The Trump administration is asking Congress to cut funds for tribal colleges and universities by nearly 90 percent, according to the Department of the Interior’s proposed budget released Monday.
Tribal college advocates told ProPublica, which first reported on the cuts, that tribal colleges could have to shutter if Congress approves the plan, leaving thousands of students without the support they need to complete a degree program. And reports from ProPublicashow that it will only further devastate institutions that were already underfunded.
“The numbers that are being proposed would close the tribal colleges,” Ahniwake Rose, president and CEO of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, told ProPublica. “They would not be able to sustain.”
The budget request calls for about $860 million to operate Indian Education Programs, which includes two federally controlled tribal colleges—Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute. Of that $860 million, about $22 million would go toward postsecondary programs. That’s about a $161 million cut compared to fiscal year 2024.
Tribal colleges argue that their funding is protected by treaties and contend that the institutions up for discussion are critical providers in some of the country’s poorest areas.
“It doesn’t make sense for them to [approve the cuts[ when they’re relying on us to train the workforce,” Dawn Frank, president of Oglala Lakota College in South Dakota, told ProPublica. “We’re really relying on our senators and representatives to live up to their treaty and trust obligation.”
Pennsylvania State University is weighing a plan to close seven of its 19 Commonwealth Campuses, which its governing board is expected to vote on in a virtual meeting Thursday.
The campuses proposed for closure are Dubois, Fayette, Mont Alto, New Kensington, Shenango, Wilkes-Barre and York. Altogether, those campuses enroll just under 3,200 students. Penn State York, which had 703 students last fall, has the largest enrollment among the seven.
If approved, the campuses will be shut down by the end of the spring 2027 semester.
“I believe the recommendation balances our need to adapt to the changing needs of Pennsylvania with compassion for those these decisions affect, both within Penn State and across the commonwealth, in part because of the two-year period before any campus would close. As we work through the next steps, we will be taking steps to support every student in any needed transition and, we will take every step to provide opportunities to faculty and staff to remain part of Penn State,” Bendapudi wrote in a statement shared with the proposal.
Penn State announced in February that it would consider closing some campuses due to declining enrollment. Officials reviewed 12 campuses for closure before settling on seven.
On May 6, Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS), along with Sens. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Jim Justice (R-WV), and Pete Ricketts (R-NE), introduced the Overtime Wages Tax Relief Act, which is intended to fulfill President Trump’s campaign promise to eliminate taxes on overtime pay. The proposal provides an income tax deduction for overtime pay up to a certain threshold. Marshall explained that his goal with the legislation was to target the benefit to lower- and middle-income workers in industries and occupations that traditionally pay overtime.
Under the proposal, individuals would be able to deduct up to $10,000 of overtime pay from their income taxes. For married couples, the cap would be set at $20,000. This is an “above-the-line” income tax deduction, so workers would have the ability to claim the deduction whether they itemize their deductions or take the standard deduction.
Additionally, the proposal phases out the benefit for top earners, identified as individuals earning $100,000 or more and married couples earning $200,000 or more. The deduction is reduced by $50 for every $1,000 in income the individual or married couple earns above their respective threshold.
The legislation also includes reporting obligations for employers “to ensure transparency and accuracy in claiming the deduction.” Employers will be required to report overtime earnings to employees in their annual wage and tax statements.
Marshall is hoping to have the legislation included in the Republican’s fiscal year 2025 budget reconciliation bill, which is expected to cover everything from border security to extensions for the expiring 2017 tax cuts President Trump signed into law during his first term.
CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates on this bill and others related to overtime laws and regulations.
President Donald Trump wants to end funding for TRIO, Federal Work-Study and other grant programs that support students on campus as part of a broader plan to cut $163 billion in nondefense programs.
The funding cuts were outlined in a budget proposal released Friday. The document, considered a “skinny budget,” is essentially a wish list for the fiscal year 2026 budget for Congress to consider. The proposal kicks off what will likely be a yearlong effort to adopt a budget for the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1. Trump is unlikely to get all of his plan through Congress, though Republicans have seemed especially willing this year to support his agenda.
