Given the impending threats to the future of higher education, there are opportunities for states to make policy and resource decisions that can reduce the potential impact and scope of cuts
April 02, 2026 by EdTrust 
Following President Donald Trump’s return to office in January 2025, the administration quickly began to execute Project 2025’s radical political agenda to upend higher education. These changes began with the signing of myriad executive orders that covered topics from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives to college oversight. It led to the weaponization of the Office for Civil Rights to investigate colleges and threaten the freezing of federal funding to stop universities from promoting DEI among students, along with the halting of federal research funding for universities and the beginning of the dismantling of the Department of Education. This escalated even further when Republicans in Congress passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA). The new law represents a massive upward transfer of wealth, which EdTrust has dubbed The Great American Heist. This law erodes the safety net for millions of people while including large tax cuts for big corporations and the wealthiest Americans and will result in massive increases in barriers to food and medical care for students in school.
OBBBA makes devastating cuts to Medicaid (health insurance) and SNAP (food assistance) and upends education in a way that would make it harder for students from low- and middle-income backgrounds to pursue their dreams through higher education. The law also eliminates Grad PLUS loans, resulting in students being forced to take out private loans with higher interest rates and worse repayment terms to pursue advance degrees, imposes caps on both the amount of money students can borrow per year and the total amount they can borrow for graduate education; fundamentally changes income-driven repayment for student loan borrowers; and delays crucial protections for students defrauded by their schools. Taken together, these changes are likely to limit access, resources, and protections for the college students who need them most.
These federal cuts could be exacerbated at the state level during economic downturns, when higher education budgets are often reduced, as state resources may be redirected to address other pressing priorities. The following sections analyze six urgent threats and outline detailed state and local paths for action. These strategies aim to provide states with a variety of options to consider as they work to mitigate the harm of these changes and to fill the critical gaps left by federal disinvestment.
Photo by Allison Shelley/Complete College Photo Library
Through OBBBA, Congress placed new restrictions on federal student loans by reducing access for part-time undergraduates and limiting borrowing for graduate students by eliminating Grad PLUS loans while giving financial aid administrators more authority to limit loans by program. While some Republican lawmakers argue that these changes will help lower college costs, there is little evidence to support that claim. Instead, the likely outcome is reducing access to higher education for students who cannot cover gaps out of pocket, along with increased financial risk and reliance on more expensive private loans for those who still choose to enroll.
Beginning July 2026, students pursuing graduate education will no longer have access to the Grad PLUS student lending program, previously used by students to cover the full cost of attendance in graduate programs. The law created two tiers of limits: $20,500 per year and a $100,000 lifetime limit for unsubsidized Stafford loans for graduate programs, and $50,000 per year with a $200,000 lifetime limit for professional programs. Further, through negotiated rule-making, the Department of Education has set forth which programs will qualify under each tier. Parents who borrow to help their dependent child pay for college through the Parent PLUS loan program are now limited to borrowing up to $20,000 per year per student, with a new aggregate limit of $65,000 per student. All borrowers now have a new aggregate lifetime loan limit of $257,500, but Parent PLUS loans are excluded.
Current borrowers will be allowed to continue accessing federal loans under the existing limits if they borrowed for their current program before July 1, 2026. These students and parents may continue borrowing under the prior rules for up to three additional academic years or for the remaining time needed to complete their current degree program, whichever is shorter. Students who enroll after July 1, 2026, or who change programs, will instead be subject to the new loan limits. Undergraduate students enrolled part time will also be subject to prorated loan limits. Furthermore, institutions will be permitted to set lower borrowing limits for students and parents at the program level for the first time.
While federal student loan access is being restricted, the Trump administration also took steps to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the federal watchdog agency responsible for overseeing private student loan companies and protecting borrowers from predatory practices. This shift is significant because, as students are pushed further away from federal loans and toward the private sector, they face fewer safeguards and less oversight. Without strong enforcement from agencies like the CFPB, students may become more vulnerable to higher interest rates, confusing loan terms, and aggressive repayment practices, increasing both their financial risk and long-term debt burden.
The restriction on federal loan access for graduate education will force some students to take out loans from private banks, which have more onerous terms, to cover their full cost of attendance, while other students may decline to pursue graduate education altogether. The Department of Education’s draft regulation would revise how “professional” programs are defined for the purpose of determining eligibility for higher federal loan limits. The proposal would narrowly define a professional degree and exclude programs that prepare students for fields that may be in high demand at the state or local level, including certain medical and health professions. Based on estimates, students in high-cost graduate programs, like medicine and dentistry, will likely need to seek large loans from the private market to compensate the loss of federal loans as well.
