September 22, 2025
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board P.O. Box 12788
Austin, TX 78711
Re: Proposed Texas Administrative Code §54 Rules (September 5, 2025, Texas Register Publication)
Dear Members of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board:
On behalf of TheDream.US, I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments regarding the proposed rules published in the September 5, 2025, issue of the Texas Register. TheDream.US is the nation’s largest college and career success program for undocumented immigrant students. To date, we have awarded more than 11,000 college scholarships to Dreamers attending nearly 80 Partner Colleges across 20 states and Washington, DC. Guided by the belief that everyone— regardless of their immigration status—should have equitable access to a college education, a meaningful career, and the opportunity to contribute to their communities, we continue to open doors for immigrant youth across the country.
In Texas, our program has made a substantial impact. To date, 2,013 TheDream.US Scholars have been awarded scholarships in Texas, with 772 currently enrolled for the 2024–2025 academic year and 570 graduates across the state. The median age of arrival to the United States for these scholars is just four years old, and 86 percent are the first in their families to attend college. Collectively, they represent 36 countries of origin and are contributing nearly $9 million annually in tuition and fees to Texas institutions of higher education.
As an organization dedicated to expanding access to higher education and ensuring student success, we must respectfully oppose adoption of the proposed rules in their current form. The rules as drafted fail to provide clear and uniform standards for determining lawful presence, risk violations of federal student privacy protections, and impose serious fiscal, economic, and educational harms on Texas students, institutions, and communities.
Impact of June 4, 2025 to TheDream.US Scholars
For decades, in-state tuition access has been a lifeline for TheDream.US Scholars and all Dreamers, allowing them to pursue degrees and contribute meaningfully to Texas’ economic growth. On April 22, TheDream.US testified and submitted both oral and written testimony. I spent a full day waiting to testify and witnessed a packed room of people from across industries—business, higher education, K–12, and even alumni—sharing with the Texas Legislature why this two-decade-old law has benefited the state. During the hearing, it was clear that Texans wanted to preserve and continue supporting this law. And despite a few legislators attempting to end it, Texas spoke loud and clear: this is the law of our state and we are not changing it. The federal government swooped in to go against the will of the people of Texas. Since its passage in 2001, there have been several failed attempts to repeal the Texas Dream Act, but it has prevailed time and again because the spirit and benefits of this law far outweigh any politically misguided, anti-immigrant sentiments.
Just days after the end of the Texas legislative session, we were disheartened to learn that in less than 24 hours, the Texas Dream Act was struck down for most Dreamers, when a federal judge permanently enjoined the state’s 24-year-old law following a U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit. As TheDream.US worked to understand what this ruling would mean for our decade-long partnerships with institutions of higher learning in Texas, we felt devastated—not only for our
Scholars but also for the thousands of high school and college students whose dreams are now at risk because they are being priced out of higher education. This misguided policy would double to quadruple college costs, putting higher education out of reach for TheDream.US Scholars and more than 56,000 undocumented students in Texas. Many will be forced to abandon their studies abruptly, leaving behind the colleges and universities that welcomed them into their communities and invested in their success. These students are not outsiders—they have become part of their campus families—and now those same institutions are being asked to eject them, in direct conflict with their commitments to access, equity, and student success. For students, the loss of affordable education threatens their education dreams and ability to complete their degrees and destabilizes their entry into the workforce, cutting short the aspirations they have worked so hard to achieve.
Lack of Clear Standards for Lawful Presence
The June 4, 2025, district court order only blocked in-state tuition benefits under the Texas Dream Act for individuals “not lawfully present in the United States.” In response, the Coordinating Board proposed changes to the Administrative Code, yet these rules do not define lawful presence or offer institutions a workable framework for compliance.
Lacking clear, uniform guidance—and often without legal counsel or immigration expertise—colleges have been left to create their own policies, leading to inconsistent and sometimes unfair outcomes. The result has been confusion and stress for administrators and, even more so, fear and uncertainty for students. In some cases, Texas-raised high school graduates have likely been wrongly denied in- state tuition. That lack of clarity will lead to discrimination, frustration for staff, and lost revenue for these institutions. And as students are forced out of their schools and find new homes at other institutions, they will likely lose semesters of coursework—making this not only unfair but also a violation of the promise these institutions and the state made: that if students followed the rules and remained in good academic standing, they would, after earning the required 120 credits on average, be eligible to graduate.
