Some 16,100 international students could be deterred from studying in the UK in the first year universities are levied 6% of all their international student fees, comes the stark warning from a new report from the think tank Public First.
Should the government make good on the proposal – outlined in the immigration white paper earlier this year – this figure could rocket to more than 77,000 students in the first five years of its implementation, the report predicts.
The government expects universities to pass the increased costs onto international students themselves by raising fees. But Public First cautioned that such a move would have catastrophic consequences by driving international students away, hitting the UK’s economy by £2.2 billion over five years and leading to a reduction of 135,000 university places for domestic students.
The think tank projected that a 6.38% international student fee increase – necessary for universities to pass on the entire cost of the levy – would have a far greater impact on students’ decision to study in the UK than the government has anticipated.
This is because the government’s forecasts were based on data for EU students. However, Public First noted that price elasticity of demand for non-EU students is greater than their EU counterparts – meaning they would be more likely to be look elsewhere if they found UK fees too expensive.
Jonathan Simons, partner at Public First and author of the report, noted that the projected impact of the levy “is much more severe than had been predicted previously”.
It is not widely understood just how much our economy is supported by international students and it’s really crucial that any policy that could affect international student numbers is considered through this lens
Jonathan Simons, Public First
“This, of course, will hit our universities, around 40% of whom are already in deficit, and that could lead to a further loss of jobs, a loss of university places for UK students and a loss of vital research investment,” he added.
“Perhaps even more significant, though, is the hit an international student levy could cause to local, regional and national economies across the UK. It is not widely understood just how much our economy is supported by international students and it’s really crucial that any policy that could affect international student numbers is considered through this lens.”
Henri Murison, chief executive of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership and chair of the Growing Together Alliance, said that the levy was opposed by all of England’s major regional employer organisations “because the resulting decline in international students would be hugely damaging to all the regions of the country”.
“The Chancellor should take note of the economic damage of this policy which undermines a critical UK export and we have requested an urgent meeting to raise our concerns,” he said.
The proposed levy has been widely criticised by higher education institutions.
Last month, a HEPI analysis predicted that UK universities could take a £621m hit if the policy goes ahead, with those situated in big metropolitan cities set to be the worst affected.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The University of Nebraska-Lincolnplans to cut $27.5 million from its budget — possibly including eliminating or merging academic programs — by the end of the yearto address an ongoing structural deficit.
“Despite our best efforts to live within our means, our revenue has not kept pace with expenses,” UNL Chancellor Rodney Bennett said in a campus message on Monday. He attributed the shortfall to insufficient state funding and declining net tuition revenue combined with high inflation.
The flagship university is among the many higher education institutions cutting their budgets amid an uncertain financial landscape. UNL will also extend its hiring freeze for at least the second time and likely offer employees a voluntary separation package this fall, Bennett said.
Dive Insight:
A planning committee composed of administrators, faculty and student representatives plans to discuss potential budget cuts this week.Bennett will then take the committee’s recommendations and propose a final budget plan to the head of the University of Nebraska system by the end of October, he said.
The plan may recommend degree program cuts or mergers that will allow UNL to capitalize on its “existing strengths,” the chancellor said.
Moving forward, the university will prioritize growing extramural grants and contracts and increasing tuition revenue through higher enrollment and student retention, he said.
UNL officials also hope to see additional revenue from a tuition hike approved by the University of Nebraska system’s board in June.
In-state undergraduate tuition at UNL will increase from $277 to $291 per credit hour for the 2025-26 academic year.For out-of-state students, the cost will rise from $888 to $932.
Like Bennett, the system board cited “a legislative session in which the university received modest funding increases that do not fully cover inflationary pressures, rising employee benefit costs or strategic investments.”
The University of Nebraska relies heavily on state funding. In the fiscal 2024-25 year, a fifth of the system’s operating budget — just under $700 million — came from state appropriations.
However, recent increases to the state’s higher education funding have been nominal and have not kept pace with inflation.
Earlier this year, Nebraska’s Legislature raised the University of Nebraska’s state funding by 1.25% over the next two years.The bump fell well short of inflation and the system’s requested increase of 3.5%.
But that’s still a significant improvement over Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen’s initial proposal. Pillen, who served as a system regent for a decade,sought to cut the system’s funding by 2%, which would have amounted to a loss of $14.3 million.
On Wednesday, Bennett referenced the series of austerity measures the university has undertaken in recent years and expressed hope that the next round of cuts could help UNL achieve operational stability.
