The U.S. Senate is now considering a mammoth, 1,116-page bill that goes by varied names: “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the House Republican budget reconciliation bill, and the most misleading name of all, the “Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan.” While billionaires and some others may see tax savings, students from the Ivy League to community colleges will have diminished chances of success if this bill passes. It’s another example of Orwellian contradictory naming.

Many bad things are buried in this bill, damage to the nation’s physical health, for example. For this article, however, I’ll focus on damage to the health of the mind — namely, losses that would be experienced by college students.

Limits and deductions to financial aid

Since 1975, federal Pell Grants have furnished need-based payments to college students that don’t have to be paid back. They have been the foundation of college affordability for low-income students. For 2023-25, the maximum Pell Grant available to the neediest students is $7,395 per academic year — a fraction of a private university cost, but often enough to fill a tuition gap. In New America, Antoinette Flores reports on the “nightmare” bill now being considered by the U. S. Senate, writing “according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), changes will reduce awards for more than half of Pell recipients, and at least 10 percent of recipients would lose eligibility entirely.”

Each year approximately 7 million students, one-third of undergraduates, receive Pell grants. For the 2024-25 academic year, Pennsylvania is estimated to have over 100,000 Pell recipients. For 2026-7, the Big Ugly Bill reduces the maximum Pell grant by $1,685, from $7,395 to $5,710. That would make a huge difference to tens of thousands of students, many of whom would drop out.

The bill increases the number of credits a student must take in a year in order to be eligible for a full grant from 24 to 30. Most college courses carry three to four credit hours. The bill requires that students take 15 credits per semester (five courses at many universities) to remain eligible for the maximum. As a longtime university president and professor, I believe in full-time enrollment (really a misnomer since a vast majority of students work as well as taking five courses per semester). A full course load often leads to improved continuity and coherence in education. But we must look at individual students when we make policy. Frequently, during a given semester a student has no choice but to drop a course (or sometimes two). Under the bill, that action would have serious financial consequences.

This Big Ugly Bill is full of insidious small print (it’s actually all small print!) that undermines American higher education.

The bill also increases the credits that students must take to be considered part-time and therefore eligible for partial Pell Grant awards. Many students would lose their part-time status and therefore their grants. These changes would most seriously affect community college students, many of whom take a part-time course load.

All of these changes require major technological adjustments. It’s unlikely that tech systems can be implemented in time to meet the bill’s timeline. Let’s recall that the Trump administration has already slashed staffing and hours in the erstwhile Department of Education. It’s predictable that chaos will result. And maybe that’s the point. It’s always a challenge to motivate eligible Pell recipients to fill out the Free Application for Student Aid (FAFSA), the form that serves as the gateway not only to federal aid but to a variety of public and private scholarships Make it confusing enough and students and families will walk away, increasing the more than 50 percent of Americans who do not complete a four-year degree, but still often leave with years of debt.

While making it more difficult to pursue degrees at accredited universities and colleges, the bill makes it easier for students to be duped into signing up for very short-term programs (as brief as eight weeks) for a quick fix on gaining job-related skills. We might recall the damage done by Trump University, which promised a fast-track to real estate success. In 2017, Donald Trump agreed to pay a $25 million settlement to people who attended and were defrauded by Trump University in 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010. The plaintiffs would have been much better off taking courses in real estate offered affordably by many community colleges.

Student loans

You may have approved or disapproved of the Biden administration’s attempts at student loan forgiveness, but it’s difficult to see the benefit of the current bill’s changes in needs analysis and student loan repayment. One highly confusing change limits annual aid (Pell Grants and loans) to the “median national cost of attending similar programs.” No one knows how exactly that median cost would be calculated. What about aid for students who use their first college year to explore different majors? That’s a choice I highly recommend to curious students who are not already committed to programs like engineering that have a large number of prerequisites. How do you calculate the median national cost of that program?

