The Push to Make College (More) Unaffordable for Undocumented Students

Across the country, undocumented students are facing an escalating campaign to make college financially out of reach. What began as isolated challenges to state tuition policies has evolved into a coordinated federal effort to dismantle decades of bipartisan progress on college access. The Trump Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education have launched lawsuits, investigations, and altered policy reinterpretations designed to strip away undocumented students’ access to in-state tuition and block institutional scholarships geared toward these students. These attacks threaten not only these students’ futures but also the affordability and inclusiveness of higher education itself.

This campaign kicked off on June 4, 2025 when the DOJ sued Texas to block provisions of the Texas Dream Act, a 2001 landmark law that granted in-state tuition to certain undocumented students who graduated from Texas high schools. Within just six hours, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton agreed to a “consent judgment,” abruptly ending the 24-year-old policy. The DOJ has launched similar efforts in Kentucky, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Illinois, signaling a coordinated effort to roll back undocumented students’ access to in-state tuition nationwide.

The DOJ’s lawsuits are just one piece of the sweeping campaign. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has also taken multiple related actions. In March, ED revoked waivers for two states that allowed undocumented students to participate in college access programs. And in July, ED’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) launched investigations into five universities for allegedly providing “exclusionary scholarships benefiting illegal alien students,” which OCR claims violate national origin protections under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These probes, sparked by complaints from the Legal Insurrection Foundation’s Equal Protection Project, reflect a deliberate effort to misuse civil rights law to penalize institutions supporting all students, regardless of immigration status.

Efforts to eliminate in-state tuition and institutional scholarships are part of a broader political agenda driven by two executive orders signed by President Trump—one in February and another in April—directing agency heads to identify federal government programs and state laws that “favor aliens over any group of American citizens,” including those that make higher education accessible for undocumented students. By targeting in-state tuition and institutional scholarships, the administration is undermining the very mechanisms that make college affordable and attainable for students who have grown up, studied, and contributed in the communities they call home.

The escalation of these attacks marks a dangerous precedent. Policies and programs that make college more affordable for undocumented students uphold the principle that education is a public good and a driver of state and national prosperity. Stripping away these policies is not only an attack on undocumented students, but also the investment that states and districts have already made in providing all students with their legal right to a K–12 education. By waging this campaign, the Trump Administration is undermining states’ legal authority to adopt in-state tuition laws that include undocumented students and continuing to weaponize civil rights laws against the very students they were created to protect.

Here is a breakdown of the role in-state tuition policies and institutional scholarships play in making college affordable for undocumented students, including the legal framework that governs them, as well as a glimpse of the potential fallout if the Trump Administration is allowed to erode these laws and policies.

College Affordability Tools for Undocumented Students

In-State Tuition

In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right to a free public K–12 education for all, regardless of immigration status, in Plyler v. Doe, which ruled that no substantial state interest was served by denying undocumented students access to a free public education. As such, lowering the barrier to entry for undocumented students into postsecondary education—through in-state tuition and institutional scholarships—builds on the investment states and districts have already made in educating all students residing within their jurisdiction.

In-state tuition is a higher education pricing structure that allows state residents to pay lower tuition fees in recognition of their contributions through state taxes. In-state tuition has also been extended to students who graduated from a high school within the state or served in the state’s National Guard. Both documented and undocumented students may qualify, though eligibility varies by state. Typically, students must attend secondary school for a set number of years and graduate with a high school diploma or GED from that state. In Oklahoma, for example, in-state tuition was offered to students who graduated from high school after living there for at least two years prior, while Illinois requires students to live in the state for at least three years before graduating. While requirements vary, the principle remains consistent: students educated and residing in the state should have access to affordable public higher education.

To date, 24 states and the District of Columbia have extended in-state tuition eligibility to undocumented students by adopting tuition equity laws, or policies that allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition. These policies deliver real benefits to state residents, as the average cost of in-state tuition alone is $9,750, compared to an average out-of-state tuition of $28,386. A student’s eligibility for in-state tuition can be the sole factor that determines the ability—or inability—to enroll at all.