Advocates should push state legislators to:
Assess workforce needs and create targeted affordable pathways: States can identify workforce needs in areas likely to be impacted by the new loan limits and advance legislation that would create a need-based aid program for students to help fill gaps in unmet need.
Example: Maryland supports residents who demonstrate financial need and are enrolled as degree-seeking students in certain colleges and universities pursuing degrees in graduate and professional programs in dentistry, law, medicine, nursing, pharmacy, social work, and veterinary medicine.
Expand state grant aid for graduate students in high-demand fields: State legislatures could create and/or expand state student grant aid programs for graduate students, focusing on professional programs with workforce shortages or those dealing with changes from new federal funding rules.
Example: Iowa appropriated state funding for nine additional residency positions and up to two fellowships administered by the University of Iowa hospitals in 2023. Candidates for the fellowship must be residents of Iowa, attend and earn an undergraduate degree from an Iowa college or university, and earn a medical degree from a medical school in Iowa.
Strengthen state regulation of private student loan providers: States should hold private student loan providers accountable for transparent marketing, reporting, and borrower protections.
Example: Illinois passed the Know Before You Owe Private Education Loan Act in 2021, requiring institutions to provide students with information on financial aid options before sharing their data, mandating quarterly borrower statements, and requiring annual reports from lenders to the state Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.
Implement forgivable loan programs for high-priority careers: Establish programs that pay a portion of a student’s debt if they are working in the state in one of their high-demand or priority areas.
Example: Alabama established the Alabama Math and Science Teacher Education Program (AMSTEP), which is a federal loan repayment program for qualifying math and science public high school teachers.
Establish state graduate supplemental loan programs: Create state-backed loan programs to provide graduate students with more favorable borrowing terms than those of private loans.
Example: Connecticut proposed the establishment of the Connecticut Supplemental Graduate Student Loan Program, intended to help support graduate students who will be affected by the Trump administration’s changes to student loan programs, specifically those seeking nursing, social work, and physical therapy graduate degrees.
OBBBA presents major changes to the federal student aid and the student loan repayment system. For new borrowers taking out loans after July 1, 2026, two plans are available:
Forgiveness is issued after 30 years of payments, an increase from 20 or 25 years. Key features include:
Borrowers can switch at any time without penalty.
For current borrowers in an income-contingent plan, they can remain on their existing plans (the current SAVE/PAYE injunction blocks borrowers from entering these plans) but must choose by July 1, 2028, between RAP, Statutory IBR, new Standard, old Standard, Extended or Graduated. From July 2028 onward, previous income-based plans will be terminated and the regulatory authority to make new plans will be eliminated. However, the original Standard, Graduated, Extended plans will remain available for pre-June 2026 borrowers who are enrolled in them as of July 2028 and do not take out any additional loans. For those with loans both pre- and post-July 2026, all their loans must be placed in either the new Standard plan or RAP.
All borrowers also have limited forbearance available after July 1, 2027 — each borrower will get only nine months within a 24-month period. Also, unemployment and economic hardship deferment will be ended for borrowers who take out loans after July 1, 2026.
The changes made to student loan repayment require many borrowers to begin making monthly payments again after the prolonged COVID-era payment pause and associated protections, which had kept millions of people out of delinquency and default. With federal student loan payments back online, the latest data shows a dramatic jump in delinquencies, with roughly 1 in 4 borrowers with payments due behind on their loans — nearly triple the pre-pandemic delinquency rate.
The changes made to student loan repayment will increase monthly payments for many borrowers, placing more financial strain on them and increasing the risk of delinquency and default, especially for lower-income borrowers. Additionally, the new income-based repayment terms mean that very few people will ever achieve loan forgiveness. Finally, these changes are opaque and confusing, so borrowers will need guidance on their options and what is best for them.
Advocates should push state legislators to:
Create or expand state-level repayment assistance programs: Establish programs that provide targeted support for public sector and lower-salaried workers to help repay student loans.
Example: Maryland’s Janet L. Hoffman Loan Assistance Repayment Program (LARP) provides state assistance for the repayment of educational loans to residents who are employed full time in certain public service fields that help low-income and underserved Maryland residents. Similarly, Maine’s Student Loan Repayment Tax Credit is a refundable tax credit for Maine residents who are making qualifying payments on eligible loans.
