By CHEYANNE MUMPHREY

A big increase in the tax on university endowments is adding to financial uncertainty for the wealthiest colleges in the U.S., leading several already to lay off staff or implement hiring freezes.

Related Articles

Justice Department subpoenas New York AG James as it investigates whether she violated Trump’s rights

US at plastics treaty talks is rare international participation under Trump. What’s the goal?

Appeals court tosses judge’s contempt finding against Trump administration in prison deportations

Trump will host Armenia and Azerbaijan for a White House peace summit

Trump orders increased federal law enforcement presence in Washington to ‘make DC safe again’

Spending more endowment money on taxes could also lead colleges to reduce financial aid, cutting off access to elite institutions for lower-income students, colleges and industry experts have warned. President Donald Trump signed the tax increase into law last month as part of his signature spending bill.

The new tax rates take effect in 2026, but colleges such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford already are citing the tax as one of many reasons for making cuts across their universities. Each will be on the hook to pay hundreds of millions more in taxes, while also navigating reductions in research grants and other threats to funding by the Trump administration.

A tax on college endowments was introduced during Trump’s first administration, collecting 1.4% of wealthy universities’ investment earnings. The law signed by Trump last month creates a new tiered system that taxes the richest schools at the highest rates.

The new tax will charge an 8% rate at schools with $2 million or more in assets for each enrolled student. Schools with $750,000 to $2 million will be charged 4%, and schools with $500,000 to $750,000 will continue to be charged the 1.4% rate.

The tax applies only to private colleges and universities with at least 3,000 students, up from the previous cutoff of 500 students.

“The tax now will really solely apply to private research universities,” said Steven Bloom, assistant vice president of government relations for the American Council on Education. “It’s going to mean that these schools are going to have to spend more money under the tax, taking it away from what they primarily use their endowment assets for — financial aid.”

This small group of wealthy colleges faces a tax increase

The law will increase the endowment tax for about a dozen universities, according to an Associated Press analysis of data from the National Association of College and University Business Officers.

Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are expected to pay the 8% rate next year. The schools facing the 4% rate include Notre Dame, Dartmouth College, Rice University, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University in St. Louis and Vanderbilt University.

FILE – This aerial image shows the Princeton University campus in Princeton, N.J., Oct. 8, 2024. (AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey, File)

Some universities are on the edge of the law’s parameters. Both Duke and Emory, for instance, were shy of the $750,000-per-student endowment threshold based on last fiscal year.

Endowments are made up of donations to the college, which are invested to maintain the money over time. Colleges often spend about 5% of their investment earnings every year to put toward their budgets. Much of it goes toward scholarships for students, along with costs such as research or endowed faculty positions.

Despite the colleges’ wealth, the tax will drastically impact their budgets, said Phillip Levine, an economist and professor at Wellesley College.

“They’re looking for savings wherever possible,” Levine said, which could impact financial aid. “One of the most important things they do with their endowment is lower the cost of education for lower- and middle-income students. The institutions paying the highest tax are also the ones charging these students the least amount of money to attend.”

For example, at Rice University in Houston, officials anticipate the college will need to pay $6.4 million more in taxes. That equates to more than 100 student financial aid packages, the university said, but Rice officials will explore all other options to avoid cutting that support.

How colleges are adjusting to financial pressures

In the meantime, some universities are going forward with staff cuts.

Yale University says it will have to pay an estimated $280 million in total endowment taxes, citing the tax in a campus message implementing a hiring freeze. Stanford University announced plans to reduce its operating budget by $140 million this upcoming school year, which included 363 layoffs and an ongoing hiring freeze. The university spent months trying to determine where to reduce its budget, but said it would continue to support undergraduate financial aid and funding for Ph.D. students.

Research universities are under increasing financial pressure from reductions in funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies.

No university knows this pressure better than Harvard, the country’s wealthiest college. Its $53 billion endowment puts it at the top of the list for the new tax, but it’s also seeing massive portions of research funding under threat in its ongoing battle with the White House.

The federal government has frozen $2.6 billion in Harvard’s research grants in connection with civil rights investigations focused on antisemitism and Harvard’s efforts to promote diversity on campus. But the impact of other administration policies on the university could approach $1 billion annually, Harvard said in a statement.

FILE – People walk between buildings on Harvard University campus, Dec. 17, 2024, in Cambridge, Mass. (AP Photo/Steven Senne, File)

“It’s not like Harvard is going to go from one of the best institutions in the world to just a mediocre institution. That’s probably not going to happen,” Levine said. “But that doesn’t mean it’s not going to be a bad thing — that there won’t be pain and that students won’t suffer.”