The bill eliminates subsidized loans — now available to low-and middle-income families — that do not accrue interest while students are enrolled. Under the bill, interest calculations would start immediately. Also gone would be ParentPLUS loans, which are now an option for parents to cover the cost of education up to $50,000 for all their children. If these changes go through, families will lose important benefits. And once again the changes will pose big challenges to updating tech systems in time for the required implementation.

Another unfair and almost impossible to implement provision of the bill is to require institutions to make annual payments on a portion of their students’ unpaid debt. Let me say immediately that it’s important for colleges and universities to be accountable for the advice they give students on indebtedness. As a university president, I insisted that our financial aid officers serve as counselors to students on the long-term financial consequences of a heavy loan burden.

At the regional public universities I led, students were often under family pressure to take out student loans to meet mortgage payments. We strictly advised students and families that student loans should be used only for absolutely necessary academic costs. And we did our best through work-study opportunities and other means to keep indebtedness as manageable as possible. The Big Ugly Bill reduces Federal Work Study (FWS) by $980 million, making that option less accessible.

While we were proud at Governors State University of the low rate of loan default among our alumni, it is entirely unfair to tax colleges and universities for the unpaid debt of their former students. Community colleges and regional public universities have the highest proportion of low-income students, many of whom take out loans. No matter how convincing we try to be, many students will get in over their heads. Taxing the institution will diminish the operating revenue, already highly constrained, at the campuses serving the students with the greatest financial challenges. Operating funds at these institutions are already negatively affected by DOGE freezing, elimination and threats to long-existing federal grants.

The Big Ugly Bill sentences TRIO and GEAR UP, two federal grant programs that expand college access and retention for low-income students, to elimination. On June 3, Education Secretary Linda McMahon received bipartisan grilling from the Senate Appropriations Committee. In addition to confrontations with Democratic senators, Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R, West Virginia) and Senator Susan Collins (R, Maine) raised particular concerns about the elimination of TRIO and GEAR UP.

Senator Collins wore a TRIO pin during the hearing, and, according to Inside Higher Ed, said, “I have seen the lives of countless first-generation and low-income students, not only in Maine, but across the country, who often face barriers to accessing a college education, changed by the TRIO program. Three of my own staff members went through the program and told me that they would not have pursued higher education but for the support and confidence that they gained from it.”

It’s reassuring to note that some Republican senators are breaking ranks and defending students rather than obediently following the leader.

In short, this Big Ugly Bill is full of insidious small print (it’s actually all small print!) that undermines American higher education. Could it be part of an overall strategy of the federal government to take over and politicize colleges and universities? The administration is being blatant about wanting to run Harvard. The Big Ugly Bill has innumerable subtle ways of compromising higher education and damaging students’ access to college degrees.

What we can do

• • • Republicans, including PA Senator Dave McCormick, are under tremendous pressure to pass The Big Ugly Bill with few amendments, since it has to go back to the House, where it passed by only one vote. Bombard McCormick with demands that he read the small print and protect PA students. Suggest that he consult with his Republican colleagues, Senator Susan Collins and Senator Shelley Moore Capito, if he is short on courage.
    • Democrats, including PA Senator John Fetterman, have been far too inactive in protecting constituent interests. Sure, the Dems are limited by not having the majority in either house. But the would-be victims of this bill want to hear shouts to high heaven to stop the worst provisions. Even more important, Dems must unite to create a short, clear list of positive problem-solving actions. It’s entirely insufficient just to say no. Show us what the party as whole (and we have only two major parties) are willing to say yes to.
    • Stop thinking about 2028 and give full attention to 2026. We must work to restore balance in government.
    • While higher education, nationally and locally, has many flaws, please remember its many accomplishments and service to the public good.

Elaine Maimon, Ph.D., is the author of Leading Academic Change: Vision, Strategy, Transformation. Her long career in higher education has encompassed top executive positions at public universities as well as distinction as a scholar in rhetoric/composition. Her co-authored book, Writing in the Arts and Sciences, has been designated as a landmark text. She is a Distinguished Fellow of the Association for Writing Across the Curriculum.

MORE BY ELAINE MAIMON