Minnesota State colleges and universities brace for budget reductions, tuition hikes as state funding falls short
A college degree is already expensive, and it could cost students even more at some Minnesota public colleges and universities next year.
The Board of Trustees governing the Minnesota State system — which serves 270,000 students across community and technical colleges and universities like St. Cloud State, Metro State and Minnesota State University in Mankato — discussed tuition increases ranging from 3.5 to 9% in each of the next year to plug budget shortfalls.
Bill Maki, vice chancellor for finance and facilities, told WCCO the average increase will likely land somewhere in the middle and vowed the schools wouldn't balance their budgets on the backs of students, so reductions and streamlining resources will follow, too.
The board will consider each school's tuition proposal and make a final decision in June, and they will discuss options again at a meeting later in May.
"There's many factors that go into setting tuition rates, and student affordability is one of the strong values of Minnesota State, [and] that it is a primary source of operating revenues. So balancing and having the availability of the experiences that students expect versus how much they pay is something where there's trade-offs that will need to occur," Maki said.
The other primary source of revenue supporting Minnesota State programs is state funding. But a bleak state budget picture — a projected $6 billion deficit in the future if lawmakers don't act wisely this session — means the Legislature is tightening the belt.
The House and Senate still need to hash out the differences of their higher education budget blueprints, but Minnesota State is bracing for no new funding, something Maki explained has not happened in a decade. He said whatever the final deal is will likely amount to a funding cut since last budget there was an influx of one-time dollars.
"We look forward to being able to move forward and do it in a very thoughtful, deliberate way to try to minimize the impact the best we can to students," he said.
The focus of lawmakers in both chambers, working with fewer resources, is on shoring up the state's financial aid program. Maki said that it will help blunt the impact of any tuition increase for families.
The colleges and universities within the system are the cheapest in the state, with tuition ranging from about $6,200 to $10,000 per year. In the previous two years, tuition remained flat, according to the Board of Trustees' documents. The highest increase in the last decade was 3.4%.
During the Minnesota Senate's debate on the higher education budget bill Thursday, GOP Sen. Zach Duckworth blamed Democrats who controlled the State Capitol the previous two years for the current budget outlook. He attempted to shift funding away from the North Star Promise Program, which provides free college for students whose families make less than $80,000, to implement a tuition freeze at Minnesota State.
DFL Sen. Omar Fateh of Minneapolis countered that previous Legislatures contributed to the budget shortfalls state schools are facing.
"A lot of the challenges higher ed has been facing, including costs, is due to years of disinvestment that's been occurring — year after year after year, the state not investing in our higher education, not investing in our students," Fateh said. "So we did that. We invested a record number of dollars in higher ed last biennium."
Last year, the University of Minnesota's Board of Regents voted to raise tuition for this school year by 4.5%.
The Legislature must adjourn on May 19 to avoid a special session.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
The Ideological Schism Fueling the Trump-Musk Fight
Amid the fallout of the messy public feud between Doland Trump and Elon Musk, it is instructive to think back to Dec. 26, 2024. That day marked the start of another intra-GOP skirmish that nearly fractured the elite core of the MAGA coalition. The December brawl — which, like the latest one, unfolded primarily online — pitted two high-profile factions of the Trumpian right against one another over the issue of high-skilled immigration. The nationalist-populist right, led by MAGA strategist Steve Bannon, urged the incoming administration to end the H-1B visa program as part of a broader crackdown on immigration. The so-called tech right, led by Musk, wanted Trump to defend the program on the grounds that high-skilled immigration is integral to spurring economic growth and fueling 'American dynamism.' Ultimately, the tech right carried the day, with Trump intervening in the online spat to defend the H-1B program. After the feud, the two sides struck a tentative peace, and the contretemps quieted down as Trump reentered office. But the renewal of hostilities between Trump and Musk this week shows that the underlying ideological disagreement between the two factions was never really resolved. And despite all the current bluster about the 'big, beautiful' spending bill, the Epstein files, the ballooning national debt and Musk and Trump's overlarge egos, that divide still runs straight through the same issue that carved up the factions back in December: immigration. That may seem counterintuitive, given that the latest blow-up between Trump and Musk is ostensibly over the fiscal consequences of Trump's megabill — and specifically Musk's