Mumphrey reported from Phoenix. Associated Press writer Sharon Lurye in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

By JIM VERTUNO and NADIA LATHAN

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas Republicans on Friday warned they would escalate efforts to end a nearly weeklong holdout by Democrats if they don’t return to vote on new congressional voting maps sought by President Donald Trump in a widening battle over redistricting across the U.S.

Related Articles

Justice Department subpoenas New York AG James as it investigates whether she violated Trump’s rights

US at plastics treaty talks is rare international participation under Trump. What’s the goal?

Appeals court tosses judge’s contempt finding against Trump administration in prison deportations

Trump will host Armenia and Azerbaijan for a White House peace summit

Trump orders increased federal law enforcement presence in Washington to ‘make DC safe again’

The dozens of Texas House Democrats who left the state on Aug. 3 have shown no signs of buckling for now: A group of them was headed to California to meet with Gov. Gavin Newsom, who wants to redraw his own state’s lines in retaliation if Texas puts in place redrawn maps for the 2026 midterm elections.

Texas has been the epicenter of Trump’s push to gerrymander congressional maps to shore up Republicans’ narrow House majority before next year. The Texas House of Representatives was set to convene again Friday, and GOP leaders warned they would ratchet up pressure if the holdout continued, including expanding efforts to try to remove Democratic lawmakers from office.

“We have an agenda to pass priorities critical to Texans, and we will get it done. I’ll call special session after special session—no matter how long it takes—until the job is finished,” Abbott posted Friday on the social platform X.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has pledged legal action to try to get the missing Democrats removed from office if they do not return to the House chamber. State Rep. Gene Wu, the chairman of the state House Democratic Caucus faced a Friday deadline to respond to a similar effort filed by Gov. Greg Abbott with the state Supreme Court.

Democratic Texas Rep. Gene Wu, center, surrounded by other Texas House Democrats and Democratic members of Congress, speaks during a press conference at the Democratic Party in Warrenville, Ill., Monday, Aug. 4, 2025. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)

Abbott has threatened to keep calling state lawmakers into special sessions until outnumbered Democrats return to face the redistricting vote, telling them they can’t stay away forever. The current special session ends Aug. 19, and the missing lawmakers already face mounting fines for every day they are gone, and civil arrest warrants issued by the state House.

Friday will mark the third time the 150-member state House has tried to convene since Democrats left the state. The state constitution requires at least 100 members present for the House to do business, and Republicans hold an 88-62 majority in the chamber.

Trump wants five more seats out of Texas to potentially avoid a repeat of the 2018 midterms, when Democrats reclaimed the House and proceeded to thwart his agenda and impeach him twice.

While their minority status allows them only to delay, the Texas holdout has inspired Democrats and progressives around the country.

Newsom wants Democratic gerrymandering in California if Texas proceeds, though voters would have to bypass an independent redistricting commission. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, both of whom have appeared alongside Texas Democrats who relocated to their states, have also declared their intent to push new maps if they are necessary to neutralize Republican maneuvers.

The dynamics could embroil the 2026 midterm campaign in legislative and court battles testing Trump’s power over the Republican Party, Democrats’ ability to mount opposition and the durability of the U.S. system of federalism that balances power between Washington and individual states.

Lathan is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

By ERIC TUCKER and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department has subpoenaed New York Attorney General Letitia James as part of an investigation into whether she violated President Donald Trump’s civil rights, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Related Articles

US at plastics treaty talks is rare international participation under Trump. What’s the goal?

Appeals court tosses judge’s contempt finding against Trump administration in prison deportations

Trump will host Armenia and Azerbaijan for a White House peace summit

Trump orders increased federal law enforcement presence in Washington to ‘make DC safe again’

Trump honors Purple Heart recipients, including 3 who sent him medals after attempt on his life

The subpoenas sought records related to the lawsuit James filed against Trump over alleged fraud in his personal business dealings and a separate lawsuit involving the National Rifle Association, according to the people, who could not publicly discuss details of the investigation and spoke to the AP on Friday on the condition of anonymity.

They mark an escalation of the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to scrutinize perceived adversaries of the president, including those like James who had investigated him before his election win last November.

A spokesperson for the attorney general’s office, Geoff Burgan, declined to confirm the subpoenas but issued a statement that said, “Any weaponization of the justice system should disturb every American. We stand strongly behind our successful litigation against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association, and we will continue to stand up for New Yorkers’ rights.”

In a separate statement, James’ personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, said “if prosecutors carry out this improper tactic and are genuinely interested in the truth, we are ready and waiting with the facts and the law.”

“Investigating the fraud case Attorney General James won against President Trump and his businesses has to be the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president’s political retribution campaign,” Lowell said. “Weaponizing the Department of Justice to try to punish an elected official for doing her job is an attack on the rule of law and a dangerous escalation by this administration.”