Fund statewide student loan repayment navigators: Support a network of trained counselors who can provide individuals with repayment guidance, help borrowers understand options, and assist students in preparing for upcoming deadlines, such as the July 2028 federal repayment reset.
Example: Programs like Kynectors in Kentucky and EdCap in New York demonstrate how trained, community-based advisers can effectively guide individuals through complex systems.
Establish state-level student loan ombudsman offices: Create offices to help borrowers navigate changes, communicate with loan servicers, and access resources. State-based student loan ombudsmen provide information and resources on student loans and assist borrowers with concerns about their loan servicer.
The following states and the District of Columbia have student loan ombudsmen: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington.
Advocates should push institutions to:
Provide student loan navigators to students: Ensure that graduating students, alumni, and/or prior students who may be in default meet with student loan navigators to aid them in understanding their payment options and pathways to student debt cancellation, where available.
Due to changes in the law, Medicaid will face $930 billion in cuts over the next decade. This includes more frequent eligibility redeterminations, increased cost-sharing for states to take on more costs, increased or new co-pays for patients for some services, and additional work requirements. The work requirements will require individuals to report on work or other approved activities, such as pursuing an education, for 80 hours each month to remain eligible; this paperwork requirement is expected to result in individuals losing coverage. The work requirements also now apply to parents with children over 14 years old, which could mean that an additional 100,000 to 400,000 people may lose coverage. Most of these changes won’t be implemented until 2027, and their impacts will be more directly felt then and in the following years.
The impact of these cuts will vary greatly among states. According to the National Academy for State Health Policy, the 40 Medicaid expansion states and DC will see between 10% and 21% reductions in federal Medicaid payments, while non-expansion states can expect reductions between 6% and 11%. Beyond the clear funding impacts of the Medicaid coverage reductions, states can anticipate additional administrative costs due to changes in the Medicaid work reporting requirements. Over the next 10 years, according to the KFF, Louisiana, Illinois, Nevada, and Oregon will face the most severe cuts to their federal Medicaid spending, with reductions of 19% or more. Nationally, the average cut to federal Medicaid spending is 14%.
Due to shifting benefit costs to states, governors will be forced to make difficult decisions about whether to raise taxes, slash state and local programs, or remove people from Medicaid. In addition to the loss of assistance through Medicaid, which will only further exacerbate the basic needs challenges impacting underserved students, there will also be effects on college access and affordability. Medicaid plays a critical role in covering low-income students’ health needs: the share of college students with Medicaid coverage nearly doubled from about 7% in 2010 to 13% in 2022, representing roughly 2.7 million students. At the same time, about 1.6 million students, roughly 8% of all college students, still lacked health insurance in 2022, with higher uninsured rates among students from traditionally underserved racial and ethnic groups and those living in states that have not expanded Medicaid. Student-parents are especially vulnerable to these changes; nearly 29% of undergraduate student-parents already experience food insecurity, and changes to SNAP eligibility and the potential for increased administrative burdens could make it harder for them to meet basic needs while pursuing their degrees. As states grapple with reduced federal funding and increased cost-sharing, states may turn to tuition increases and budget cuts for higher education and state financial aid.
Advocates should urge state legislators to:
Identify alternative revenue streams: Pursue new or expanded revenue sources to address potential coverage gaps in Medicaid.
Examples: Massachusetts instituted a statewide “millionaire tax,” formally known as the Fair Share Amendment, which adds a 4% surtax on annual income above $1 million to help fund public education, transportation, and infrastructure. Similarly, Washington has found a way to raise additional revenue for higher education through the Worker Education Investment Act (WEIA), which generates dedicated funds to support financial aid, workforce training, and student support services.
Fund free or low-fee healthcare centers on college campuses: Invest in free or low-fee healthcare centers on college campuses to ensure students have access to primary care, mental health services, and preventive care.
Reduce barriers to Medicaid enrollment for students: Streamline eligibility and remove administrative barriers that prevent eligible college students from enrolling in or maintaining coverage through Medicaid.
Provide benefits navigation support for students: Ensure that students have access to trained benefits navigators who can assist them in understanding and enrolling in federal and state public benefits programs.
Collaborate with experts and student support organizations: Partner with experts, college attainment programs, and student-serving organizations to explain the new eligibility rules and help students understand the requirements and how to maintain their benefits.
