Education at a Cost: How Trump's Funding Cuts Leave Low-Income Students Behind

Last month, U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration introduced new federal funding

cuts for colleges and universities. This announcement sparked widespread concern, particularly

among low-income families. Many worried about how the loss of funding would affect their

children’s access to higher education, which raised serious alarms about affordability and

growing inequality towards low-income communities.

While the announcement provoked immediate backlash, the Trump administration has defended

the decision under claims of reform and accountability. President Trump and Republican

lawmakers insisted that these new laws and policies were necessary to protect students from

harmful and objectionable content, whilst preventing harassment and discouraging conformity.

The administration took away federal funding for any university or college suspected of not

doing enough to protect Jewish students. For example, on March 7, the administration stripped

Columbia University of $400 million in federal grants, under claims that the university had not

done enough to punish students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. To add

pressure on the university, the government issued a list of demands that Columbia would have to

comply with to earn back funding. Immediately, the university accepted, rushing in to hire new

public safety personnel with powers to arrest student protestors, appoint a new official to review

departments that offer courses on the Middle East, and ban students from wearing face masks to

“conceal” their identity. This act resulted in an uproar of student discontent, many fearing for

their safety and free speech on campus. Anger rose after ICE detained Mahmoud Khalil, a legal

U.S. citizen, over his service as a spokesperson and negotiator for demonstrators who deployed

Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Additionally, despite complying with the Trump

administration, Columbia University has yet to receive a return in funding.

When faced with the same dilemma, Harvard University took a different course. On April 14,

Harvard rejected the Trump administration’s demands, risking the loss of $9 billion in funding.

The $9 billion included $256 million in research support for Harvard and $8.7 billion in future

commitments, consisting of several renowned hospitals such as the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

These funds would be taken away if the University did adhere to the administration’s demands

by implementing changes in policies about curriculum, hiring, and administration. When

Harvard refused with the assertion that it would not allow itself to be taken over by the federal

government, the two sides began a standoff. After cutting off Harvard’s funding, it was reported

that Trump had given the Internal Revenue Service a potentially illegal order to revoke the

university’s tax-exempt status. Revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status would require the

university to pay income taxes on revenue, which includes donations. That way, donors would no

longer be able to deduct contributions, and private foundations would not be willing or able to

make a grant to Harvard. Although this might seem like a small change, a lack of donations

would reduce support that is vital for faculty positions, research funding, and scholarships.

Columbia and Harvard responded to the administration in different ways, but both face the same

problem, along with many universities in the U.S. With these cuts towards federal funding,

universities and colleges are now forced to make up for the loss elsewhere. According to a

Harvard spokesperson, these losses would “result in diminished financial aid for students,

abandonment of critical medical research programs, and lost opportunities for innovation. The

unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of

higher education in America.” Creating a financial strain compels institutions to cut back on

financial aid offerings and scale down research programs, directly affecting students. With

limited access to higher education, students coming from low-income backgrounds specifically

would be struck the hardest. As institutions become more dependent on full-tuition paying

applicants, students who rely on aid may find themselves shut out of the very education that was

meant to uplift them.

With these attacks on institutions, access to higher education has become preserved only for

those who can afford it, giving those in poverty little chance to break through. Just like how the

future of higher education should not be determined by politics, access to higher education

should not be dictated by wealth. In order to preserve the promise of equal opportunity, it is

important to speak out against policies that prioritize control over community and profit over

potential.

Written by Claire Liu