After Passage of OBBBA, Lawmakers Debate Solutions to Counter Increasing College Costs
By Maria Carrasco, NASFAA Staff Reporter
Congressional lawmakers on Wednesday met to discuss how to address the issue of rising college costs, with House Republicans touting numerous changes made under the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) and its impact on higher education.
The hearing, titled ‘Runaway College Spending Meets the Working Families Tax Cuts,’ was held by the House Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee, with the goal of listening to solutions higher education experts have employed to reduce college costs within their own institutions, while also discussing the value of postsecondary education and other issues impacting college affordability.
To clarify, the ‘Working Families Tax Cuts’ is another name being used by Congressional Republicans to refer to OBBBA. The ‘Working Families Tax Cuts’ is not a separate piece of legislation from OBBBA – it is the same legislation that was signed into law by President Donald Trump.
The lawmakers discussed a wide range of issues affecting higher education affordability. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah), chair of the subcommittee, congratulated House Republicans for their work in passing OBBBA, which he said “simplifies” student loan repayment, holds schools accountable for student outcomes, and puts “reasonable” caps on federal loans for graduate and professional students.
“I'm proud this committee has taken meaningful action to address the college affordability crisis, but there's more to do,” Owens said. “I'm confident that restoring market incentives to higher education will result in better pricing for students. Every student should feel empowered to pursue an education that fits their goal and know the degree they choose is going to be worth the cost.”
Rep. Alma Adams (D-N.C.), ranking member of the subcommittee, argued in her opening remarks that rising college costs are due to a lack of public investment from Congress and states, which shift expenses such as tuition, housing, food, and transportation onto students and families. Furthermore, she said OBBBA threatens to make college more expensive to students and families.
“Republicans' big ugly law makes this crisis worse – changes to Pell Grants, new borrowing limits and a restructured repayment system narrow the pathways to higher education, particularly for underserved communities,” Adams said. “These reforms risk turning college into an expensive privilege rather than public good. This hearing is about one simple question, do we believe college should be accessible to everyone willing to work for it, or only to those who can afford it?”
Joining the hearing were four witnesses – Beth Akers of the American Enterprise Institute, Geoffrey Landward of Utah System of Higher Education, Julie Margetta Morgan of The Century Foundation, and Raymond Rodrigues of the State University System of Florida.
A key issue the lawmakers discussed was rising tuition and other higher education costs. Landward noted that in Utah, institutions have to disclose rising tuition costs through public hearings to students, which in turn helps ensure that only students understand what their tuition is paying for and that institutions must justify these increases.
And in Florida, Rodrigues noted that in-state resident undergraduate tuition in Florida has been frozen since 2013. The state holds the lowest resident undergraduate tuition and fees at $6,359, with 80% of Florida resident undergraduates enrolled with no student loans.
When it comes to changes enacted under the OBBBA, Republican and Democratic lawmakers both brought up new federal loan limits for graduate and professional students. Both Owens and Akers called these new loan limits “reasonable caps.” Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), chair of the House Education & Workforce Committee, asked Akers to explain how these loan limits could help rein in rising college costs.
“Graduate student loan limits are critically important to ensure that people are not continuing to take on amounts of debt that are unaffordable based on what they're likely to earn in the future,” Akers said. “There's a lot of concern about different programs, whether professional graduate degree programs have eligibility for different loan limits. It's really important to rewind and come back to the point that the limits on graduate and professional loans altogether … is to make sure that people are not able to borrow more than is going to be affordable for them to pay in the future.”
As a reminder, under the OBBBA, graduate students will face an aggregate cap of $100,000 with an annual limit of $20,500, while professional students will have a $200,000 aggregate limit and a $50,000 annual cap. Additionally, the Grad PLUS loan program will be eliminated.
Some lawmakers expressed concerns, particularly about how these new loan limits could negatively impact students in health professions who would not be classified as professional students, and therefore not be eligible for the higher professional student loan limit, and would qualify for the graduate limit.
Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) said that these loan limits could push many students into the private market. Morgan agreed with Courtney, noting that many of these students will end up paying high cost private student loans than they would otherwise through the Grad PLUS loan program.
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), ranking member of the House Education & Workforce Committee, asked Morgan to explain why private loans could be harmful to students. Morgan noted that the availability of income-driven repayment plans and loan forgiveness through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program serve as crucial tools to student loan repayment, which aren’t available through private loans.
As the hearing wrapped up, Owens thanked the witnesses for their insight, and called the hearing “helpful.”
“We can all agree [higher education] is broken,” Owens said. “It costs too much. We're getting too little of a return on investment with our kids coming out, not being prepared to go to work, not being hopeful for their future… That's not what our education should be about.”
Publication Date: 2/5/2026
Christopher F | 2/5/2026 3:57:59 PM
Keep in mind that a huge part of student borrowing is to cover living expenses. Our quarterly cost of attendance currently includes a $10,299 limit based on CSAC's student budgets. That's $3,433 per month to live in Los Angeles. For a 12 quarter BFA, that's 12 x $10,299, $123,588. At best, Federal grants and loans only cover 1/2 of our tuition for independent students, and the new cap on Parent PLUS means that only 2/3 of the tuition will be covered overall.
David S | 2/5/2026 3:18:28 PM
"It costs too much" says a Congressman who voted for a bill that's going to make it more expensive. I remember when Burgess Owens was a safety for my New York Jets. He was better at that than he is at lawmaking.
And I'm glad all of these people whose jobs don't include making sure students have the resources to pay for college think the new limits are "reasonable caps."
Amy P | 2/5/2026 11:48:46 AM
Perry, students, especially at the graduate level, are not borrowing to get loan money refunded to them for "living expenses". They are borrowing to pay rent and put food on the table. Are there scammers? Sure, but they are a small number of borrowers and bringing them up makes it harder to communicate the real drivers of increased college cost - disinvestment and increased cost of living - to lawmakers and the public at large.
Addressing the healthcare crisis and the housing crisis would address a lot the increased college costs that Congress loves to agonize about and as a bonus would lower the cost of living for everyone.
Perry D | 2/5/2026 10:21:58 AM
The difficult thing about awarding aid to undergraduate adults and graduate students is identifying students who need higher loan amounts to finish their programs, versus students who are in school only to get as much loan money refunded to them for "living expenses". I like a lot of the aspects of the OBBBA for holding down abusive borrowing. But it also holds borrowing down for those in programs who need every dollar available to finish their program. Most of the graduate programs at my school are priced so that the changes to the loan laws will have little effect on most students. Only students who may have attended another graduate school before coming to mine might have trouble with teh new loan limits. However, we do have one program, which I believe should be considered professional, that the new rules do not allow for the student to receive enough funds to finance their education. Because they will not be able to work while in the program, they either need a spouse or parents to make enough money to cover most indirect costs. If those are not available, costs must be covered with loan money, and federal loans will no longer be able to do that. The students must then use private loan funds, which generally are not as consumer-friendly as federal loans. This has always been a subject that financial aid professionals have had ot deal with, but the topic is much more focused with the new laws.
Jeff A | 2/5/2026 9:1:23 AM
What will be the most impactful policy on the cost of higher education? ED’s AHEAD rulemaking includes full transparency, by program, on actual TOTAL COST paid, actual TIME TO COMPLETION, and the success rate of the program. With that layered on top of the salary trajectory of the program, consumers will FINALLY Before long, consumers will finally have real information to make better program choices. THIS is what will lower the cost of higher education and restore the public’s confidence in higher education. Institutions will make efforts to improve their programs, lower total cost, improve pathways to completion, reduce the number of programs students attempt when finding their way.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.