Last month, Russell Lowery-Hart, chancellor of Austin Community College District, in Texas, told a U.S. Senate committee that thousands of his students could lose some, if not all, of their financial aid.
Lowery-Hart was testifying about the harm he sees in lawmakers’ proposed changes to Pell Grants, which would cut out students if they aren’t taking enough credit hours. Over 70 percent of community-college students are enrolled part time, according to the Department of Education.
Less than a day later, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to approve the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act, the sweeping budget-reconciliation legislation, which includes reductions to Pell Grants. Now it’s in the Senate’s hands. Lowery-Hart said he hopes senators remember what he said. In his district, over 9,000 students would have their aid reduced. About 4,000 of them could lose all of it.
“We could have 10,000 of our 40,000 students in a semester disappear,” Lowery-Hart said in an interview. “And that’s just at Austin Community College.”
In order to receive a maximum Pell Grant award (currently set at $7,395), students have to take 24 credit hours per year, typically four full-length courses each semester. The bill would increase the credit hours to 30, or five courses. Take fewer courses than that, and the award gets reduced.
Students who drop below 15 credits per year — as is the case for many who are juggling work and caregiving responsibilities — won’t get Pell at all. Currently, students who take less than half of a full-time course load still receive aid, just a smaller amount.
The Senate hopes to pass the bill by July 4, a deadline imposed by President Trump. If the changes to Pell Grants are adopted, they would take effect in the summer of 2026.
The Trump administration also hopes to slash the maximum Pell award, cutting it to $5,710, according to a budget summary from the Department of Education.
Supporters of the Pell changes say they’re necessary to encourage students to graduate on time and to shore up the program’s budget. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the program is facing a $2.7-billion shortfall.
Beth Akers, a senior fellow specializing in higher education at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank, said limiting Pell eligibility could push students to finish their degrees. Akers said that when students are enrolled at a “faster pace,” it is more likely that they will graduate. She said she understands college leaders’ concerns about access, but she is “optimistic” about the changes.
That one change without significant guardrails around it has the potential to dramatically increase the cost of Pell over time and result in another shortfall.
“The confounding issue is that if we have a lot of people using Pell Grants to take part-time credits but then never complete a degree,” she said, “it may be better for them to not take those courses in the first place.”
Another factor driving the Pell reforms is that the Republicans’ bill aims to pay for tax cuts by cutting expenses and raising revenue elsewhere. The changes to what is considered full-time enrollment for Pell purposes would result in $7.1-billion worth of cost savings between 2025 and 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The Center for American Progress, a policy group, found that 1.4 million students across the country would completely lose their Pell Grants, while another three million would receive a decrease in aid of up to $1,480 annually.
Current numbers might not show the true impact of the changes, said Jinann Bitar, director of higher-education research and data analytics at EdTrust, an advocacy group.
Bitar said research into possible impacts provides only a “snapshot in time.” Most students don’t take on the same amount of credit hours every semester, she said, so if one student isn’t set to be affected one term, that student could still lose aid in another term.
“Any Pell student should be worried about the eligibility of their Pell dollars,” she said.
In some ways, Republicans’ bill sends mixed messages to community colleges. The legislation also included a provision expanding the use of Pell for short-term work-force-training programs lasting between eight and 15 weeks, including those that aren’t formally accredited. Some of those work-force programs are run by two-year institutions.
Antoinette Flores, director of higher-education accountability and quality at New America, said she doesn’t think the benefits of increasing Pell for work-force training would offset the impact of the eligibility changes.
Flores added that this expansion, a policy known as “Workforce Pell,” could ultimately increase the spending lawmakers are trying to reduce. “That one change without significant guardrails around it has the potential to dramatically increase the cost of Pell over time and result in another shortfall,” she said.
David Baime, senior vice president for government relations at the American Association of Community Colleges, said local economies could also be affected if fewer students are able to get the aid they need to pursue high-demand degrees that prepare them for regional jobs.
“The country would be undermining its economic strength by creating policies that will make it much more difficult for low-income students to access the type of education that will enable them to succeed economically,” Baime said.
Most students also can’t just simply increase their course load to meet the new requirements, Baime said, because of their other responsibilities.
At Northern Essex Community College, 78 percent of the students are enrolled part time, said Lane Glenn, the college’s president.
“The reason they’re part time is because some of them are raising children. They have multiple jobs that they have to have in order to put food on the table,” he said. “It’s a huge burden for students who were already underresourced.”
Meanwhile, the financial hit to his institution would be substantial, Glenn said: a $5-million cut. And Northern Essex is not in a place financially to make up the difference.
A “drastic drop” in enrollment could mean that colleges might have to reduce staffing, eliminate degree offerings, and shutter buildings.
“It would be a radical transformation of how community colleges offer services,” he said.
