Trump Releases FY 2026 'Skinny' Budget Proposal, Making Cuts to ED Programs and Eliminating FSEOG
By Maria Carrasco, NASFAA Staff Reporter
President Donald Trump on Friday released a fiscal year (FY) 2026 budget proposal, which outlines massive funding cuts to the Department of Education (ED), including the Federal Work-Study (FWS) program, and completely eliminates the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) program.
The budget proposal, referred to as a “skinny budget” since it does not list specific funding requests for all programs and initiatives under the federal government, ultimately seeks to cut $163 billion in non-defense discretionary funding across the federal government.
Specifically, Trump’s budget proposal requests that the FSEOG program be completely eliminated, losing all of its $910 million in funding. In the budget proposal, the Trump administration claims that the FSEOG program “contributes to rising college costs,” which institutions use to “fund radical leftist ideology instead of investing in students and their success” and is “inconsistent with the Administration’s priorities.”
While the administration wrote that FSEOG is "less targeted" than the federal Pell Grant program, this budget proposal did not include prospective funding levels for the Pell Grant program.
The Trump administration is also seeking to cut the FWS program. Currently, the program is funded at $1.2 billion. This proposal would cut that current funding by $980 million. In the budget proposal, the Trump administration wrote that this cut would bring FWS “to the states” and that “FWS is a handout to woke universities and a subsidy from federal taxpayers, who can pay for their own employees.”
Other programs eliminated in the administration’s proposal include the TRIO programs and Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP). The administration wrote that institutions should be using their own resources to “engage with K-12 schools in their communities to recruit students, and then once those students are on campus, aid in their success through to graduation.”
Other significant reductions include a $127 million cut to ED program administration, which is a 30% decrease of the department’s current allocation. This funding cut is part of the administration’s efforts to dissolve ED, which includes an executive order and reduction in force (RIF) of half of ED’s workforce.
Additionally, the Trump administration proposes a $49 million cut in ED’s Office for Civil Rights, which the administration wrote will ensure the office investigates institutions to “comply with federal civil rights laws and presidential executive orders while removing their ability to push DEI programs and promote radical transgender ideology.”
Education Secretary Linda McMahon responded to the Trump administration’s budget proposal on Friday, saying that this proposal “puts students and parents above the bureaucracy.”
“The President’s skinny budget reflects funding levels for an agency that is responsibly winding down, shifting some responsibilities to the states, and thoughtfully preparing a plan to delegate other critical functions to more appropriate entities,” McMahon said. “It supports the President’s vision of expanding school choice and ensuring every American has access to an excellent education.”
NASFAA’s Karen McCarthy, NASFAA vice president of public policy and federal relations, urged appropriators to protect student financial aid programs from harmful cuts.
"The spending cuts in the president's proposed budget, coupled with the House's reconciliation proposal and ED's chaotic reduction in force, would further destabilize student access and success in postsecondary education," McCarthy said. "We urge that congressional appropriators reject this budget outline, as was the case during the president's previous term, and embark on a spending process that will protect students' access to federal financial aid."
NASFAA, as part of the Student Aid Alliance, has already called on congressional appropriators to protect and maintain funding for federal student aid programs in the FY 2026 budget, including strengthening the Pell Grant, FSEOG, and FWS programs.
The White House has received some pushback from Republicans concerning the budget request with Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Me.) citing significant objections to the language.
“I have serious objections to the proposed freeze in our defense funding given the security challenges we face and to the proposed funding cuts to – and in some cases elimination of – programs like LIHEAP, TRIO, and those that support biomedical research,” Collins said.
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said that the budget request represented “a clear starting point” for the annual spending cycle and enables the House to begin scheduling hearings and markups in the coming weeks.
“This Committee is prepared to do the hard work – line by line – to uphold fiscal discipline and effective governance,” Cole said. “Our FY26 process will target resources where they are needed most, reinforce the safety and security of the American people, and invest in high-impact missions.”
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said that the Trump administration’s budget proposal would “set our country back decades” and would make life harder for working people.
“President Trump has made his priorities clear as day: he wants to outright defund programs that help working Americans while he shovels massive tax breaks at billionaires like himself and raises taxes on middle-class Americans with his reckless tariffs,” Murray said in a statement.
From here, Congress must work to create and pass a budget for FY 2026 before the September 30, 2025 deadline. The White House is also expected to offer a “rescissions package” in the coming days that would urge Congress to rescind certain funds that were already appropriated. However, it is unclear whether either chamber will consider the measure. Stay tuned to Today’s News for more updates on the budget appropriations process.
Publication Date: 5/5/2025
Jason J | 5/14/2025 10:10:09 AM
FWS is -checks notes- "Woke," apparently. Cool.
Vincent F | 5/5/2025 1:51:06 PM
I'd rather they eliminate FWS instead of SEOG.
David S | 5/5/2025 12:5:40 PM
Also...I never included checking applicants for "radical leftist ideology" in the packaging policy and methodology at any school I worked at. Was I doing it wrong?
David S | 5/5/2025 11:0:13 AM
"Additionally, the Trump administration proposes a $49 million cut in ED’s Office for Civil Rights, which the administration wrote will ensure the office investigates institutions to “comply with federal civil rights laws and presidential executive orders while removing their ability to push DEI programs and promote radical transgender ideology.”
"DEI" is an acronym for "diversity, equity and inclusion." So to paraphrase something I heard Pete Buttigieg say recently, if you are opposed to DEI, that means you prefer uniformity, inequity and exclusion.
Previous (Republican) administrations wanted to eliminate SEOG as a way to reduce federal spending. I didn't agree, but at least they had a reason that followed some logic. To say that SEOG - money that helps the lowest income students pay their tuition - has to be eliminated because it funds "radical leftist ideology instead of investing in students and their success” shows that we are dealing with an administration determined to get low income students off our campuses. There is no thought to this, only, to paraphrase them, radical rightist ideology.
There are no two sides to work with anymore. Call your member of Congress and both Senators, and don't be afraid to do it more than once.
Jesse H | 5/5/2025 10:13:51 AM
"The Trump administration wrote that this cut would bring FWS 'to the states' and that 'FWS is a handout to woke universities and a subsidy from federal taxpayers, who can pay for their own employees.'"
Ya know, fellas, sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people suspect you don't have any idea what you're talking about rather than open your mouth wide and confirm it.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.