The law shifts the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit costs to states if their payment error rate — a measure of states’ payment accuracy that includes both underpayments and overpayments — exceeds 6%, a threshold that 44 states are currently at or above. Higher error rates would require higher state payments, up to 15%. This cost-sharing mechanism begins in 2027. In total, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the law will cut $186 billion from SNAP over the next 10 years. OBBBA also broadens SNAP work requirements to include parents with children aged 14 and older, as well as older adults up to age 65. These work requirements mirror those in Medicaid, requiring individuals to report on work or other approved activities, such as pursuing education for 80 hours each month, to remain eligible. The law also eliminates eligibility for individuals in the country legally, including refugees and asylees, limiting SNAP eligibility to citizens, legal permanent residents, and certain Cuban and Haitian entrants.
According to the CBO, 1.1 million college students rely on SNAP, and an estimated 2.2 million college students meet the criteria but are currently unable to access benefits due to the program’s complexity. In addition to the loss of food assistance through SNAP, which will further exacerbate the basic needs challenges facing underserved students, there will also be impacts on college access and affordability. As states grapple with reduced federal funding and increased cost-sharing, they may resort to tuition increases and budget cuts for higher education and state financial aid. In short, cuts to SNAP will result in more college students being denied food assistance and going hungry. The cuts will also put pressure on state budgets, forcing lawmakers to redirect funds from education to SNAP to fill these budget holes.
Advocates should push state legislators to:
Increase state funding for food assistance: Expand state investments in food assistance programs to mitigate harm and ensure continued access for underserved families.
Track student insurance and food insecurity: Monitor rates of student health insurance coverage and food insecurity before and after implementing eligibility changes to understand short- and long-term effects and to guide interventions.
Strengthen SNAP employment and training programs: States can expand qualifying education and training opportunities to meet SNAP requirements. States can also broaden access to SNAP employment and training programs and approve more education, workforce training, and campus-based activities that help students and individuals from low-income backgrounds meet federal SNAP work requirements.
Simplify enrollment and renewal processes: Streamline application procedures, reduce renewal requirements, and minimize documentation burdens so eligible individuals can more easily access and maintain benefits.
Adopt universal child-care policies: Implement statewide universal child-care policies to help stabilize families facing rising basic needs insecurity and support parents’ ability to work and pursue education. These policies are especially important for student-parents who may be affected by changes to Medicaid and SNAP. When student-parents lose health or food benefits, child-care costs become an even greater barrier to staying enrolled in school.
Example: New Mexico became the first state in the nation to offer no-cost universal child care to all families, regardless of income.
Advocates should engage institutions to:
Fund campus food security initiatives: Create funding to support food security programs on campuses, such as food pantries, emergency food grants, and meal assistance, and target resources to students from low-income backgrounds.
Example: New Mexico’s Higher Education Department awarded $1 million in food security grants to colleges and universities to fund projects that address food insecurity among students, faculty, and staff.
Invest in basic needs supports: Fund campus-based programs that address food security, housing stipends, and child care to help students remain enrolled and succeed academically.
Collaborate with community-based organizations: Partner with organizations like Swipe Out Hunger to expand on-campus meal swipe donation programs and establish dedicated hunger relief funds.
Enable SNAP access at campus food locations: Allow students to utilize SNAP benefits at campus dining locations and grocery stores to improve food access and reduce barriers to using benefits.
Example: Eastern Kentucky University became the first university in Kentucky to integrate SNAP access into its dining system, Aramark, allowing students to use SNAP benefits at campus grocery stores.
Use FAFSA data to connect students with public benefits: With a student’s consent, higher education institutions can share FAFSA data with federal, state, and local agencies to help students apply for public benefits. Institutions can also use FAFSA information to proactively inform students about programs they may be eligible for, such as SNAP, while states and institutions partner on data sharing and targeted outreach to increase SNAP uptake among college students.
OBBBA cuts over $300 billion from higher education over 10 years by eliminating Grad PLUS loans, capping Parent PLUS loans, reducing graduate student borrowing limits, and restructuring the federal student loan repayment system. While these cuts directly affect students and institutions, not states specifically, they will reduce institutional revenue and reshape the higher education budget landscape.
In addition, the bill expands the federal excise tax on private college and university endowments without reallocating that money to students or under-resourced institutions. Although this provision was not included in the education title of the legislation, it substantially increases the tax burden for a significant share of private nonprofit higher education institutions, moving from a flat 1.4% rate to a new tiered structure that can reach as high as 8%, depending on endowment size. Since a large portion of endowment spending supports institutional financial aid, with studies indicating that roughly 40% to 50% of endowment payouts are directed toward student aid, the expanded tax may constrain institutions’ ability to fund scholarships and need-based assistance.
