Princeton Faces 21 Percent Tax on its Endowment Income

May 15, 2025 4 min read

9 Comments

By Princetonians for Free Speech

Since the beginning of the year, Princetonians for Free Speech has been warning that Princeton and other universities were likely to be hit with a big increase in the current 1.4 % tax on endowment income. Now it is happening.

In the early hours of yesterday morning, the House Ways & Means Committee voted to report out its part of the Reconciliation bill – a.k.a. the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” This massive bill contains numerous tax provisions, including a large increase in the tax rate, now 1.4%, on endowment income. The bill creates a tiered tax rate based on an institution’s “student-adjusted” endowment. There are four rates: 1.4%, 7%, 14%, and 21%. The 21% rate applies to schools with an endowment of at least $2 million per student. It is the same as the corporate tax rate. Princeton qualifies for the 21%. According to one article, others qualifying for the highest rate are Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and MIT. Here is a list of the largest endowments. Princeton is listed at $34 billion. Note that Texas, which has a large endowment, is not covered by the endowment tax because it is a public university.

It is impossible for outsiders to estimate with any accuracy the cost to Princeton of this new tax for several reasons, including: the fact that the bill adds extraneous items (“student loan interest income and certain royalty income”) into the definition of endowment income; investment income can vary considerably year-to-year; and presumably Princeton will adjust its investments and the way income is recognized over time to minimize the tax. A very simplistic figure can be generated by taking the $34 billion endowment, assuming just for this purpose an income of 6 percent, and applying the 21% tax rate. That would result in income of $2.04 billion and a tax of $428.4 million. 

The pain to Princeton will be considerable. According to an article explaining the management of the endowment on the Princeton website, earnings from the endowment provide about two-thirds of Princeton’s annual operating revenue.

This Ways & Means bill will be combined with equivalent bills from other House committees raising revenue and making budget cuts into the Reconciliation package. The House hopes to pass that by Memorial Day and finish the conference with the Senate by July 4. However, there are still many big political potholes along the way, and there will be changes. The bill could even fall apart. No Democrat is likely to vote for the package, and therefore, with the narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate, it would only take a few Republicans in opposition to bring the package down. At this point, the House leadership does not have the votes for passage, but there will be furious negotiations in the coming days to try to bring opponents into the fold.

Because this is the Budget Reconciliation bill, it is not subject to a filibuster in the Senate and can pass with just fifty votes (plus the Vice-President). Assuming a bill can pass the Senate, changes will be made there to the House bill, and those changes will have to be negotiated in a conference between the House and Senate, with the conference report then having to pass both chambers. At this point there seem to be material differences between House and Senate Republicans on what should be in the package.

Therefore, it is indeed possible this Republican effort will fail. However, many political analysts believe the political consequences of failure would be so negative that, with pressure from President Trump, the bill will eventually pass.

Unlike the case with some other issues, there has been no push-back among Republicans on the tax on endowment income, and so if a Reconciliation bill is enacted, this tax is likely to survive in some form, with a big hit to Princeton. Even if the bill fails, the Congress will have to address taxes later this year or the tax cuts from the first Trump Administration will expire, resulting in a massive tax increase. The endowment tax would likely be included in that tax package as it is a significant revenue raiser, which will contribute to offsetting the costs of the Trump tax agenda. However, more time might give universities a chance to mount a more effective lobbying effort to at least lower the tax.

Princetonians for Free Speech has written several articles about the growing target on Princeton’s back for investigations, lawsuits, and further funding cuts from the Trump Administration. Of course, the current major target has been Harvard, and the Administration continues to threaten to put even more penalties on Harvard. For example, recently the head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the Commission would be investigating Harvard for discrimination in the hiring of faculty.  These Administration attacks will spread to other universities, and we fear Princeton has put itself near to top of the target list.

However, this higher tax on endowment income is based solely on the endowment size per student. It makes no differentiation between schools based on the issues the Trump Administration has been raising. Politically, the genesis of this tax is the need to raise revenue to offset tax cuts and most importantly, the general antipathy of Republican politicians and, indeed, much of the public toward universities and particularly the “elite” universities. Some of these universities have been lobbying against this tax for months and made no progress.

Princeton is already planning to cut its budget. The Princeton administration recently sent out a memo asking all its departments and units to plan for budget cuts of up to 10% to be phased in over three years

While Harvard and others bringing lawsuits to stop some of the Trump Administration’s efforts may have some success in the courts, there is every reason to think the attacks on elite universities, including Princeton, will continue, with significant consequences.


9 Responses

Chris
Chris

May 16, 2025

I find it offensive that"Princetonians for Free Speech" expresses what appears to be a very one-sided view of a complex situation that it attempts to reduce to an issue of “free speech” that it presumes everyone should blindly support. It is particularly upsetting that it would attempt to address this issue without addressing one of the largest underlying problems: Princeton’s direct and indirect support for racist anti-Jewish/antisemitic speech and actions on its campus. Rather than complain about tax increases on its endowment and ask alumni to donate money, it would be more intelligent and equitable to address the problematic boundary between supporting free speech and supporting racism and/or the harassment of students due to their race and/or religion. This is the core of the issue. I am disgusted that Princeton would allow “Princetonians for Free Speech” to use the university’s mailing list to forward such a one-sided, unintelligent platform that is in so many ways political and profoundly racist/antisemitic. I have never been more ashamed to be a Princeton alumnus.