contention, supported by independent analyses but rejected by the Trump administration, that the bill would add significantly to the federal debt. But when you strip away all the salacious controversies swirling around the 'BBB,' the fight over the legislation ultimately boils down to the question of whether cracking down on immigration should stand alone as the Trump administration's guiding priority. In the eyes of the MAGA populists, the $155 billion that the BBB appropriates for immigration enforcement and Trump's mass deportation efforts more than justify its passage, whatever its fiscal shortcomings might be. As Stephen Miller, the populist right's go-to immigration hawk, recently put it, the bill includes 'the most significant border security and deportation effort in history' — a fact which 'alone makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation.' That immigration is at the center of the administration's pitch for the bill should come as no surprise. Since 2016, the issue has been the ideological keystone around which Trump has built his protean and sometimes unwieldy coalition. During the 2024 campaign, Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, proposed solving practically every issue that was thrown their way — from the housing shortage to inflation to 'wokeness' — by tying it back to their promised immigration crackdown. Once in office, the president's first acts included claiming unprecedented emergency authority to carry out his plan for mass deportations. But the centrality of immigration created tension as Musk and his fellow travelers on the tech right began to enter MAGA fold in the leadup to the 2024 election. The tech right threw its weight behind Trump's proposed agenda on immigration, but it was never the group's top priority. Much more important for MAGA's tech faction was taming the federal deficit, which Musk and others moguls — notably Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel — continue to view as an existential threat to the country's future. Their anxiety about the federal debt is rooted as much in their libertarianism as it is in their self-interest: every dollar the federal government spends servicing the federal debt is a dollar that it does not invest in the supposedly revolutionary technologies — backed by their firms — that they believe will lead to true 'American dynamism.' The misalignment between the priorities of the populist right and the tech right was clear from the start. It was apparent to Miller, who just this week raged that 'you will never live a day in your life where a libertarian cares as much about immigration and sovereignty as they do about the Congressional Budget Office.' It was also apparent to Vance — a perceptive observer of the coalitional dynamics within the MAGA movement — who dedicated an entire speech earlier this spring to arguing that immigration restriction and technological innovation could be mutually-reinforcing goals. 'This idea that tech-forward people and the populists are somehow inevitably going to come to a loggerhead is wrong,' said Vance, identifying himself as 'a proud member of both tribes.' Vance, it turns out, was wrong. To the contrary, the Trump-Musk schism is proof that MAGA loyalists can't have their cake and eat it too. They must choose — a maximalist immigration crackdown, or something else. The vengeance with which the populist right has turned on Musk since his spat with Trump is proof of what happens when a Trump ally — even the richest man on Planet Earth — chooses something else. That the fight really hinged on immigration became clear from the commentary coming out of the populist right. 'Debt is BAD. The migrant crisis is orders of magnitude worse,' posted the activist Charlie Kirk in the midst of the blowup. 'I've never seen debt hold an apartment building hostage,' added another conservative commentator, referring to reports of gang-occupied apartment buildings in Colorado. Then there was Bannon himself, who responded to the feud by suggesting — what else? — that Trump should deport Musk. The near-term consequences of the Trump-Musk schism remain to be seen. Whispers of peace talks between Trump and Musk flitted around Washington on Friday, and Trump has publicly downplayed the significance of the skirmish. At this point, no other big names on the tech right have followed Musk in breaking from Trump. And even if Musk were to actively challenge Trump's GOP — by funding primary challenges to Republican incumbents or even trying to start his own party, as he hinted at on Thursday — the consequences would likely be less dire for the future of the MAGA movement than he might think. Vance, the presumptive heir to the MAGA throne, has been building his own independent fundraising network since 2022, which could insulate him from any Musk-related financial aftershocks. Vance 2028 would certainly like to have access to Musk's campaign dollars, but it's not reliant on them. In the long run, though, the Trump-Musk feud will cement immigration as the critical litmus test for membership in Trump's GOP. The critical ideological fault line within the MAGA movement runs between people who view immigration restriction as a means to an end and those who see it as an end in themselves. The thrashing of Elon Musk is a warning to anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of that divide.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Democrats eyeing a presidential bid scramble to un-woke themselves