If enacted, the plan would codify Trump’s efforts over the last three months to cut spending and reduce the size of the federal government—moves that some have argued were illegal. (Congress technically has final say over the budget, but Trump and his officials have raised questions about the legality of laws that require the president to spend federal funds as directed by the legislative branch.)
The proposed budget plan slashes nearly $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health, $12 billion from the Education Department, and nearly $5 billion from the National Science Foundation. The skinny budget also eliminates funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Sciences, AmeriCorps, National Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities. Trump has already made deep cuts at those agencies and put most—if not all—of their employees on leave.
A fuller budget with more specifics is expected later this month.
Democrats were quick to blast Trump’s plan, saying it would set the country “back decades by decimating investments to help families afford the basics.” But Republicans countered that the proposal would rein in “Washington’s runaway spending” and right-size “the bloated federal bureaucracy.”
For higher ed groups and advocates, the proposed cuts could further jeopardize the country’s standing as a leader in global innovation and put college out of reach for some students.
“Rather than ushering in a new Golden Age, the administration is proposing cuts to higher education and scientific research of an astonishing magnitude that would decimate U.S. innovation, productivity, and national security,” said Mark Becker, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, in a statement. “We call on Congress to reject these deeply misguided proposed cuts and instead invest in the nation’s future through education and pathbreaking research.”
Zeroing Out ED Programs
At the Education Department, the Trump administration is proposing to end a number of programs and reduce funding to others.
The president wants to eliminate the department altogether; Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement that the proposal reflects “an agency that is responsibly winding down, shifting some responsibilities to the states, and thoughtfully preparing a plan to delegate other critical functions to more appropriate entities.”
McMahon laid off nearly half of the agency’s staff in March, so the budget also addresses those cuts.
To compensate for the cuts to programs that directly support students or institutions, the administration argued colleges, states and local communities should on take that responsibility. Other justifications for the cuts reflect the administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion programs and higher ed.
For instance, officials from the Office of Management and Budget wrote that the SEOG program “contributes to rising college costs that [institutes of higher education] have used to fund radical leftist ideology instead of investing in students and their success.” (The SEOG program provides $100 to $4,000 to students “with exceptional financial need,” according to the department.)
On TRIO and GEAR UP, which help low-income students get to college, the administration said those programs were a “relic of the past when financial incentives were needed to motivate Institutions of Higher Education to engage with low-income students and increase access … Today, the pendulum has swung and access to college is not the obstacle it was for students of limited means.”
Additionally, the administration wants to cut the Office for Civil Rights’ budget by $49 million, or 35 percent. The budget document says this cut will refocus OCR “away from DEI and Title IX transgender cases.” In recent years, the Biden administration pleaded with Congress to boost OCR’s funding in order to address an increasing number of complaints. The office received 22,687 complaints in fiscal year 2024, and the Biden administration projected that number to grow to nearly 24,000 in 2025.
But the OMB document claims that OCR will clear its “massive backlog” this year. “This rightsizing is consistent with the reduction across the Department and an overall smaller Federal role in K-12 and postsecondary education,” officials wrote.
The administration also proposed cutting the Education Department’s overall budget for program administration by 30 percent. The $127 million cut reflects the staffing cuts and other efforts to wind down the department’s operations.
“President Trump’s proposed budget puts students and parents above the bureaucracy,” McMahon said. “The federal government has invested trillions of taxpayer dollars into an education system that is not driving improved student outcomes—we must change course and reorient taxpayer dollars toward proven programs that generate results for American students.”
Science and Research Cuts
Agencies that fund research at colleges and universities are also facing deep cuts. The $4.9 billion proposed cut at the National Science Foundation is about half of what the agency received in fiscal year 2024—the last year Congress adopted a full budget.
The cuts will end NSF programs aimed at broadening participation in the STEM fields, which totaled just over $1 billion, as well as $3.45 billion in general research and education.
“The budget cuts funding for: climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences; and programs in low priority areas of science,” the officials wrote in budget documents. “NSF has fueled research with dubious public value, like speculative impacts from extreme climate scenarios and niche social studies.”
