
Senate Proposes A Smaller Increase For University Endowment Tax
The Senate version of a proposed tax hike on private university endowment earnings offers some ... More relief to colleges.
The U.S. Senate Committee on Finance has proposed a smaller increase to the endowment tax on private universities and colleges than the reconciliation tax and spending bill previously passed by the House of Representatives.
According to the committee's plan, the top rate would be 8% on endowment earnings versus the 21% that had been set by the House. The Senate version retains the House's tiered structure that specifies that the tax rate grows as the size of the endowment per student increases, and it also includes a similar methodology for calculating the tax rate.
Both plans raise the tax on the endowment earnings of private colleges and universities from its current 1.4% flat rate. Currently, a few dozen private universities with at least 500 full-time equivalent students and an endowment worth at least $500,000 per student are subject to a 1.4% tax on endowment earnings, a levy that was passed during Trump's first term.
Under the new proposals, the increases would be tiered.
Both plans also change how the number of enrolled students is calculated. By excluding foreign and undocumented students from the count, the proposals increase both the number of institutions subject to endowment taxes and the number who would have to pay a larger rate. Religious colleges would be exempted from the tax under both proposals, but what schools qualify as being religious will likely be debated.
One difference in the two plans is that the Senate would exempt colleges that don't accept federal financial aid from paying the tax. The House version does not include that exemption.
The Senate's softening of the endowment tax increase will be seen as an improvement for institutions, although it fails to provide all the relief they have been lobbying for.
Schools have been trying to persuade legislators to lighten up on the tax increase, arguing that if it becomes law, it will result in the reduction of hundreds of millions of dollars in financial aid for students.
According to the 2024 NACUBO-Commonfund Study of Endowments, the largest share of endowment spending — 48.1% — goes to provide financial aid through institutional scholarships and tuition discounts. Should endowment taxes increase, dozens of prominent institutions may need to reduce their spending on helping financially needy students be able to attend college.
"The Senate version of the so-called endowment tax is better, but it's still bad and harmful tax policy,' said Steven Bloom, American Council on Education assistant vice president of government relations, according to Inside Higher Education. 'They're going to take money that would likely have been devoted to financial aid and research and other academic purposes on campus, and they're going to send it to Washington, where it's used largely for purposes unrelated to higher education.'
Expect colleges and universities to continue to press legislators for modifications to the tax hike. Among the alternatives they have suggested is a promise to spend more of their endowment's earnings on student financial aid in exchange for a lower tax rate. Other have pitched the idea that small colleges should get a break on how much they are required to pay or that the rate should be adjusted based on the number of students from low-imcome families that are enrolled.
The House and Senate will need to iron out the discrepancies in their two versions of the overall reconciliation bill later this summer. The two packages involve major differences in policy that go far beyond disagreements over the endowment tax, making it increasingly unlikely that final legislation will be enacted by the target date of July 4.
Hashtags

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


The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump says July 4 ‘big, beautiful bill' deadline ‘not the end all'
President Trump on Friday said the July 4 deadline he set for Congress to pass his 'big, beautiful bill' could have some wiggle room, backing off of pressure on Republicans. 'It's important. It's not the end all,' Trump said about the deadline during a press conference at the White House. 'But we'd like to get it done in that time, if possible.' Republicans are scrambling to save the megabill, which has stalled after a ruling by the Senate parliamentarian against including a GOP proposal to slash hundreds of billions of dollars in federal Medicaid spending. The provision is central to the bill to help pay for Trump's tax agenda. Trump is expected to stay in Washington over the weekend, while he typically travels to one of his properties for the weekends. The president earlier this week threatened to yank the July 4 recesses next week if the legislation is not on his desk by the Independence Day deadline. Earlier on Friday, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said 'it's possible' the July 4 deadline could slip, adding, 'I don't even want to accept that as an option right now.' Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Thursday, following the parliamentarian ruling, said his leadership team had 'contingency plans' to keep the bill moving forward. 'We have contingency plans, plan B, plan C,' he said. But losing the proposal to deeply cut federal Medicaid payments means Republicans will need to come up with hundreds of billions in new savings to pay for the cost of making several corporate tax cuts permanent. Senate Democrats estimate the parliamentarian had rejected approximately $250 billion of spending cuts from the bill.


The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump says parliamentarian being a ‘little difficult'
President Trump on Friday said that the Senate parliamentarian had been problematic, as Republicans scramble to save his 'big, beautiful bill' that was stalled after a ruling that rejected some major cost-cutting provisions. Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled on Thursday ruled against including in the megabill a GOP proposal to slash hundreds of billions of dollars in federal Medicaid spending to help pay for Trump's tax agenda. 'The parliamentarian's been a little difficult and I would say I disagree with the parliamentarian on some things, in other ways she's been fine,' Trump said at a press conference. The White House has not gone as far as calling for MacDonough to be removed by Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.C.), which Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R) pushed for after her Medicaid ruling. When asked about MacDonough on Thursday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump 'knows this is part of the process and the inner workings of the Senate and he wants to see this bill done.' Trump has been pushing Republicans to pass the bill by July fourth, but on Friday suggested that the deadline could have some wiggle room. 'It's important. It's not the end all. But we'd like to get it done in that time, if possible,' he said. Trump on Friday was also asked what he has been doing to personally push his top legislative priority forward in the Senate as the upper chamber leadership works to resurrect the bill. 'It's a great bill, it's a massive tax cut,' Trump said. 'It will be interesting to see if we get any Democrat votes, we should… maybe Fetterman because he seems to be the most sensible one recently,' he added, suggesting that Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) could vote for the bill. The parliamentarian has been ruling on which provisions pass muster under the Byrd Rule, a multi-part test for budget reconciliation packages that looks at several things, including whether a provision is primarily budgetary in nature. If something does not pass the Byrd requirement, it cannot be part of a bill passed under budget reconciliation rules. This is important because the rules allow legislation to circumvent a filibuster. Thune has said his leadership team has 'contingency plans' to keep the bill moving forward but losing the proposal means leaders will need to come up with hundreds of billions in new savings to pay for the cost of making several corporate tax cuts permanent.


