The Cruel Politics Behind Trump's Attack on California's Undocumented Students

The Legal Challenge and Its Context

The Trump administration has launched its sixth lawsuit against states providing in-state tuition to undocumented students, targeting California’s longstanding policies that have enabled over 100,000 college students without legal status to pursue higher education. The Department of Justice alleges that California’s Assembly Bill 540 violates both the Constitution and a 1996 federal law that prohibits states from offering benefits to undocumented residents that aren’t equally available to all U.S. citizens nationwide.

At the heart of this controversy is AB 540, passed in 2001, which grants in-state tuition to students who attend California high schools for three years and graduate, regardless of immigration status. This policy saves qualified students nearly $39,000 annually compared to out-of-state tuition rates. These students can also qualify for California’s Cal Grant program, though only a small percentage actually apply and receive this assistance.

The Human Impact

The lawsuit creates immediate anxiety for students like Michelle (a pseudonym), a community college student in San Mateo County who works four days weekly at a restaurant while attending school full-time. As the oldest of four children, she sends $500 monthly to support her parents while striving to build a better life through education. For these students, the threat of losing financial aid represents not just an inconvenience but potentially the end of their educational dreams.

The timing couldn’t be worse - arriving during the critical financial aid application season when students are already navigating a problematic FAFSA rollout and widespread misinformation on social media platforms like TikTok. The psychological toll on these vulnerable students cannot be overstated, as they face the prospect of having their educational pathways abruptly closed.

Questionable Legal Foundations

Legal experts across the political spectrum have expressed skepticism about the lawsuit’s viability. UC Davis law professor Kevin Johnson characterizes the action as part of a “full-court press on undocumented immigrants and so-called sanctuary jurisdictions” rather than a serious legal challenge. The naming of the case as “United States of America v. Newsom” further suggests political theater rather than substantive legal argument.

The California Supreme Court already addressed this exact issue in 2010, rejecting the interpretation that AB 540 violates federal law. The court noted that the policy isn’t based on residency but on educational history within California - a crucial distinction that undermines the DOJ’s argument. The policy also benefits many U.S. citizens who meet the educational requirements but may not be California residents, demonstrating that the law wasn’t designed specifically to benefit undocumented students exclusively.

Political Motivations Over Policy Solutions

This lawsuit appears less about legal consistency and more about scoring political points against a state that has consistently opposed Trump’s immigration agenda. The administration has targeted multiple California institutions recently, including seeking a $1 billion penalty against UCLA for alleged civil rights abuses and suing California colleges for alleged antisemitism violations.

The bipartisan nature of in-state tuition policies across more than 20 states underscores how this issue traditionally transcended political divisions. Texas, a conservative stronghold, was actually the first state to implement such policies in 2001. That the Trump administration has successfully prompted Republican leaders in Kentucky, Oklahoma and Texas to terminate these benefits speaks to the highly polarized current political environment rather than any substantive legal evolution.

Economic and Social Consequences

Beyond the legal questions, this attack on educational access makes poor economic sense. As economists have noted, undocumented immigrants form an integral part of the U.S. workforce and aren’t easily replaceable. Denying education to students who have already been educated in California schools represents a tremendous waste of invested resources and human potential.

These students represent exactly the type of immigrant success story that should be celebrated - young people who have overcome significant obstacles, excelled academically, and seek to contribute meaningfully to their communities. They work hard, pay taxes, and embody the American values of perseverance and self-improvement. To deny them educational opportunities is both economically shortsighted and morally indefensible.

The Larger Pattern of Institutional Attack

This lawsuit represents just one front in a broader assault on institutions that protect vulnerable populations and provide pathways to upward mobility. The systematic attempt to dismantle educational opportunities for undocumented students fits into a pattern of attacking sanctuary cities, undermining public education, and weakening the Department of Education’s capacity to serve all students.

The political nature of these attacks becomes particularly evident when considering Trump’s contradictory statements on immigration. In 2024, he told a podcast host that students should “automatically” receive green cards upon college graduation - a position completely at odds with his administration’s current legal strategy. This inconsistency reveals the performative nature of these attacks rather than any principled policy position.

Defending Educational Access as a Constitutional Value

As defenders of democracy and liberty, we must recognize that educational access represents a fundamental American value. The pursuit of knowledge and self-improvement lies at the heart of the American dream, and denying this opportunity based on immigration status contradicts our nation’s founding principles.

The California Department of Justice has already signaled its intention to vigorously defend these policies, with spokesperson Nina Sheridan stating: “The Trump Administration has once again missed the mark with its latest attack on California, and we look forward to proving it in court.” This defense isn’t just about legal technicalities but about protecting the very idea that education should be accessible to all who strive for it.

The Path Forward

Legal experts like Thomas A. Saenz of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund suggest that even the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would likely side with California if the case progresses that far. The concept of federal preemption - the legal doctrine underpinning the DOJ’s argument - represents a pillar of jurisprudence that benefits both liberal and conservative interests when applied consistently.

Business interests particularly rely on preemption rules to navigate conflicting state and federal regulations, meaning the Supreme Court would be “very wary of making bad law in the realm of preemption, because it could then come back to bite the right wing in protecting businesses,” as Saenz noted. This practical consideration may ultimately protect California’s policies even in a conservative court.

Moral Imperative Over Political Calculation

Ultimately, this lawsuit represents a failure of moral leadership and a betrayal of American values. Targeting vulnerable students who have done everything asked of them - exelling academically, working multiple jobs, contributing to their communities - demonstrates a profound lack of humanity and foresight.

As a nation built by immigrants and dedicated to the proposition that all people deserve opportunity, we cannot allow political theater to destroy lives and waste potential. These students aren’t asking for special treatment - they’re asking for the chance to earn their place in American society through hard work and determination.

The cruelty of this lawsuit is matched only by its pointlessness. Even if successful, it would accomplish little beyond destroying dreams and weakening our educational system. As defenders of democracy and liberty, we must stand against such attacks on fundamental American values and support policies that expand opportunity rather than restrict it.

Our nation’s strength has always derived from our ability to integrate new generations of strivers and dreamers. This lawsuit represents not just a legal attack on California’s policies but an ideological assault on the very idea of America as a land of opportunity. We must reject this narrow vision and reaffirm our commitment to educational access for all who seek to better themselves and contribute to our shared society.