A spokesperson for the Justice Department, Natalie Baldassarre, declined to comment.

James, a Democrat, has sued Trump and his Republican administration dozens of times over his policies as president and over how he conducted his private business empire. Trump is appealing the multimillion dollar judgment she won against him in a lawsuit alleging that he defrauded banks and other lenders by giving them financial statements that inflated the value of his properties, including his golf clubs and penthouse in Trump Tower.

Trump says his financial statements actually understated his wealth and that any mistakes in the documents were harmless errors that played no role in banks’ lending decisions. He and his lawyers have repeatedly accused James of engaging in “lawfare” for political purposes — a claim she has denied.

News of the subpoena comes as the Justice Department advances an investigation into the Trump-Russia probe that shadowed Trump for much of his first term as president and as the administration has engaged in a widespread purge from the workforce of law enforcement officials who had been involved in examining the activities of Trump and his supporters.

By JENNIFER McDERMOTT

Under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the United States has withdrawn from international negotiations and commitments, particularly around climate. But the U.S. is very much involved in treaty talks for a global accord to end plastic pollution.

Nations kicked off a meeting Tuesday in Geneva to try to complete a landmark treaty over 10 days to end the spiraling plastic pollution crisis. The biggest issue is whether the treaty should impose caps on producing new plastic, or focus instead on things like better design, recycling and reuse. About 3,700 people are taking part in the talks, representing 184 countries and more than 600 organizations.

Here is a look the U.S. position:

Why is the US participating in the negotiations?

Hours after he was sworn in to a second term, Trump pulled the U.S. out of the landmark Paris agreement to combat global warming. The United States didn’t participate in a vote in April at the International Maritime Organization that created a fee for greenhouse gases emitted by ships, or send anyone to the U.N. Ocean Conference in June.

Some wondered whether the United States would even go to Geneva.

The State Department told The Associated Press that engaging in the negotiations is critical to protect U.S. interests and businesses, and an agreement could advance U.S. security by protecting natural resources from plastic pollution, promote prosperity and enhance safety.

The industry contributes more than $500 billion to the economy annually and employs about 1 million people in the U.S., according to the Plastics Industry Association.

“This is an historic opportunity to set a global approach for reducing plastic pollution through cost-effective and common-sense solutions and fostering innovation from the private sector, not unilaterally stopping the use of plastic,” the department said in an email.

What does the US want in the treaty?

The State Department supports provisions to improve waste collection and management, improve product design and drive recycling, reuse and other efforts to cut the plastic dumped into the environment.

The international Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that 22 million tons of plastic waste will leak into the environment this year. That could increase to 30 million tons annually by 2040 if nothing changes.

The OECD said if the treaty focuses only on improving waste management and does nothing on production and demand, an estimated 13.5 million tons of plastic waste would still leak into the environment each year.

What does the US not want in the treaty?

The United States and other powerful oil and gas nations oppose cutting plastic production.

Most plastic is made from fossil fuels. Even if production grows only slightly, greenhouse gas emissions emitted from the process would more than double by 2050, according to research from the federal Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Related Articles

Scientists thought this Argentine glacier was stable. Now they say it’s melting fast

July was Earth’s third-warmest on record, EU scientists say

Trump’s push for drilling, mining sharpens debate for Alaska Natives about land they view as sacred

Great Barrier Reef records largest annual coral loss in 39 years

AI is fast-tracking climate research

The U.S. does not support global production caps since plastics play a critical role throughout every sector of every economy, nor does it support bans on certain plastic products or chemical additives to them because there is not a universal approach to reducing plastic pollution, the State Department said.

That’s similar to the views of the plastics industry, which says that a production cap could have unintended consequences, such as raising the cost of plastics, and that chemicals are best regulated elsewhere.

What has the US done in Geneva so far?

On the first day of the negotiations, the United States proposed striking language in the objective of the agreement about addressing the full life cycle of plastics. That idea was part of the original mandate for a treaty. Getting rid of it could effectively end any effort to control plastic supply or production.

Under former President Joe Biden’s administration, the U.S. supported the treaty addressing supply and production.

What are people saying about the US position?

Industry leaders praised it and environmentalists panned it.

Chris Jahn, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, said the Trump administration is trying to get an agreement that protects each nation’s rights while advancing effective and practical solutions to end plastic waste in the environment. He said his group supports that approach.

Graham Forbes, head of the Greenpeace delegation in Geneva, said the United States wants a weak agreement and is undermining the idea that the world needs strong international regulations to address a global problem.

Does the US think the world can agree on a treaty that will end plastic pollution?

The United States aims to finalize text for a global agreement on plastic pollution that all countries, including major producers of plastics and plastic products, and consumers, will support, the State Department said in its statement.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.