERNOR — THAT WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR 'MAGA,'' he added. 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!' Sports reporter Emily Bicks wrote on Threads: 'Gavin Christopher Newsom keepin the no f***s energy comin.' Liberal social media commentator, Harry Sisson, wrote: 'I absolutely love how Gavin Newsom is treating Donald Trump with the disdain and disrespect that he absolutely deserves.' Journalist Karly Kingsley added: 'I don't think we're giving Gavin Newsom enough credit for what he's doing to defend democracy and to stop a wannabe dictator from consolidating power.' Attorney and Never Trump-er George Conway joined the presidential mockery, writing in response to Newsom: 'Many people, big strong men with tears in their eyes, will soon be saying, 'Sir, you have the most Amazing State, with the Most Beautiful Maps. No one has ever seen anything like this. Your Excellency, Sir, we are in awe of your Incomparable Gubernatorialicityness'.' But not all were on board with Newsom's style change. The Chief Strategy and Public Affairs Officer at Future Caucus, an organization for young lawmakers, Reed Howard, wrote: 'Race-to-the-bottom politics is a darn shame. America deserves better than this. I want real leadership.' Reporter Alex Gault added: 'If this becomes a lasting approach to political communications, I will be committing myself to whatever mental hospital still does lobotomies.' Last month, Trump asked Texas to redraw its maps to hand Republicans another five House seats in the state. Texas Democrats left the state to deny Republicans the ability to move forward with their proposal. Democrats then said they would look to redraw maps in blue states such as Illinois, California, and New York, prompting Republicans to consider taking action in Ohio and Indiana. California has an independent commission that draws political maps, and if Newsom moves ahead with his threat, he would need passage of a special ballot in November.
San Francisco Chronicle
26 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Federal agents will be out 24/7 on patrol in Washington, the White House says
WASHINGTON (AP) — As a wary Washington waited, the White House promised a ramp-up of National Guard troops and federal officers on the streets of the nation's capital around the clock starting Wednesday, days after President Donald Trump's unprecedented announcement that his administration would take over the city's police department for at least a month. The city's Democratic mayor and police chief framed the influx as a plus for public safety, though they said there are few hard measures for what a successful end to the operation might look like. The Republican president has said crime in the city was at emergency levels that only such federal intervention could fix even as District of Columbia leaders pointed to statistics showing violent crime at a 30-year low after a sharp rise two years ago. For two days, small groups of federal officers have been visible in scattered areas of the city. That is about to change, the administration says. A 'significantly higher' presence of guard members was expected Wednesday night, and federal agents will be out 24/7 rather than largely at night, according to the White House. Hundreds of federal law enforcement and city police officers who patrolled the streets Tuesday night made 43 arrests, compared with about two dozen the night before. In one neighborhood, officers from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the FBI could be seen along with the U.S. Park Police searching the car of a motorist parked just outside a legal parking area to eat takeout and drop off a friend. Two blocks away, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers gathered in a parking lot before driving off on patrol. In other parts of the city, including those with popular nightlife hot spots, federal patrols were harder to find. At the National Mall, there was little law enforcement activity aside from Park Police cruisers pulling over a taxi driver near the Washington Monument. Unlike in other U.S. states and cities, the law gives Trump the power to take over Washington's police for up to 30 days. Extending his power over the city for longer would require approval from Congress, and that could be tough in the face of Democratic resistance. A variety of infractions are targeted The arrests made by 1,450 federal and local officers across the city included those for suspicion of driving under the influence, unlawful entry, as well as a warrant for assault with a deadly weapon, according to the White House. Seven illegal firearms were seized. Unlike in other U.S. states and cities, the law gives Trump the power to take over Washington's police for up to a month. Extending Trump's power over the city for longer would require approval from Congress, and that could be tough in the face of Democratic resistance. The president has full command of the National Guard, but as of Tuesday evening, guard members had yet to be assigned a specific mission, according to an official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. As many as 800 troops were expected to be mobilized in a support role to law enforcement, though exactly what form remains to be determined. The push also includes clearing out encampments for people who are homeless, Trump has said. U.S. Park Police have removed dozens of tents since March, and plan to take out two more this week, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said. People are offered the chance to go to shelters and get addiction treatment, if needed, but those who refuse could be fined or jailed, she said. City officials said they are making more shelter space available and increasing their outreach. Violent crime has dropped in the district The federal effort comes even after a drop in violent crime in the nation's capital, a trend that experts have seen in cities across the U.S. since an increase during the coronavirus pandemic. On average, the level of violence Washington remains mostly higher than averages in three dozen cities analyzed by the nonprofit Council on Criminal Justice, said the group's president and CEO, Adam Gelb. Police Chief Pamela Smith said during an interview with the local Fox affiliate that the city's Metro Police Department has been down nearly 800 officers. She said the increased number of federal agents on the streets would help fill that gap, at least for now. Mayor Muriel Bowser said city officials did not get any specific goals for the surge during a meeting with Trump's attorney general, Pam Bondi, and other top federal law enforcement officials Tuesday. But, she said, "I think they regard it as a success to have more presence and take more guns off the street, and we do too.' She had previously called Trump's moves 'unsettling and unprecedented' while pointing out he was within a president's legal rights regarding the district, which is the seat of American government but is not a state. 'I've seen them right here at the subway ... they had my street where I live at blocked off yesterday, actually,' Washington native Sheina Taylor said. 'It's more fearful now because even though you're a law-abiding citizen, here in D.C., you don't know, especially because I'm African American."