Outside of the changes made through OBBBA, additional financial pressures are coming from numerous directions. The Trump administration has proposed significant reductions to federal research funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy, and the National Institutes of Health while simultaneously seeking to cap indirect cost reimbursements at 15%. The abrupt cancellation of more than 1,600 NSF grants has further destabilized the research landscape, prompting a coalition of 16 states to file a lawsuit arguing that it violates federal law and threatens scientific integrity. A review of canceled grants reveals that many may have been targeted for being considered diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work. While some proposals are still tied up in court, this uncertainty has forced institutions to freeze hiring, delay research projects, and reconsider long-term investments in innovation and workforce initiatives.
Simultaneously, institutions are grappling with declining international enrollment. In fall 2025, new international student enrollment declined by 17%, largely due to visa application issues, long application backlogs, and the suspension of new student visa interviews last May. For institutions, this is a significant financial loss, as international students typically pay full tuition and help subsidize financial aid and services for domestic students. Compounding these challenges, the administration’s FY2026 budget proposal seeks to eliminate TRIO, GEAR UP, and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG), cut Federal Work-Study by $980 million, and withhold certain grant funds over diversity concerns. Although the funding law passed in February 2026 rejected essentially all proposed cuts, maintaining funding for programs such as TRIO and GEAR UP, the appropriations process has been marked by significant uncertainty and competing proposals, including cuts to campus-based aid programs. This ongoing instability around federal student aid may disrupt institutional planning and threaten essential support systems for first-generation students and students from low-income backgrounds. Together, these pressures are reshaping the financial foundation of higher education at a time when institutions are already navigating enrollment shifts, affordability concerns, and growing demands to demonstrate value and return on investment.
As institutions face uncertainty in federal aid, absorb cuts to research funding, and experience declines in enrollment, students may experience uncertainty related to tuition, financial aid packages, reduced Work-Study opportunities, and the elimination of support programs for first-generation students and students from low-income backgrounds. Over time, these pressures may shift financial risk onto students and their families, widen equity gaps, and reduce access to college.
Advocates should urge legislators to:
Expand need-based first-dollar state grant programs: Increase investments in first-dollar state grant programs to partially offset lost federal awards for students from low-income backgrounds. Ensure that these programs cover undergraduate, graduate, and professional students who received Pell Grants during their undergraduate studies.
Create state student emergency aid funds: Establish state-funded emergency aid programs for students facing sudden financial hardship due to reduced grant aid or those who forgo federal financial aid due to data privacy concerns. These funds can help students cover immediate needs and remain enrolled.
Develop state-funded student employment programs: If the Federal Work-Study Program is reduced or eliminated, states can create or match funding for student employment programs that provide meaningful work opportunities while helping students finance their education.
Expand streamlined college credit pathways in high school: Invest in streamlined and coherent pathways that give students opportunities to earn college credit while still in high school, enhancing college affordability by shortening the time to degree or certificate.
Pursue innovative revenue strategies to support higher education: Identify new and sustainable ways to generate additional funding for higher education.
Examples: The Fair Share Amendment in Massachusetts provides dedicated funds for higher education revenue; and the Business and Occupation Tax in Washington supports public priorities for the state.
Invest in research and innovation funds: Establish dedicated research and innovation funds to stabilize universities, retain top talent, and protect high-skill jobs.
Examples: Massachusetts introduced the Discovery, Research, and Innovation for a Vibrant Economy (DRIVE) initiative, a $400 million investment strategy to grow the innovation and research economy. Similarly, California legislators have proposed a bipartisan $23 billion bond, backed by the University of California system, representing the largest state-level investment in scientific research in U.S. history, aimed in part at offsetting federal funding cuts and pending voter approval. Utah lawmakers are also responding to federal cuts by directing millions toward research programs, including a $45 million grant initiative for workforce-aligned innovation, along with additional funding for cancer research and AI computing.
Advocates should engage institutions to:
Strengthen institutional data capacity: Invest in strengthening internal capacity to collect, analyze, manage, and publicly report student outcomes based on key demographic factors to better identify student needs and guide evidence-based resource allocations.
Expand institutional and community-based financial aid: Increase institutional grants for students from low-income backgrounds and proactively help students access private grants and community-based scholarships.
Monitor the impact of financial aid losses: Track how federal funding losses affect enrollment, persistence, and completion rates to inform policy advocacy and budget requests.
Develop partnerships for student employment opportunities: Collaborate with local governments, nonprofits, and businesses to create student work opportunities in place of or in addition to the Federal Work-Study Program.
