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.
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
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?
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
Outstanding news! Princeton put a target on its back by years of reckless woke policies. The tax is not political retribution. It is justice.
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?
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.
Excellent article. Thank you!
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.
Christopher Bao and Annie Rupertus
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Princeton asked all departments and University units to prepare “separate plans for 5 percent and 10 percent permanent budget cuts to be phased in over the next three years, with some actions to start later this summer” in an email sent to faculty and staff on Monday afternoon — the University’s most dramatic budgetary guidance yet following a tumultuous semester for higher education.
The email, sent by Provost Jennifer Rexford and Executive Vice President Katie Callow-Wright, explicitly acknowledged the potential for layoffs to be part of budget reductions. “Cuts of this magnitude to our budget cannot be achieved without changes to some operations and the associated elimination of some staff positions,” they wrote.
David Montgomery ‘83
Princeton Alumni Weekly
Excerpt: For the first time in memory, Princeton is inviting alumni, faculty, students, and allies to lend their voices to a broad campaign of political advocacy and public affirmation in response to the Trump administration’s unprecedented attacks on research funding and academic freedom in American higher education. “To my knowledge, this is a new kind of initiative for the University,” President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 told PAW in an early May interview about the campaign, which is called “Stand Up for Princeton and Higher Education.”
Samuel J. Abrams
American Enterprise Institute
Excerpt: In response to the Trump Administration’s continued attacks on higher education, leaders of some of the most prominent colleges and universities are pushing back—albeit hypocritically. Nearly 500 college presidents and deans signed an open letter from the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, titled “A Call for Constructive Engagement.” Without proper context, the letter is quite reasonable.
Consider three well-known cases where presidents did not promote open inquiry and the pursuit of truth. At Princeton, like so many other schools, the influence of identity politics was so powerful that potential faculty hires and entire streams of inquiry were not possible, and areas of research would not be supported if they did not conform to expected progressive political norms and expectations.
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.