As examples of “research with dubious public value,” officials specifically highlighted a $13.8 million NSF grant at Columbia University to “advance livable, safe, and inclusive communities” and a $15.2 million grant to the University of Delaware focused on achieving “sustainable equity, economic prosperity, and coastal resilience in the context of climate change.” The administration is maintaining the funding for research into artificial intelligence and quantum information sciences.
The budget plan also aims to make significant reforms at the National Institutes of Health while slashing the agency’s budget by $17.9 billion. NIH received $47 billion in fiscal 2024.
The plan would consolidate NIH programs into five areas: the National Institute on Body Systems Research; National Institute on Neuroscience and Brain Research; National Institute of General Medical Sciences; National Institute of Disability Related Research; and National Institute on Behavioral Health.
The National Institute on Minority and Health Disparities, the Fogarty International Center, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and the National Institute of Nursing Research would all be cut. The administration is planning to maintain $27 billion for NIH research.
“The administration is committed to restoring accountability, public trust, and transparency at the NIH,” officials wrote. “NIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health.”
During her State of the State address on Tuesday, New York governor Kathy Hochul announced a plan to make community college tuition-free for residents pursuing associate degrees in certain high-demand fields.
The program would be open to adults aged 25 to 55 pursuing degrees in nursing, teaching, technology fields and engineering. If enacted, it could take effect as early as this fall and cover tuition, fees and textbook costs for students attending State University of New York and City University of New York community colleges. Hochul also proposed the creation of new apprenticeship programs for similar high-demand jobs.
Currently, New York students from families making under $125,000 can attend SUNY and CUNY schools tuition-free, regardless of their degree program. For most of its nearly 200-year existence, all CUNY schools were free for New York residents to attend. That policy was abandoned after the 1976 city financial crisis.
In recent years, a number of states have enacted free tuition initiatives targeted to midcareer adults and aimed at boosting employment in specific high-demand jobs. Massachusetts’s new MassReconnect program led to a surge in community college enrollment last year, and Michigan enacted a similar plan last summer.
On August 30, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced a new proposed update to the salary threshold for the “white collar” exemptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) overtime pay requirements.
DOL proposes raising the minimum salary threshold from its current level of $35,568 annually to $55,068 — a nearly 55% increase. It also raises the salary level for the Highly Compensated Exemption (HCE) to $143,988 from its current level of $107,432 (a 34% increase). The proposal does not make any changes to the duties requirements. DOL does, however, propose automatically updating the threshold every three years by tying the threshold to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census Region. For more information, DOL issued a FAQ document addressing the changes in the proposed rule.
DOL first announced their intention to move forward with the proposal in the Fall 2021 Regulatory Agenda and set a target date for its release in April 2022. However, CUPA-HR, along with other higher education organizations and hundreds of concerned stakeholders, expressed concerns with the timing of the rulemaking and encouraged DOL to hold stakeholder meetings prior to releasing the anticipated overtime Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). In a recent letter, CUPA-HR joined other associations in calling for the department to postpone or abandon the anticipated overtime rulemaking, citing concerns with supply chain disruptions, workforce shortages, inflation, and shifting workplace dynamics.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on September 8, allowing the public 60 days to submit comments. CUPA-HR plans to file an extension request with the agency. We will also continue evaluating the current proposal and work with members to prepare comments to submit on behalf of the higher education community. Furthermore, an extended session of the CUPA-HR Washington Update on September 21 will delve into the nuances of these proposed changes and their ramifications on campus.
On January 4, 2023, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a proposed rule to adjust certain immigration and naturalization benefit request fees, which would result in significantly higher fees for employment-based petitioners. USCIS last adjusted fees in 2016, but the most recent fee review conducted by the agency determined that the 2016 fees are insufficient to cover the agency’s operating costs. Unlike other government agencies that receive the majority of their funding through congressional appropriations, USCIS receives approximately 96 percent of its funding from filing fees. USCIS claims that the increased fees will “allow USCIS to more fully recover its operating costs, reestablish and maintain timely case processing, and prevent the accumulation of future case backlogs.”