Definition of Lawful Presence
The proposed rules leave undefined the critical term “lawful presence.” Without a consistent definition aligned with federal guidance from USCIS and the Department of Public Safety, institutions will be left to interpret the standard on their own, leading to inconsistency and misapplication.
Student Privacy and FERPA Compliance
The provision that permits institutions to share student information with USCIS raises serious concerns. Such a requirement places students in the untenable position of having to choose between their eligibility for in-state tuition and their right to protect sensitive personal information. This risks violating the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), and forces institutions into a de facto role in immigration enforcement, which is wholly inappropriate.
Core Residency Questionnaire
The Core Residency Questionnaire, which is the primary tool used by students and administrators to assess residency status, provides no guidance on how “lawful presence” should be determined or what documentation is sufficient. Without revisions, the questionnaire will yield inequitable outcomes and perpetuate confusion for students, counselors, and administrators.
Effective Date and Grandfathering
The proposed effective date of these rules fails to account for the substantial reliance interests of current students. Many students have invested years of study and significant financial resources based on existing law. To suddenly change their residency classification undermines fairness and causes disruption, particularly for students who are close to graduation. The rules should apply prospectively only, with grandfathering for current students, to ensure stability and continuity in higher education.
For our Scholars and other Dreamers, being abruptly pulled from the universities they know— without notice—has been devastating. Students suddenly face the loss of their academic home and communities, uncertainty about where they can now enroll, and questions about how they will pay for it. Many are forced to delay or prolong their studies, take on unanticipated costs, or put their degrees on hold altogether. This disruption not only derails individual educational journeys but also delays graduates’ entry into the Texas workforce, undermining the state’s investment in talent that communities and employers urgently need. The instability harms not just Dreamers, but all Texans.
Designation of Residency Officials
Although we support the designation of a residency determination official at each institution, this measure alone will not resolve the widespread problems caused by lack of clarity. Without
standardized training and clear guidance, designated officials will be unable to apply rules consistently, and institutions risk violating FERPA and mishandling sensitive information.
Fiscal, Economic, and Educational Impacts
The Coordinating Board’s fiscal and growth impact statements significantly underestimate the real-world consequences of the proposed rules. Contrary to the conclusion that the rules impose no fiscal impact, institutions across Texas will face increased administrative costs and a substantial loss of tuition revenue as students are forced to withdraw or decline enrollment. Students will bear the heaviest burden, losing access to in-state tuition and financial aid and confronting higher tuition costs that will be prohibitive for many. The economic harm extends beyond campuses to the state as a whole.
Just from TheDream.US Scholars leaving, Texas institutions would forfeit nearly $4.3 million in tuition annually. Over the last decade, thanks to Texas’ in-state tuition policy, TheDream.US has invested more than $48 million in scholarships for students in the state. Repealing in-state tuition for undocumented students overall will cost Texas more than $461 million each year, including $244.4 million in lost wages, $216.9 million in spending power, and $46.4 million in additional economic activity generated by such students with some college. Eliminating access to affordable education in high-demand fields such as healthcare, technology, and teaching—top majors for our Scholars—will also deepen workforce shortages in industries critical to Texas’ economy and future growth.
In the long term, these rules weaken the state’s workforce pipeline, diminish upward mobility for students, and undermine the competitiveness of Texas businesses and communities that rely on a well-educated workforce.
Conclusion and Recommendations
For these reasons, TheDream.US urges the Coordinating Board to withdraw or revise the proposed rules. Clear and uniform definitions of lawful presence must be adopted in line with federal guidance, provisions requiring the disclosure of student information to USCIS should be removed to preserve compliance with FERPA, and the Core Residency Questionnaire must be updated to ensure clarity and fairness. Rules should apply prospectively only, with grandfathering for current students, and residency officials should receive comprehensive training to support consistent and equitable application. Finally, the fiscal and economic impact statements should be revised to reflect the actual and significant costs to students, institutions, and the Texas economy.
As the state’s highest authority on higher education, the Coordinating Board bears the responsibility of ensuring that its rules protect students, uphold fairness, and promote access to higher education. The proposed rules, as currently drafted, undermine these objectives by creating confusion, threatening student privacy, and inflicting unnecessary harm on students and institutions alike. We urge the Board to revise them in a manner that ensures clarity, compliance, and equity across Texas institutions.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We welcome the opportunity to provide additional testimony at the public hearing and to work with the Board toward solutions that truly advance the best interests of Texas students, families, and communities. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please feel free to contact me at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Maria Gabriela Pacheco President and CEO TheDream.US