“I want to realize a future for UNL in which faculty and staff are not repeatedly asked to do the same quality and amount of work with fewer resources — but rather are provided the support and opportunity to excel beyond current levels of success,” he said
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
President Donald Trump on Friday delivered a federal budget that would slash more than $4.5 billion in K-12 funding for fiscal year 2026. In total, cuts to the Education Department would amount to $12 billion, or 15% of its current funding.
The deep cuts would hit programs meant to ensure equitable access to education for underserved students and to protect their civil rights. And though maintained at current funding levels, Title I and special education programs would be reorganized into separate single grants aimed at letting states spend the money as they see fit.
“The Budget continues the process of shutting down the Department of Education,” the White House’s funding request states.
Among the cuts:
All $70 million for Teacher Quality Partnerships grant, often used to diversify the teacher workforce.
All $7 million for Equity Assistance Centers, established as part of desegregation efforts.
All $890 million for English Language Acquisition.
A $49 million, or 35%, reduction for the Office for Civil Rights.
At the same time, Trump’s budget would boost funding for charter schools by $60 million.
Funding for Title I and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act programs — which public school advocates had worried would be cut — was preserved. Head Start, which was widely rumored to be on the chopping block, appears to have survived for now as it is not among the cuts listed in the budget document.
Cuts reflect administration’s anti-DEI priority
Many of the proposed cuts reflect Trump’s course reversal from the previous decades-long focus on equity in the education sector.
For instance, the budget would zero out Equity Assistance Centers, originally established under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to level the playing field for students of color, and especially Black students, after decades of segregation and its long-standing impact on their achievement over generations. Friday’s White House budget request characterizes such efforts as “distractions” from focusing on core subjects like math, reading, science and history.
Another program that would be halted is the Teacher Quality Partnerships grant, which funds teacher pipeline programs and helped establish a master’s program for teachers of color. The budget document argues that the program centers “racism in their pedagogy” by including instruction for aspiring teachers on “social justice activism, ’anti-racism,’ and instruction on white privilege and white supremacy.” Professional development workshops funded by the grants have included topics such as “building cultural competence,” “dismantling racial bias,” and “centering equity in the classroom,” which the administration took issue with.
Also on the chopping block: The budget would eliminate the $890 million English Language Acquisition program, which the administration says “encourages bilingualism,” and “deemphasizes English primacy.”
The administration also proposed an end to the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Preschool Development Grants. In the budget overview, the White House cited efforts by the Minnesota Department of Education to use the money to implement “intersectionality” and “racial equity” in early childhood education programs and by Oregon to provide “quality care” for the state’s LGBTQIA+ families.
One of the few increases included in the proposal to K-12 program funding was an additional $60 million for charter schools, which it says “have a proven track record of improving students’ academic achievement” and will create more local school options while expanding parental choice.
Proposed cuts follow recent moves to gut Education Department
The president’s budget request “reflects funding levels for 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.” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.
The budget proposal “supports the President’s vision of expanding school choice and ensuring every American has access to an excellent education,” McMahon said in a statement on Friday.
Many of the proposed cuts reflect moves already made to pare down and eventually close the Education Department “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law,” as Trump ordered in a March directive.
For example, as part of a massive reduction in force that eliminated half of the department’s employees, the ELA office was already entirely slashed.
The RIF also cut OCR’s workforce by half, shutting down half of the nation’s offices that were responsible for investigating thousands of school civil rights complaints. OCR operations under Trump have pivoted to focus on eliminating LGBTQ+-friendly policies, and much of its investigative responsibilities and all of its enforcement work has been shifted to the Department of Justice.
One of the first cuts made to the department, even prior to the mass layoffs, was the February cancellation of Teacher Quality Partnership grants, which the administration called “divisive.” Those grants, entirely eliminated in Friday’s proposed budget, were part of a $600 million cut that was challenged in court by Democratic attorneys general and temporarily reinstated in March, only for the Supreme Court to then allow the cuts to move forward.
Next steps in the budget process
While far from final, presidents’ budget proposals reflect their priorities for the nation and oftentimes hint at the road ahead. Though priorities shift between administrations, and particularly so when the party in power changes — but the shifts have been nothing short of dramatic and unprecedented from Biden to Trump.
Appropriations are ultimately set by Congress, which is now controlled by Republicans who espouse many of Trump’s priorities and seem sympathetic to the president’s K-12 priorities, including shutting down the Education Department. Long considered impossible, the agency’s total shutdown still seems like a longshot to many. But, it’s possible that many of the president’s funding proposals — which would eliminate or greatly reduce many of the department’s functions — will be pushed through.
