I never expected to feel thankful for losing over $6,000 in need-based aid, but I am. My Minnesota State Grant scholarship was originally $10,000; I’m one of the lucky ones who got to keep any of it at all. That’s because one of Minnesota’s largest need-based scholarship programs, funded by state tax revenue, failed thousands of the state’s college students due to a massive, unaddressed deficit.
This deficit was first acknowledged in November 2024. Lawmakers implemented a one-time cut for students enrolled in the summer 2025 school term, and for students who completed their aid application after December 1, 2024. Following this short, but successful, patch, legislators once again faced an increase of students. According to a February 2025 report from the Minnesota Office of Higher Education (MOHE), the budget came under “tremendous strain” in 2024 due to the significant increase in grant recipients. The report projected increased participation in the program would continue to have negative effects in the following years. It did.
During the 2026 legislative session, efforts to address the $131 million deficit for the 2026-27 academic year failed in both the House and Senate. One of the failed amendments added $60 million to the program, while another prohibited undocumented noncitizens from receiving the financial aid.
An April 2026 letter written by the Minnesota Association of Private College Students (MAPCS) and the Council of Student Government Presidents asked legislators to increase the funding for the State Grant program. Over 40 representatives, including the student body president and vice president of my school (University of Northwestern – St. Paul), signed the letter. Yet lawmakers’ inability to compromise has left tens of thousands of Minnesota students who relied on the State Grant to pursue higher education with an impossible decision.
As a need-based grant, the Minnesota State Grant removed financial barriers for students from low- and middle- income families ($27,320 – $126,400 for households of three) so they could afford higher education in the state. Although there is no hard and fast income cap, the State Grant considers students’ financial need based on their Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), which means higher income students typically receive little to no aid from the program.
In 2024, approximately half of the grant recipients were in households with an adjusted gross income (AGI) of under $40,000. Eligible students (at least 17 years old and a high school graduate) can use the grant at a qualified public or private Minnesota institution. Projections from the Minnesota Private College Council note that 88,000 students would have received aid from the program for the 2026-27 academic year. The unaddressed deficit has left 18,000 students with no aid and an additional 70,000 students whose awards will, on average, be reduced by more than 30 percent. For these 88,000 students — of which I am one — the financial loss increases the likelihood of them ending their time in academia prematurely, which could have future career impacts. For those who continue their higher education journey, many may have to take out student loans, which has implications for Minnesota’s economy.
Contributing to the stress on the State Grant is Minnesota’s North Star Promise. For students from families with an AGI below $80,000, North Star Promise covers the tuition and fees that remain after all other aid — including the Minnesota State Grant — is applied. Like the Minnesota State Grant, there is no academic requirement for eligibility. However, this funding is only available to students attending Minnesota public higher education schools or tribal colleges, excluding students at Minnesota’s private institutions.
After North Star Promise was launched, public and tribal colleges with previously declining enrollment experienced a 10 percent increase in enrollment from 2023 to 2025. Within its first year, approximately 60,000 students received financial aid from the program. The uptick in participation simultaneously increased the number of students looking into the Minnesota State Grant, since North Star Promise and Minnesota State Grant aid students at approximately the same income level. The same MOHE February report that noted the “tremendous strain” increased participation was causing the Minnesota State Grant praised North Star Promise’s increased enrollment.
Like me, 88,000 Minnesota students who were promised a State Grant chose to pursue higher education here because of that aid. Disrupting it now may nudge many of us to drop out or finish our degrees elsewhere. Because North Star Promise covers only remaining tuition and fees — not living costs — even students at Minnesota’s public and tribal institutions will feel the financial strain of expenses the State Grant used to cover. If that gap pushes promising students to leave Minnesota for other states, it would undermine the very goal North Star Promise was meant to achieve: keeping our future workforce here.
Because both have low standards for eligibility, and because the legislature kept funding the original North Star Promise, this deficit will likely be ever increasing. Legislators need to be held accountable for their spending on North Star Promise and the Minnesota State Grant instead of making thousands of promises they cannot keep.
If Minnesota’s government wants to keep claiming it cares about educational opportunities for low- and middle-income students, an unaddressed deficit can’t be the response. Ignoring the problem doesn’t make it go away; it harms the very people lawmakers claim to want to help. The promises made in the Minnesota State Grant should be kept.