Anthony DiTommaso
Anthony DiTommaso

May 16, 2025

Our president should not follow Harvards lead. We should have constructive talks with the administration. If our institution is built on a foundation of openness where we can freely exchange ideas then why are we not defending ourselves by holding talks and demonstrating our commitment to our broad and non discriminatory educational commitment . Instead they refuse to talk – this is not an intelligent way to resolve disputes – it’s dumb

Tom Pyle
Tom Pyle

May 15, 2025

Politically, will it hard to counter this move amidst all the hubbub about “the rich paying their fair share”? (Personally, I’ve always thought this is a very bad argument, especially without a corresponding call for responsible spending cuts. It tonly fuels class divisions and solves little. For Princeton and other similar schools now, what is a suitable position on this issue? Do we presume that elite universities should pay an endowment tax? If so, how much? What would be a so-called fair share?

Doug Stinson ‘70
Doug Stinson ‘70

May 15, 2025

I am not opposed to PU paying a higher endowment task. I would like to see the focus to be on undergrad education. Look at the curriculum and reduce the faculty and number of majors thereby reduce faculty. We need to produce grads who can think and dialogue on key ideas without a preset political mindset. Be cost effective w the cost of producing an undergrad

Bill Noonan
Bill Noonan

May 15, 2025

Outstanding news! Princeton put a target on its back by years of reckless woke policies. The tax is not political retribution. It is justice.

Thomas Davison ‘74
Thomas Davison ‘74

May 15, 2025

Don’t you think that a little redistribution of income is justified considering the university’s stance on DEI? Or is it “ it’s good for thee and not for me” hypocrisy?

Jim Weigel
Jim Weigel

May 15, 2025

I think this is great. I would have taxed all endowments over $1B at 90% so you should feel lucky!

I have no idea why I was on this distribution list.

Barnes Hauptfuhrer
Barnes Hauptfuhrer

May 15, 2025

Excellent article. Thank you!

Kate
Kate

May 15, 2025

I think the 21% is too low considering how useless they were in protecting their Jewish students! I had planned in sending my twins to one of these colleges, but no more.

Leave a comment


Also in Princeton Free Speech News & Commentary

Universities, Free Speech, and Trump: Columbia’s Settlement is a Watershed Moment

August 19, 2025 7 min read

August 19, 2025
By Tal Fortgang ‘17

Columbia University’s recent settlement with the Trump administration represents a long-awaited watershed moment in the ongoing battle between the federal government and American universities. Its arrival is enormously symbolic within the ongoing saga and is a sign of things to come. How would the federal government treat free speech and academic freedom concerns? Was it looking to avoid going to court, or would it welcome the opportunity to litigate formally? And how much would each side be willing to compromise on its deeply entrenched positions? 

A settlement – better described as a deal, not merely because dealmaking is the President’s preferred framework for governance but because the feds did not actually sue Columbia -- was always the most likely outcome of the showdown. It is not inherently inappropriate as a resolution to legitimate civil rights concerns, though the administration probably could have achieved its objectives more sustainably had it followed the procedure set out in civil rights law. Nevertheless, a deal has been struck, and assessing it is more complex than simply deeming it good or bad by virtue of its existing – though many certainly wish each side had simply declined to negotiate with the other. 

Digging into the deal – and attending to its silences -- reveals a combination of promising reforms, distractions, and even some failures. Most critically, the agreement’s silence on admissions and hiring practices suggests that the underlying issues that precipitated this crisis will likely resurface, creating a cycle of federal intervention that will relegate this episode to a footnote. 

Read More
U. investigating swastika graffiti in graduate student apartment building

August 15, 2025 1 min read

Sena Chang
Daily Princetonian 

Excerpt: Antisemitic graffiti of a gray swastika was found on the wall of a graduate student apartment building inside the Lakeside housing complex in mid-July. The graffiti was removed immediately following multiple reports, with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) opening an investigation into the incident and increasing foot patrols in the area in response, according to University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill. 

Construction was underway inside Lakeside at the time of the incident, and the University has not yet determined whether the graffiti was the work of a student or contractor. No suspects have been named.

Read More
Controversial Princeton prof with strong Iran ties steps down after campaign from dissidents, senator to remove him

August 12, 2025 1 min read 1 Comment

Isabel Vincent and Benjamin Weinthal 
New York Post 

Excerpt: A controversial Princeton professor with strong ties to the Iranian regime has quietly stepped down from the Ivy League school, following a campaign from dissidents to remove him. 

Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a Middle East security and nuclear policy specialist, retired from his position after 15 years as the head of the school’s Program on Science and Global Security on June 1, according to an announcement listing retiring employees on Princeton’s website. The professor is controversial for being heavily involved in Iran’s chemical and nuclear programs beginning in 2004, long before the country was known to have been building up its nuclear arsenal, according to German journalist Bruno Schirra.

Read More