Advocate for sustained higher education investment: Prepare to defend essential higher education investments and make the case that higher education supports long-term state economic interests, even in challenging budget environments.
Since the beginning of President Trump’s second administration, the president has aggressively targeted DEI efforts through executive orders, legal challenges, broadened enforcement and oversight, grant award cancellations, and regulatory and sub-regulatory guidance. This anti-DEI push has created significant pressure and uncertainty across the higher education landscape. In its first 100 days, the Trump administration took executive action to dismantle DEI programs and tie federal funding to compliance, prompting many colleges and universities to eliminate or rebrand DEI offices, programs, and initiatives to avoid funding risks. Although some successful legal challenges have followed, including rulings striking down some anti-DEI guidance, the broader policy climate has already led numerous institutions to scale back DEI work, drop grants, reduce staff, and rethink partnerships and research tied to diversity efforts.
DEI initiatives in campus programming help close equity gaps by fostering a sense of belonging, which can lead to higher graduation rates. These initiatives create environments where all students, especially Black, Latino, Native, first-generation students, and students from low-income backgrounds, can succeed. Eliminating these programs risks weakening the support systems that help students persist, graduate, and thrive in educational settings. Without DEI support, underserved students may feel isolated, lose access to targeted information about available resources, and face barriers to completing their education and entering the workforce.
Advocates should urge state legislators to:
Increase investment in HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions (MSIs): Close any potential federal funding gaps by boosting state support for HBCUs and other MSIs that are under-resourced. Additionally, the 16 states identified as having historically underfunded HBCUs must prioritize closing longstanding funding gaps to ensure equitable and sustained support.
Advance equity through data-driven access strategies: Leverage state longitudinal data systems and performance-based funding formulas, and pursue evidence-based strategies to meaningfully improve access and outcomes and address equity gaps for students of color and students from low-income backgrounds (e.g., implementing direct admissions programs; expanding access to dual enrollment and advanced coursework; investing in K-12 school counselors, career advisers, and college-access programs; and more).
Invest in evidence-based college completion programs: Prioritize investment in evidence-based college completion programs that combine financial support with structured academic and wraparound services shown to improve outcomes for underserved students.
Example: The City University of New York’s Accelerated Study in Associate Program (ASAP) helps students earn an associate degree within three years by providing financial, academic, and personal support.
Strengthen support services for high-need students: Continue to invest in services for high-need students, such as advising, mentoring, basic needs support, and emergency aid, to ensure they have access to the necessary resources to succeed.
Build robust P-12 to workforce data systems: Invest in robust longitudinal data systems that connect P-12, postsecondary, and workforce data. These systems enable policymakers to make evidence-based policy decisions, strengthen workforce alignment, and improve accountability for student success and economic mobility.
Advocates should engage institutions to:
Adopt a Student Bill of Rights: Establish and institutionalize a Student Bill of Rights that affirms every student’s right to access, belonging, academic support, and fair treatment, regardless of background.
Examples: See the Student Bill of Rights adopted by the University of Iowa; the protections outlined for K-12 students by New York City Public Schools; and the guidance on student rights provided by the ACLU for college students.
Use data to identify students’ needs and offer holistic support: Leverage institutional and state data to identify students’ needs and provide comprehensive supports — academic, social, mental health, and financial — that are backed by evidence to improve student outcomes and success.
Build cross-sector partnerships to sustain services: Establish partnerships with cities, counties, higher education institutions, and community organizations to supplement and, if needed, backfill program funding and services.
Target resources to students with the greatest needs: Implement systems to ensure that students most in need receive the appropriate services and supports to succeed.
Ensure policies are legally sound and clearly communicated: Rely on legal experts, general counsel, and trusted community resources to review and update policies. This ensures that practices are legally sound, rights and obligations are clearly communicated to stakeholders, and confidence is built to sustain inclusive student support and success initiatives.
A study of universal FAFSA policies in four states finds that they are most effective and equitable when combined with dedicated funding, opt-out flexibility, strong support networks, accountability systems, and policies that promote college attendance
February 10, 2026 by EdTrust This guide outlines five urgent threats posed by the federal government’s retreat from public education, along with the concrete actions advocates must press state leaders to take to counter this Great American Heist and ensure that every student can succeed
January 15, 2026 by Roxanne Garza The U.S. Department of Education (ED), signed off on regulations that would require all postsecondary programs to pass a single earnings test to remain eligible for federal student loans