Public institutions depend on state tax revenue to cover operational costs and maintain affordable access for students. Charging higher tuition to out-of-state students has traditionally been justified because non-residents do not contribute to the tax dollars used to subsidize in-state tuition for state residents. By that same logic, allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition is appropriate given the substantial financial contribution undocumented students and their families have been known to make. Undocumented Texans, for instance, paid approximately $4.9 billion in state and local taxes in 2022.

Scholarships and Institutional Support

Beyond in-state tuition policies, many higher education institutions (public and private), non-profit organizations, and individual donors also help make higher education affordable for undocumented students by funding scholarships specifically for these students. For example, TheDream.US, one of the nation’s largest scholarship programs for undocumented students, accepts applicants “with or without [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] or [Temporary Protected Status] who came to the U.S. before the age of 16 and before Nov. 1, 2019.” The University of Miami’s U Dreamers Program (one of the five programs being investigated by OCR) also serves academically talented DACA and undocumented high school seniors, as well as transfer students. OCR’s interpretation that such programs violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act is legally flawed. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Courts have long held that immigration or citizenship status is distinct from national origin. Citizenship is a legal classification—not an ethnic or racial category—and applying Title VI to restrict scholarships for undocumented students represents a dangerous distortion of civil rights law. It weaponizes a statute designed to protect marginalized groups against the very communities it was meant to serve.

The Cost of Limiting Higher Education Access for Undocumented Students

When undocumented students can afford to attend college, society benefits too: college graduates earn higher wages, experience lower unemployment, and contribute more in state and local taxes. In this way, tuition equity policies not only expand opportunity for individuals—they also strengthen state economies, bolster public revenues, and build a more skilled workforce that benefits all residents.

As such, the economic and social costs of restricting access to higher education are profound. Decades of research has shown that obtaining a postsecondary credential increases one’s earning potential and reduces unemployment. Tuition equity laws foster broad access to higher education, which fuels the economic mobility and social well-being of a state. And inclusive and equitable tuition policies—including institutional scholarships for underrepresented students—create a pathway for increased degree attainment, which in turn meets state workforce demands, fills skill shortages, and supports business development.

States capitulating to the DOJ run the risk of triggering a “brain drain,” losing talented undocumented students to states with more inclusive policies. Most alarmingly, the heavy cost of higher education could potentially price these students out of attending college altogether. Undocumented students are already ineligible for federal financial aid, like Pell Grants and federal student loans, and in some states, excluded from state grants and scholarships. Denying in-state tuition or institutional aid leaves few affordable paths forward. This exclusion undermines states’ prior investments in K–12 education and deprives state and local economies of the skilled workers they need.

The fallout extends beyond students. In Texas, institutions have been scrambling to change tuition bills for almost 20,000 Texan students since the state ended its in-state tuition provision without clear guidance on acceptable documentation. This comes at a time when many financial aid offices are already stretched thin from the compounding federal changes and cuts to government funding that are impacting institutional operations, staffing, and students’ access to financial aid. In a recent survey conducted by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, 72 percent of the institutions reported noticeable delays or changes in responsiveness from the U.S. Department of Education since the massive layoff in March, and 48 percent cited “impacts on students’ access to federal student aid” as their top concern from the federal changes. The bureaucratic burden of implementing misguided federal or state directives diverts limited resources away from serving students—hurting institutional stability and public trust in higher education.

Holding the Line: States Must Stand Firm

Contrary to current efforts by the DOJ under the Trump Administration, there has been growing bipartisan support for tuition equity laws across the country. Undocumented students play an integral role in enriching campuses and their communities. Rolling back their access to college is not only unjust—it is economically irrational and educationally counterproductive. Unfortunately, we are already seeing the effects of these attacks as immigrant families struggle to pay for the increased tuition costs in Texas.

State and institutional leaders must hold their ground and refuse to preemptively change policy in response to executive orders that lack the force of law. In Arizona, for example, the attorney general has proactively stated that the state’s in-state tuition policy for non-citizens does not violate federal law. As we continue to experience extreme political intimidation and coercion, state and institutional leaders must remember they still have jurisdiction over the parameters of in-state tuition laws and policies and how they apply to undocumented students.