Los Angeles Times
26 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
California providers see ‘chilling effect' if Trump ban on immigrant benefits is upheld
If the Trump administration succeeds in barring undocumented immigrants from federally funded 'public benefit' programs, vulnerable children and families across California would suffer greatly, losing access to emergency shelters, vital healthcare, early education and life-saving nutritional support, according to state and local officials who filed their opposition to the changes in federal court. The new restrictions would harm undocumented immigrants but also U.S. citizens — including the U.S.-born children of immigrants and people suffering from mental illness and homelessness who lack documentation — and put intense stress on the state's emergency healthcare system, the officials said. Head Start, which provides tens of thousands of children in the state with early education, healthcare and nutritional support, may have to shutter some of its programs if the new rules barring immigrants withstand a lawsuit filed by California and other liberal-led states, officials said. In a declaration filed as part of that litigation, Maria Guadalupe Jaime-Milehan, deputy director of the child care and developmental division of the California Department of Social Services, wrote that the restrictions would have an immediate 'chilling effect' on immigrant and mixed-status families seeking support, but also cause broader 'ripple effects' — especially in rural California communities that rely on such programs as 'a critical safety net' for vulnerable residents, but also as major employers. 'Children would lose educational, nutritional, and healthcare services. Parents or guardians may be forced to cut spending on other critical needs to fill the gaps, and some may even be forced out of work so they can care for their children,' Jaime-Milehan said. Rural communities would see programs shutter, and family providers lose their jobs, she wrote. Tony Thurmond, California's superintendent of public instruction, warned in a declaration that the 'chilling effect' from such rules could potentially drive away talented educators who disagree with such policies and decide to 'seek other employment that does not discriminate against children and families.' Thurmond and Jaime-Milehan were among dozens of officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia who submitted declarations in support of those states' lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's new rules. Six other officials from California also submitted declarations. The lawsuit followed announcements last month from various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — that funding recipients would be required to begin screening out undocumented immigrants. The announcements followed an executive order issued by President Trump in which he said his administration would 'uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.' Trump's order cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, commonly known as welfare reform, as barring noncitizens from participating in federally funded benefits programs, and criticized past administrations for providing exemptions to that law for certain 'life or safety' programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions. The order mandated that federal agencies restrict access to benefits programs for undocumented immigrants, in part to 'prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.' California and the other states sued July 21, alleging the new restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law. 'We're not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we're talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all,' California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said. In addition to programs like Head Start, Bonta said the new restrictions threatened access to short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather; soup kitchens, community food banks and food support services for the elderly; and healthcare for people with mental illness and substance abuse issues. The declarations are part of a motion asking the federal judge overseeing the case to issue a preliminary injunction barring the changes from taking effect while the litigation plays out. Beth Neary, assistant director of HIV health services at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, wrote in her declaration that the new restrictions would impede healthcare services for an array of San Francisco residents experiencing homelessness — including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens. 'Individuals experiencing homelessness periodically lack identity and other documents that would be needed to verify their citizenship or immigration status due to frequent moves and greater risk of theft of their belongings,' she wrote. Colleen Chawla, chief of San Mateo County Health, wrote that her organization — the county's 'safety-net' care provider — has worked for years to build up trust in immigrant communities. 'But if our clients worry that they will not be able to qualify for the care they need, or that they or members of their family face a risk of detention or deportation if they seek care, they will stop coming,' Chawla wrote. 'This will exacerbate their health conditions.' Greta S. Hansen, chief operating officer of Santa Clara County, wrote that more than 40% of her county's residents are foreign-born and more than 60% of the county's children have at least one foreign-born parent — among the highest rates anywhere in the country. The administration's changes would threaten all of them, but also everyone else in the county, she wrote. 'The cumulative effect of patients not receiving preventive care and necessary medications would likely be a strain on Santa Clara's emergency services, which would result in increased costs to Santa Clara and could also lead to decreased capacity for emergency care across the community,' Hansen wrote. The Trump administration has defended the new rules, including in court. In response to the states' motion for preliminary injunction, attorneys for the administration argued that the rule changes are squarely in line with the 1996 welfare reform law and the rights of federal agencies to enforce it. They wrote that the notices announcing the new rules that were sent out by federal agencies 'merely recognize that the breadth of benefits available to unqualified aliens is narrower than the agencies previously interpreted,' and 'restore compliance with federal law and ensure that taxpayer-funded programs intended for the American people are not diverted to subsidize unqualified aliens.' The judge presiding over the case has yet to rule on the preliminary injunction.