While the proposal is nearly 500 pages long and has significant implications for both employment-based and family-based filings, this blog post focuses on the most significant implications for higher ed employers. Of significance for higher ed employers is a new proposal to fund the Asylum Program with employer petitions fees. Specifically, USCIS “proposes a new Asylum Program Fee of $600 be paid by any employers who file either a Form I-129, Petition for a Non-immigrant Worker, or Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker.”
In addition to the new Asylum Program Fee, USCIS is proposing to increase almost all employment-based and employment-based “adjacent” filing fees. A full fee schedule can be found in Table 1 of the preamble to the proposal and includes the following highlights:
Fees for I-129 Petitions for H-1B workers rose 70 percent, from $460 to $780;
Fees for I-129 Petitions for L-1 workers rose 201 percent, from $460 to $1,385;
Fees for I-129 Petitions for O-1 workers rose 129 percent, from $460 to $1,055;
I-765 Employment Authorization (EAD) application fees were structured in a way to encourage online applications by providing a discount for online filings. Online applications will be priced at $555, regardless of whether the individual needs their biometrics, whereas paper-based filings will be $650.
Changes made to the I-539 fees for applications to extend/change non-immigrant status were similarly structured to the I-765 changes. Online applications will be priced at $525, whereas paper-based applications are rising to $620.
I-485 Adjustment of Status applications uniformly rose to $1,540. For those interested in applying for adjustment of status and a travel document (I-131), those fees will be $2,170 for electronicapplications and $2,190 for paper-based applications. Lastly, for those looking to concurrently file for a status adjustment, a travel document and an EAD (I-765), that will cost $2,820.
In addition to the aforementioned changes, USCIS is also proposing to revise the premium processing timeframe interpretation from calendar days to business days. Currently, premium processing allows petitioners to receive an adjudicative action on their case within 15 calendar days. Changing the interpretation to business days would add nearly a week to the existing adjudication time.
As mentioned earlier, the fee proposal is nearly 500 pages long and as such includes numerous changes not covered in this blog post. CUPA-HR will continue to evaluate the proposal, which is open for public feedback through March 6, 2023, and plans to join with other higher education associations to submit comments identifying the proposals impact to the higher education community.
On August 18, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published in the Federal Register its anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on optional alternative examination practices for employers when reviewing an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents required by the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. Interested stakeholders can submit comments on the NPRM through October 17.
Under current law, employers are required to physically examine an individual’s identity and employment authorization documents within three business days after an individual’s first day of employment. The proposed rulemaking, however, would create a framework under which the Secretary of Homeland Security could allow alternative options for verifying those documents, such as reviewing the documents via video, fax or email.
As explained in the NPRM, the proposal does not directly allow employers or agents acting on the employer’s behalf to use such alternative examination options, but instead would create a framework under which the Secretary would be authorized to extend the flexibilities. The Secretary would be authorized to implement the alternative options in a pilot program if they determine such procedures would offer an equivalent level of security, as a temporary measure to address a public health emergency declared by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, or a national emergency declared by the President.
The DHS is issuing this rulemaking following the success of temporary changes to document verification procedures implemented at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020, the DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement deferred its physical examination requirements for Form I-9 and relaxed its enforcement. Employers were allowed to review documents through video, fax or email so long as they also retained copies of the documents. The policy proved successful and was extended several times, but is currently set to expire October 31, 2022. It may still be extended as the agency pursues this rulemaking.
In December 2021, CUPA-HR submitted comments to the DHS in response to the agency’s Request for Public Input on remote document examination. In its comments, CUPA-HR reported the results of the survey it conducted of member institutions’ experiences with the agency’s Form I-9 flexibilities. CUPA-HR members reported positive experiences with the changes and said they did not run into challenges with implementation. Respondents strongly supported a permanent option for remote document examination and said the policy provides numerous benefits for higher education institutions, including providing more flexibility for remote work, reducing the time needed to complete document verification and reducing institutions’ paperwork burden. Respondents also criticized physical document examination as overly burdensome.
CUPA-HR plans to submit comments on the NPRM and will likely ask members for their input in the coming weeks.