Ambitious Democrats with an eye on a presidential run are in the middle of a slow-motion Sister Souljah moment. Searching for a path out of the political wilderness, potential 2028 candidates, especially those hailing from blue states, are attempting to ratchet back a leftward lurch on social issues some in the party say cost them the November election. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who is Black, vetoed a bill that took steps toward reparations passed by his state legislature. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called it 'unfair' to allow transgender athletes to participate in female college and youth sports. And Rahm Emmanuel has urged his party to veer back to the center. 'Stop talking about bathrooms and locker rooms and start talking about the classroom,' said former Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emmanuel, the two-term Chicago mayor who said he is open to a 2028 presidential campaign. 'If one child is trying to figure out their pronoun, I accept that, but the rest of the class doesn't know what a pronoun is and can't even define it,' Each of these candidates are, either deliberately or tacitly, countering a perceived weakness in their own political record or party writ large—Emmanuel, for example, has called the Democratic Party 'weak and woke'; Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) has said the party needs more 'alpha energy'; others like Newsom are perhaps acknowledging a more socially liberal bent in the past. On diversity, equity, and inclusion, some in the party are also sending a signal they're no longer kowtowing to their left flank. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg removed his pronouns from his social media bio months ago, and questioned how the party has communicated about it. 'Is it caring for people's different experiences and making sure no one is mistreated because of them, which I will always fight for?' he said in a forum at the University of Chicago earlier this year. 'Or is it making people sit through a training that looks like something out of 'Portlandia,' which I have also experienced,' Buttigieg said. Buttigieg added, 'And it is how Trump Republicans are made.' Moderate Democrats are having a moment and there is a cadre of consultants and strategists ready to support them. Ground zero for the party's great un-awokening was this week's WelcomeFest, the moderate Democrats' Coachella. There, hundreds of centrist elected officials, candidates and operatives gathered to commiserate over their 2024 losses and their party's penchant for purity tests. Panels on Wednesday featured Slotkin, Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), described as 'legends of the moderate community,' and included a presentation by center-left data guru David Shor, who has urged Democrats to shed toxic positions like 'defund the police.' Adam Frisch, the former congressional candidate and director of electoral programs at Welcome PAC, said his party is 'out of touch culturally with a lot of people.' 'I think a lot of people are realizing, whether you're running for the House, the Senate, or the presidential, we better start getting on track with what I call the pro-normal party coalition,' Frisch said. 'You need to focus on normal stuff, and normal stuff is economic opportunity and prosperity, not necessarily micro-social issues.' Then there is Newsom, the liberal former mayor of San Francisco, who has also distanced himself from so-called woke terminology and stances. The governor claimed earlier this year that he had never used the word 'Latinx,' despite having repeatedly employed it just years earlier and once decrying Republicans who've sought to ban the gender-neutral term for Latinos. Newsom made the claim on his podcast episode with conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk — one of several MAGA personalities the governor has hosted on the platform in recent months. 'I just didn't even know where it came from. What are we talking about?' Newsom told Kirk. The governor, who gained national notoriety in 2004 for defying state law and issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco, has also pivoted on some LGBTQ+ issues. Newsom broke with Democrats this spring when he said, in the same podcast episode with Kirk, that he opposes allowing transgender women and girls to participate in female college and youth sports. 'I think it's an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness — it's deeply unfair,' Newsom said, a comment that was panned by many of his longtime LGBTQ+ supporters and progressive allies. Newsom for months has also muted his tone on immigration issues, avoiding using the word 'sanctuary' to describe a state law that limits police cooperation with federal immigration authorities even as he defends the legality of the policy. The governor is proposing steep cuts to a free health care program for undocumented immigrants, which comes as California faces a $12 billion budget deficit. In recent days, however, he joined a chorus of California Democrats criticizing Trump administration immigration efforts in his state. Moore, who recently trekked to South Carolina, vetoed legislation that would launch a study of reparations for the descendants of slaves from the Democratic-controlled legislature. Moore urged Democrats not get bogged down by bureaucratic malaise and pointed to the Republican Party as the reason why. 