In 2017, when Trump passed his first budget bill, his allies inserted into it an unprecedented tax on institutions of higher education that have large endowments. The tax was 1.4%. But that 1.4%, though it seemed small, was money that would not be available for low-income students at expensive colleges and universities. The next logical step–once the government starts taxing nonprofits– would have been to tax megachurches but that didn’t happen.
This year, the Trump administration has included in its “One Big Ugly Budget Bill” a dramatic increase in the tax on higher education endowments.
Instead of 1.4%, the highest rate would climb to 21%.
This onerous tax would limit colleges’ ability to cover the tuition of students who are fully qualified but lack the financial resources to pay. The inevitable result of this tax will be to restrict the number and size of scholarships.
I received this letter from President Paula A. Johnson of Wellesley College, my alma mater. Dr. Johnson grew up in Brooklyn, where she graduated from a large public high school (Samuel J. Tilden), then to Radcliffe and to Harvard Medical School. She was a cardiologist before she was chosen as Wellesley’s president almost a decade ago. She is dedicated to providing scholarships for students who need them.
She wrote to all alumnae:
It is hard to overstate the importance of this moment for higher education. We are being threatened in previously unimaginable ways that cut to the core of our values and endanger a large proportion of our students. At Wellesley, we are deeply concerned about changes that could affect academic freedom, our need-blind status, and our ability to build a diverse community, one made richer by our international students.
One of the most significant threats comes from the likelihood of a major increase to the tax on college endowments. Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget bill that would raise the tax from 1.4% to as much as 21%. Under this proposal, Wellesley would be taxed at 14%, which means our liability under the tax would increase from $3 million, where it is currently, to $30 million per year—an amount equal to fully funding financial aid for 325 students.
When you consider that more than two-thirds of the $82 million Wellesley spent last year to support financial aid came from our endowment, the disastrous impact of this tax becomes clear. This is a punitive tax on students and families who need financial aid.
The tax would also have a disproportionate impact on small colleges like Wellesley that, without other revenue streams such as graduate programs or large research budgets, rely on endowments to support their mission.
At Wellesley, 43% of our operating budget comes from the endowment, making it our largest source of revenue. A tax increase would have a severe impact on our academic program and our ability to meet students’ financial needs. In addition, the tax would override the intent of generations of alumnae who have given to the endowment to support financial aid and our academic mission.
That is why Wellesley has joined a coalition of more than two dozen small colleges and universities from 17 states across the country that together serve more than 50,000 students. The coalition’s core argument, which we are sharing with members of Congress, is that endowments are not a luxury for small colleges; they are essential to continuing our commitments to access, opportunity, and educational excellence for students.
If this totally unwarranted tax is passed, the number of meritorious students from low-income, even middle-income families would shrink dramatically.
This is wrong.
Raise taxes on corporations and billionaires.
Tax megachurches.
Raise the taxes and tariffs on super yachts.
Don’t tax the endowments of institutions of higher education.

I’m not sure how I feel about all of this. Tax policy is used and abused to promote and punish numerous entities. I do sympathize with Dr. Johnson because I, too, attended a small prestigious liberal arts college, Sewanee, with a substantial well managed endowment that would be profoundly impacted by this tax. However, there are numerous roadblocks to higher ed for working class and impoverished students that are built by the Universities themselves. Two examples are the abuse of the discount rate used to promote prestige through perceived costs and the manipulation of FAFSA to deny families their identified rate that they can afford (I was unable to send my oldest to Sewanee because they would not meet FAFSA’s recommendation for what we could pay).
Our system of higher education has been highjacked by a strategy that values private equity over community good. Many of the biggest endowments are prosperous through their participation in investment portfolios that are more concerned with obscene rainy day funds than providing financial aid. While “The Big Beautiful Bill” is motivated by similar greed, one does not make the other better.
When I attended Sewanee in the 1970s and 80s my experience was that the University bent over backward to help me afford to attend. When my two daughters were accepted in the last decade, we were presented with a package that considered the university’s bottom line more than our ability to pay. The cost to attend college, whether private or state run, is beyond the means of too many.
The taxes mentioned here are certainly excessive and somewhat ironic given they would exist to allow many alum to reduce their tax obligations. I agree that the organizations mentioned by Dr. Johnson should be taxed, as should any other income producer, including university endowments. I would feel more sympathetic if private universities were more generous with their generational wealth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paul,
Maybe it’s just Wellesley, but it has used its endowment to make admissions need-blind, meaning they admit without consideration of family income. When students need help paying tuition, room and board, the College is generous. The student body is incredibly diverse (don’t tell Trump). That was not the case when I was a student long ago.
