For decades, federal TRIO programs have served as a lifeline for low-income and first-generation college students, providing tutoring, financial counseling, and academic support at more than 1,000 institutions nationwide. Now, those programs are caught in the crossfire of the Trump administration’s broader effort to reshape federal education spending.
The administration withheld $660 million of the $1.19 billion allocated to TRIO in fiscal year 2025, canceling or rejecting roughly 100 grants, while delaying thousands of others. The primary reason cited for cancellations: program descriptions that referenced diversity, equity, and inclusion goals or gender ratios.
During the government shutdown last fall, Education Secretary Linda McMahon went further, eliminating the very office within the Department of Education responsible for administering TRIO grants.
More than 650,000 students rely on TRIO services each year. The programs, which include Upward Bound, Talent Search, Student Support Services, and several others, were designed specifically for those who face the steepest barriers to higher education. TRIO roots trace back to the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and the initiative has since expanded into eight distinct programs serving students at every stage of the college pipeline.
The administration’s actions have not gone unchallenged. Attorneys general from 21 states and Washington, DC, filed briefs opposing the grant cancellations, and the Council for Opportunity in Education secured a preliminary injunction. Some funding has since been released as a result, though the broader landscape remains uncertain.
The uncertainty may only deepen. President Trump’s proposed FY2026 budget calls for eliminating TRIO entirely, a move that would end a federal investment that, between 2021 and 2024 alone, directed more than $233 million to California institutions, $132.7 million to Texas, and tens of millions more to states across the South, Midwest, and beyond.
Research has shown that TRIO funding is heavily concentrated at public colleges serving small student populations, as well as at minority-serving institutions that enroll large populations of first-generation students and students of color.
Supporters of TRIO argue that stripping funding under the banner of anti-DEI enforcement misrepresents what these programs actually do: connect disadvantaged students with the academic and financial resources they need to earn a degree. Critics of the administration’s approach note that using DEI-related language as a disqualifying criterion effectively penalizes institutions for serving the very students TRIO was explicitly created to help.
For now, affected institutions and students are left navigating a system in flux, waiting on court decisions, monitoring budget negotiations, and wondering whether a program that has shaped college access for generations will survive the current political environment.