'Donald Trump doesn't need a study to dismantle democracy. Donald Trump doesn't need a study to use the Constitution like it's a suggestion box,' he told a packed dinner of party power players. 'Donald Trump doesn't need a white paper to start arbitrary trade wars that will raise the cost of virtually everything in our lives,' Moore said. There are some notable exceptions to the party's border pivot to the center. Govs. Andy Beshear of Kentucky, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota haven't shied away from social issues. Beshear, who has vetoed several anti-LGBTQ+ bills, including during his own reelection year, attacked Newsom for inviting conservative provocateurs Steve Bannon and Charlie Kirk onto his podcast. He also drew a distinction with Newsom on transgender athletes playing in youth sports, arguing that 'our different leagues have more than the ability to make' sports 'fair,' he told reporters in March. 'Surely, we can see some humanity and some different perspectives in this overall debate's that going on right now,' Beshear added. The Kentucky governor said his stance is rooted in faith — 'all children are children of God,' he often says. Walz called it 'a mistake' to abandon transgender people. 'We need to tell people your cost of eggs, your health care being denied, your homeowner's insurance, your lack of getting warning on tornadoes coming has nothing to do with someone's gender,' he told The Independent last month. Pritzker, too, recently said that it's 'vile and inhumane to go after the smallest minority and attack them.' This spring, Pritzker declared March 31 as Illinois' Transgender Day of Visibility. 'Walz, [Sen. Chris] Murphy, Pritzker, Beshear — they're not going around talking about it all the time, but they're also not running away from their values,' said one adviser to a potential 2028 candidate granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly. 'They're in the both-and lane.' The party's reckoning with social issues is far from over. In 2021, then-Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro vocally opposed a GOP bill that aimed to ban trans athletes from participating in women's school sports, calling it 'cruel' and 'designed to discriminate against transgender youth who just want to play sports like their peers.' This year, as the state's Republican-controlled Senate has passed a similar bill with the support of a handful of Democrats, Shapiro has remained mum on the legislation. It's not likely to come up for a vote in the state's Democratic-held House, so he may be able to punt — at least a while. As Emmanuel sees it, his party has a long way to go to over-correct for what he paints as the excesses of the last few years. 'The core crux over the years of President [Joe] Biden's tenure is the party on a whole set of cultural issues looked like they were off on a set of tangential issues,' Emmanuel said. Dasha Burns, Dustin Gardner, Holly Otterbein, and Brakkton Booker contributed to this report.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
‘Trump movement' turns on Cornyn, poll finds
MAGA loyalists have put Sen. John Cornyn's reelection campaign in a Texas-size hole. An early May poll commissioned by the American Opportunity Alliance, a major conservative funding group linked to megadonor Paul Singer, shows the Texas Republican down 17 points in a head-to-head primary matchup with state attorney general Ken Paxton. Below the top-line of Paxton's 52-percent-to-35-percent advantage, the poll found a clear divide between those voters who were defined as 'Trump Movement' voters and those who were 'Traditional Republicans.' In the former category, which made up of 58 percent of the electorate, Paxton had a 45-point lead. Among the latter, who made up only 35 percent of voters, Cornyn had a 27-point lead. The findings reflect a increasingly prominent divide among Republican primary voters in Texas where an insurgent hard-right faction has been steadily gaining ground in recent years while ousting more traditional GOP elected officials. Paxton, who has faced federal investigation and impeachment, has long been a darling of right-wingers in Texas, while Cornyn — first elected to the Senate in 2002 — is considered a pillar of the establishment GOP. In a speculative three-way race with GOP Rep. Wesley Hunt, who is exploring a bid, the margin barely narrowed with the Cornyn trailing Paxton, 43 percent to 27 percent, with Hunt receiving 14 percent. There was some good news for the incumbent in the poll. Despite trailing Paxton significantly, he is still viewed favorably by the Republican primary electorate in the Lone Star State — just not as favorably as the state attorney general. The poll, conducted from April 29 through May 1 among 800 Republican primary voters, is among a series of public and private surveys all showing Cornyn significantly trailing Paxton. They have sparked increasing concern from national Republican operatives about a potentially ugly and costly primary, as well as the possible elevation of a scandal-plagued candidate who might be at risk in a general election. The American Opportunity Alliance's interest in the race is notable; it's one of the key donor consortiums in Republican politics and its members including Singer and Chuck Schwab are some of the biggest funders on the right.
