Trump is pushing to end in-state tuition for undocumented students across the country. How will California respond?

When President Donald Trump took office for the second time in January 2025, nearly two dozen states allowed their respective undocumented students to pay in-state college tuition.

Since then, the Trump administration and the president’s allies have worked to dismantle those policies, most of which have been in place for at least a decade. Through lawsuits, the administration says out-of-state students have less access to a “postsecondary education benefit” than undocumented students — a practice it says is forbidden by federal law and that amounts to discrimination against U.S. citizens.

Undocumented students who live in places where in-state tuition has been reversed are already encountering serious obstacles. They don’t qualify for federal financial aid and, faced with significantly higher tuition rates, some of these students are scaling back on their course load, or taking time off to work and save up for school. Others have been compelled to quit.

Most undocumented students were children when they were brought to this country. Nationally, they make up a tiny fraction of the overall college population. They also represent a small percentage of California’s higher ed demographics.

Still, these students number in the tens of thousands. And for each and every one of those undocumented Californians, ending the in-state tuition policy could be calamitous.

Some legal experts believe the U.S. Department of Justice will likely sue California. But they also expect that this state’s law will be harder to dismantle.

When did states begin offering in-state tuition to undocumented students?

In June 2001, Texas made history by becoming the first to grant in-state tuition to undocumented students when then-Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed the Texas Dream Act into law with bipartisan support. In the ensuing years, Washington, D.C., and at least 25 other states followed suit.

California’s AB 540, also signed into law in 2001, offers in-state tuition to undocumented students, U.S. citizens, TPS and U visa holders and lawfully present immigrants who meet eligibility criteria.

Broadly speaking, to qualify, students must have:

• Attended at least three years of high school, adult school or community college in California.
• Obtained a high school diploma or equivalent, an associate’s degree or fulfilled the minimum requirements to transfer to the University of California or California State University.

The exemption from out-of-state tuition saves those students a lot of money. For the 2026-27 academic year, for instance, nonresident undergrads are expected to pay $51,858 in tuition to attend a UC — compared with $15,384 for residents.

Former undocumented students have told LAist that AB 540 made higher education feasible. Because they don’t qualify for federal financial aid, undocumented students rely on state-based support, limited scholarship opportunities and their wages to pay for school.

How has the Trump administration pressured states?

In February, Republican governor Ron DeSantis signed a law to reverse in-state tuition for undocumented students in Florida. Soon after, Trump issued two executive orders that, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, aim to “ensure illegal aliens are not obtaining taxpayer benefits or preferential treatment.” The executive orders do not acknowledge that undocumented people pay local and federal taxes. (In fact, to speed up mass deportation efforts, the IRS is building a system to share taxpayer data with ICE.) The second executive order specifically took issue with “laws that provide in-State higher education tuition to aliens but not to out-of-State U.S. American citizens.”

In June, the DOJ sued Texas, calling for the end of the Texas Dream Act. The department and the state reached a settlement that same day.

As NBC reported, a deputy associate attorney general celebrated the quick turnaround at a private gathering, noting that “because [the DOJ was] able to have that line of communication and talk in advance [with the state’s attorney general], a statute that’s been a problem for the state for 24 years, we got rid of it in six hours.”

Since then, the DOJ has gone on to sue Kentucky, Minnesota, Oklahoma and, most recently, Illinois. Kentucky and Oklahoma also settled with the department.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a Latino civil rights nonprofit, has filed motions against in-state tuition reversals on behalf of undocumented students in Texas and Kentucky. In an email, Thomas A. Saenz, the organization’s president and general counsel, said “the district court denied our clients’ motion to intervene, but we have appealed that decision to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.” The organization is also waiting for the U.S. and Kentucky to file any opposition.

Saenz underscored that “under these laws, undocumented residents of the state pay the same tuition as other state residents; this is not some special lower tuition rate solely for undocumented students. Like other resident students, the undocumented students’ families have contributed taxes and economic growth that helps pay for public colleges, and the students have demonstrated the same success and commitment in education as other resident students.”

What could happen in California?

Asked whether the Trump administration is likely to take similar action against this state, Saenz said: “[The DOJ] may eventually sue California, but California’s law is far less vulnerable than the states sued thus far.”

He said that the federal law the Trump administration is attempting to use to strike down these laws only relates to granting tuition based on residence. California law, he added, “does not consider or mention residence at all in granting regular tuition to undocumented students.”

Kevin Johnson, professor of law and Chicana/o Studies at UC Davis, also believes the Trump administration is likely to sue the Golden state.

“[Trump] has such a bee in his bonnet about California being a sanctuary state and seems to have a difficult relationship with our governor,” he said.

The Trump administration, Johnson added, probably decided to sue Texas and Kentucky first, “knowing that they would get very limited opposition from the attorney generals” — as opposed to starting with California, “where [Attorney General Rob Bonta] is going to be very aggressive in defending AB 540.”

In an email statement, Bonta's press office told LAist: "We remain committed to defending California’s laws, values and people from the Trump Administration’s attacks."

“This is strategic lawyering,” Johnson continued. “I think the Trump administration is angling to get this issue before the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“The Supreme Court focuses on resolving what are called ‘circuit splits,’ where different courts in different jurisdictions reach different conclusions,” Johnson said. “So the Trump administration can say: ‘Supreme Court, please address this, because we need a clearer national resolution of the issue.”

What happens next?

In Johnson’s view, the push to end in-state tuition is part of broader efforts to make life unbearable for undocumented people.

The Trump administration, he wrote in a follow up email, is pulling “all [the] various levers of the federal government.”

The "roving patrols;" the executive order to end to birthright citizenship; the Department of Homeland Security’s “self-deportation” campaign; the building of “Alligator Alcatraz,” “Speedway Slammer” and the “Deportation Depot” — all of this, he said, is “designed to terrorize the undocumented community” and pressure families to leave.