I don’t think endowments should be taxed. Alumnae like me make gifts to support the College so that more young women have the excellent education we had. Wellesley has a policy that no student graduates with more than $12,000 in debt. They need the endowment to keep that promise.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Considering both your post and Diane’s response, we need to understand the motivation of this proposed radical increase in fed tax on college endowments. Does Congress want to see a sizable portion of endowment used to lower college costs for qualified but lower-income students, via scholarships? If so, they could apply higher tax only to non-scholarship portion of endowment.
But use of endowments is widely variable. Some colleges use majority of endowment to fund faculty salaries/ labs et al [i.e., operations] from year to year. Does Congress want simply to cripple college operations for those schools? If so, increasing endowment tax fifteen-fold would go a long way to accomplishing such a [dastardly] goal.
Did this proposal grow merely out of the low-info narrative that Harvard & a few other super-high endowment schools [including a few flagship state U’s] “can afford to fund their own research” [as opposed to working on fed research grants]? If so, (a)the premise is ridiculous [we should leave natl sci/ med research goals up to indiv U’s?], and (b) why would same premise be applied regardless of endowment amount?
My speculation is this is just another Trump/ DOGE-inspired-mentality measure designed to raise more $ to “pay for” the cost to nation of “Big Beautiful Bill” [i.e., lower apparent effect on natl debt].
Just one more encroachment of Trump 2.0 admin on civil—even capitalist– liberty, in this case the long-honored tax benefit on contributions to non-profit orgs. I.e., philanthropy—which to a degree lowers fed [taxpayer] obligation to non-profits. If feds can grab back up to 15 x the amount of taxation on donations at the institutional level, that radically decreases the value of the individual’s donation, so discourages donating. [What on earth are they thinking?]
And that, naturally, raises the question: why just colleges? Why not grab back % of donation to ANY non-profit? If higher ed is today’s target, tomorrow’s could be churches, museums, national parks, SPCA, Drs Without Borders, you name it. We already live in a society with close-to-untrammeled capitalism, where most national wealth is held by top 1%. [Today’s gini coefficient places us between Djibouti, Africa and Haiti.] A policy like this will push us even further into banana-republicanism.
LikeLike
I guess my point is the whole thing is a mess. Trump came in on the coat tails of a neoliberal economic system that held the money at the top. Somehow he convinced a lot of people he would change all that when his billions are from the failings of the tax code. Universities began to value resort facilities for wealthy students developing bloated administrative systems that devalued tenured professorships. I realize some of this is a generalization, but having three children navigate this maze and all of us left with debt I have seen it first hand in private and public institutions.
Yes, there are colleges that use their endowments wisely. I lived in Charlotte where Davidson College committed to helping their students graduate without debt. This was quite the gesture but meant there was still a dependence on getting wealthy families into schools to pay for this.
I personally believe if we were honest, we would stop using or tax system to encourage particular behaviors and own up to the fact that if we want nice things we have to pay for them.
No, we shouldn’t charge a 21% tax to college endowments, but we need to reevaluate the purpose of higher education.
LikeLike
Trump mastered the art of manipulating the tax system and the legal system to make money and pay no taxes.
Before he was elected in 2016, he had filed over 3,000 lawsuits. The threat of being sued is sometimes enough to get others to pay you off to stop the threat of going to court.
His most amazing accomplishment was convincing so many working people that he cared about them and would improve their lives. They believe in his lies. I saw a photo of a group of people on Twitter, all wearing T-shirts that said “Trump is God.” No amount of evidence will persuade them that they have been used by a master conman.
LikeLike
Just like Trump is promoting the privatization of education by allowing wealthy people reduce the capital gains tax, he is using the tax code to punish and weaken higher education’s capacity to offer scholarships or grants to needy young people. He is using the tax code almost like a “spoils system” to punish some and help consolidate power with his base.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And his plan for student loans is devastating. Higher education will be restricted only to those who can pay. I’ll post more about this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In Western Europe, most of the universities are tuition free or very low tuitions, in addition to having universal health care. When will we ever have that in the US? Ha, not likely with the GOP and/or libertarians trying to destroy or gut the public programs that we do have, such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. USA, land of medical bankruptcy and tuition debt in the tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars.
LikeLike
Joe Jersey,
My feelings exactly!
When I visited Finland a decade ago, I learned about the incredible benefits available to all. Education at every level is tuition free, including graduate and professional. Children get three meals a day, regardless of income. Universal health care.
In the U.S., all those things are derided as “socialist.” But the countries that provide them are not socialist.
LikeLiked by 1 person