“The President’s Budget Request is simply one step in the annual budget process,” said U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in a statement Friday. Noting that the budget was submitted late and isn’t comprehensive, Collins said, “Ultimately, it is Congress that holds the power of the purse.”
The House and Senate Appropriations committees will hold hearings to learn more about the president’s proposal and then are to mark up their own bills to fund the federal government for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
Both the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are slashing funding support for graduate students and early-career researchers as President Donald Trump continues dramatic federal budget cuts.
On Tuesday, Nature reported the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program awarded 1,000 fellowships—fewer than half of the record-setting 2,555 fellowship offers it made in 2023, and the second-smallest number of awards since 2008.
Prior to this year, the fellowship program’s stated goal was to “ensure the quality, vitality, and diversity of the scientific and engineering workforce,” though the Trump administration has since replaced the word “diversity” with “strength.”
Since 1952, the NSF’s fellowship program has funded more than 75,000 master’s and Ph.D. students pursuing science degrees. Fellows receive five years of funding, which includes a $37,000 annual stipend and the cost of tuition. The fellowships are highly competitive; of the more than 13,000 applicants who apply each year, only about 16 percent typically get an award. While the cuts made it even more competitive this year, a record 3,018 applicants also received “honorable mentions,” which don’t come with an award but can boost a CV nonetheless.
Over the past two weeks, the NIH has also canceled numerous institutional and individual training grants, including many that support scientists from underrepresented communities, according to The Transmitter.
The outlet reported that a chemistry professor at the University of Puerto Rico–Río Piedras Campus received a letter from the NIH terminating funding for the Undergraduate Research Training Initiative for Student Enhancement because the award “no longer effectuates agency priorities.”
That justification is now central to a federal lawsuit researchers and advocacy groups filed against the NIH last week, which among other points argues that the Department of Health and Human Services (the NIH’s parent agency) hasn’t yet adopted rules that would allow it to terminate an award for not effectuating agency priorities.
Other terminated NIH training programs, according to The Transmitter, include the Maximizing Access to Research Careers program, which funded undergraduate researchers; the Post-Baccalaureate Research Education Program; the Bridges to the Doctorate program, which trained master’s students; the Initiative for Maximizing Student Development, which supported graduate students; and the Institutional Research and Academic Career Development Award, which aided postdoctoral researchers.
Administrators at the University of Wyoming have agreed to cut student media funding by only 8.5%, repudiating a censorial student government proposal to punish student media by cutting the funding by 75% because students “don’t like” student newspaper the Branding Iron’s editorial choices. The change came after FIRE wrote to the university, explaining that the proposed funding cut was based on the content of the student newspaper, flagrantly violating the First Amendment.
On Nov. 19, the Associated Students of the University of Wyoming passed a resolution recommending a drastic 75% cut to the fee that funds student media, including the student newspaper Branding Iron. The resolution, drafted by the Tuition Allocation and Student Fee Review Committee, cited staffing challenges, the quantity of advertising, and supposed “errors” in content as reasons for the cut. During the debate, several senators made their true motivations plain, tying their votes to personal distaste for the Branding Iron’s editorial choices, writing quality, and student opinions.
When they distribute student fee funding, student government members exercise state power. The First Amendment bars the government, and the students to whom it delegates its power, from taking away resources based on the content of a media outlet’s expression. For good reason.
Student media often have to write critical stories about their peers, administrators, and student government officials. So it goes when serving as a check on power, but that work would be nigh impossible without the First Amendment’s guarantee that citizens cannot be retaliated against for what they say. Cutting funding based on content impairs student journalists’ ability to confidently report on the world around them, and FIRE has beat backsimilarefforts across the country.
Student media is the microphone that makes sure all these voices are heard. And FIRE is here to make sure that mic is never cut off.
Though several student senators argued they had no “vendetta” against the student paper, their reliance upon opinions about the content of student media was enough to render their decision content-based. And any content-based restriction, however innocuous the stated motivation, must be regarded with a jaundiced eye lest those in power go unchecked.
Thanks to FIRE’s efforts, student journalists at UW are back to covering events in their community and beyond.
Having such dedicated staff on the local beat is especially important in places like Wyoming, where there are fewer outlets to cover local issues.
“When we look at the University of Wyoming, and we consider that it is the only four year university in our entire state, our student media’s impact is so much more important,” said Branding Iron editor-in-chief Ven Meester. “We are a college campus in one of the reddest states in the nation. From student organizations, to speakers, to community events, we have an exceptional amount of political diversity.”
Student media is the microphone that makes sure all these voices are heard. And FIRE is here to make sure that mic is never cut off.
FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).
