Hands off Trio: stop slamming the door on low-income students

Since I was a kid, I’ve been told not to get my hopes up about college. Not because I’m not smart, but because I come from a family with limited means. The idea of paying for tuition, books, and living expenses on my own has always seemed nearly impossible. For a long time, college felt like something other people got to experience – people with money, family connections, or resources that I just didn’t have.

Then I found Trio. 

The Trio programs are federally funded initiatives created to help low-income and first-generation students. These programs were the first real sign of hope I had that college wasn’t just a dream. 

Now that hope is under attack.

The Trump administration’s recent proposal to eliminate funding for Trio programs in 2026 feels like a punch to the gut. The White House budget request dismisses Trio as a “relic of the past,” suggesting that colleges should handle student recruitment and support themselves. But that statement ignores the reality: if colleges could provide meaningful support to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, then Trio wouldn’t even be a thing.

One of the most frustrating aspects of this proposed budget cut is that Trio has proven itself time and time again as effective. Despite critics citing a single 2009 study that questioned the effectiveness of the Upward Bound program, follow-up research has demonstrated that Trio programs significantly boost both college enrollment and graduation rates. Program staff already report hard data like graduation statistics and enrollment numbers to justify their funding. Trio students are 18% more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree and 47% more likely to earn an associate degree or transfer to a four-year institution than low-income students who are not enrolled in the Trio program.

So why cut now? A white house budget report argues that “it’s not as hard as it used to be” for low-income and first-generation students to access higher education. But anyone living that reality knows how untrue that is. The cost of college continues to rise, while Pell grants and other forms of aid haven’t kept pace. Cutting Trio doesn’t save money; it costs us futures.

Without Trio, I honestly don’t know how I will be able to attend college. I can study hard, volunteer, and apply for scholarships, but the sad truth is that none of that matters if I don’t have the money. The personalized guidance Trio provides, like walking you through FAFSA forms, connecting with mentors, and helping me believe I even belong in higher education, cannot be replaced by a college pamphlet or a quick meeting with an overworked school counselor. 

Defunding Trio isn’t just a budget cut. It’s a message that students without money or connections don’t deserve the same shot at education. It tells kids like me to stay in our place, to not even bother trying. I refuse to accept that.

As lawmakers debate this budget proposal, I hope they remember that Trio is not a relic of the past. It is a lifeline to the future for me, for my peers, and for every student who has ever been told not to get their hopes up.