The Hill
24 minutes ago
- The Hill
Don't make me the last chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission
In what may be the first for an independent federal agency, the Consumer Product Safety Commission submitted a budget request to Congress last month proposing its own elimination. The Trump administration seeks to absorb elements of the commission into the Department of Health and Human Services in order to eliminate the agency's independence and reduce the transparency of its operations. The budget request also seeks to decrease the number of employees by 75 (to a total of 459) and reduce its budget by $16 million. If this budget request becomes law, I would likely be the last confirmed chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. It would mark the end of the commission as an independent agency dedicated to protecting the public from unsafe consumer products, and it would reverse 53 years of progress in product safety. This budget request would never have existed if Trump had not unlawfully removed three sitting commissioners, including myself, last month. U.S. District Court Judge Maddox found the president's actions unlawful on June 13, enabling us to resume our jobs as commissioners. However, the Trump administration has appealed this ruling and continues to seek our removal. President Richard Nixon signed the Consumer Product Safety Act into law in 1972, establishing CPSC as a bipartisan, independent agency led by five commissioners who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Prior to that, the Department of Commerce and the Food and Drug Administration had responsibility for product safety, but their efforts lacked focus — as a result, Americans suffered. In the lead up to the creation of the CPSC, President Lyndon Johnson recognized that 'the homes that we live in can be more dangerous than a booby-trapped mine field' and that change was needed. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created to clear this mine field. In establishing the agency, Congress recognized that its independence was important to ensure that it remained unfettered by political dictates and self-interested pressure from industry. Congress mandated that no more than three commissioners can belong to the same political party; that they are to be appointed to staggered terms, to ensure only a portion of their terms expire at any given time; and that they can only be removed for cause. These legal provisions were designed to prevent swift, drastic changes in the agency's composition and, ultimately, its regulations and policies. The commission's current structure promotes stability and continuity, which benefits consumers as well as manufacturers and sellers. In the months leading up to our removal, my colleagues and I opposed staff reductions to meet arbitrary White House demands. We advanced proposed mandatory product safety standards to save lives — including from horrific fires ignited by faulty lithium-ion batteries. We rejected efforts to dismantle and embed CPSC into the Department of Health and Human Services. Within weeks of our unlawful terminations, the remaining commissioners withdrew the proposed lithium-ion battery safety rule and embraced the administration's efforts to abolish the agency's independence and downsize our staff. The consequences of our absence were plain as the administration moved forward to eliminate the agency and weaken its functions. The changes proposed by the Trump administration are wholly unnecessary. For over 50 years, the commission has validated the vision of Nixon and Congress for improving product safety. For example, crib fatalities have decreased by nearly 80 percent; pediatric poisonings have decreased by 80 percent; deaths from residential fires have decreased by more than 64 percent. There have been dramatic injury reductions as well. Bicycle injuries have declined by about 35 percent. Baby walker injuries, which resulted in 25,000 emergency room visits in 1992, had dropped by 88 percent by 2020. Because of the commission's safety rules, children no longer suffocate in refrigerators, get crushed by closing garage doors or get entrapped underwater in swimming pool drain covers. Safety standards ban lead in toys and ensure that products manufactured for infants and toddlers meet basic safety standards. The elimination of this agency and the incorporation of its parts into this administration's troubled HHS would put the agency's successes and future product safety progress at risk. As was recognized more than 50 years ago, product safety gets lost within a large department with competing priorities. It would be too easy to put recalls or new product safety standards on the back burner when HHS is faced with a revamp of the Medicare system and with millions losing access to health care. In addition, as resources become harder to find, product safety staff and money may be shifted to politically favored projects within HHS at the whim of the secretary. Without an independent Consumer Product Safety Commission, there will be far less accountability and transparency. When an agency is independent and commissioners come from multiple perspectives, undue political influence is moderated. The commissioners can work together to build consensus but also act as a check on each other. This ensures that the agency's actions are transparent to the public and the agency is not taking political direction to favor one company over another. That is why, once the full commission was reinstated, it submitted a new budget request that affirms the independence of the agency and seeks full funding of its operations. This, however, does not change the administration's proposal or the HHS budget request to eliminate it and absorb parts of it into HHS. The president's request threatens product safety. But, fortunately, eliminating the Consumer Product Safety Commission as it has existed for more than 50 years would require an act of Congress. There are Republican and Democratic members of Congress who recognize the importance of CPSC's work and its independence. I hope they can convince their colleagues to reject the president's proposal. I don't want to be the last confirmed chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. And none of us want to go back to the days when the homes that we live in were 'more dangerous than a booby-trapped mine field.' Alexander Hoehn-Saric served as chair of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission from October 2021 through January 2025 and is now serving as a commissioner.