Other higher education institutions in IN weigh in on flat fees
Purdue University
Officials with Purdue University agreed on flat rates for the fourteenth year in a row.
The Purdue University Board of Trustees say on April 4 it endorsed President Mung Chiang's request for a 14th consecutive tuition freeze and approved his faculty and staff salary policy request for fiscal year 2026 for the main campus with a 2% recurring increase, plus a 0.5% nonrecurring recognition of 'exceptional' employee contributions.
'Purdue is in a unique position in American higher education: We can continue freezing tuition and maximize student access as a land-grant institution while simultaneously maintaining our commitment to the dedicated faculty and staff vital to achieving excellence at scale,' Chiang said. 'At a time when many universities have chosen salary freezes or reduction in workforce, Purdue is in a strong position financially to make salary investments to recognize the capabilities of its workforce and further improve its competitiveness in recruiting top talent.'
Officials say the freeze of core tuition and mandatory fees — to be formally approved by trustees in late spring 2025 per state statute, after the legislative budget setting — means Purdue students will see no increase in tuition through at least the 2026-27 academic year. Base undergraduate tuition will remain at $9,992 per year for Indiana residents and $28,794 for out-of-state students through 2026-27.
According to Purdue University, except for the pandemic year of 2020-21, Purdue has offered a merit increase every year since 2010. In November 2020 more than 15,000 employees received a one-time appreciation award of $750.
U.S. Supreme Court to hear Representative Bost's case on mail-in voting
Ivy Tech
Ivy Tech says it is planning to hold tuition and fees flat for the next two years.
Ivy Tech says it will recommend its State Board of Trustees hold these fees flat for the next two years in compliance with the recommendation by Governor Braun and the Indiana Commission for Higher Education. Leaders from Ivy Tech will present this adjusted structure to the State Board of Trustees for adoption during its June 5 meeting in Indianapolis.
Ivy Tech says it last raised tuition in 2023 after changing the structure of its distance education and tech fees and integrating those into the tuition rate for students. Tuition increased in Academic Year 2023-24 from $2,243.25 to $2,455.76 per semester for full-time students. In Academic Year 24-2025, it increased from $2,455.76 to $2,577.11 per semester for full-time students. However, this fee restructuring and reduction effort ultimately resulted in 70% of students paying less during the 2023-2025 biennium than in the previous two years.
On Friday, Ivy Tech announced a statewide reduction in force impacting 202 employees in Indiana, including 11 in the Evansville service area.
Crews work to repair sink hole near Oak Hill Cemetery
Indiana University
Indiana University says it will recommend that tuition and mandatory fees for in-state undergraduate students be held flat for the next two years.
Officials say the IU Board of Trustees will hold a public forum on the proposed tuition and fees for the 2025-27 academic years at 12:15 p.m. on June 12, at IU Bloomington's Henke Hall of Champions.
While IU is proposing no increase in tuition or mandatory fees for in-state undergraduate students, the board will consider a proposed tuition increase of up to 2% for graduate programs, with an exception for some programs in the health and medical fields.
IU says beginning in fiscal year 2024, the university reduced the number of academic fees by half. IU Bloomington also announced earlier this year that it will increase its minimum stipend pay for graduate students who hold part-time teaching or research appointments, effective July 1.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
33 minutes ago
- USA Today
10 reasons every American adult should invest in the stock market
The stock market isn't just for rich investors. Jeremy Siegel, the Wharton School finance professor who wrote the classic investing book Stocks for the Long Run, famously called the stock market the "greatest wealth creator of all time" if those results are measured in decades instead of months or years. However, a recent Gallup survey found that only 62% of U.S. adults are currently invested in the stock market through individual stocks, mutual funds or retirement accounts. The ones who aren't invested might be shunning stocks due to a lack of cash, a low tolerance for risk, a distrust of Wall Street or poor financial literacy. So today, let's cut through all that confusion and discuss 10 reasons every American adult should be invested in the stock market — regardless of their income, savings or appetite for risk. 1. Savings accounts can't beat inflation From 2004 to 2024, the U.S. had an average annual inflation rate of 2.5%. During that same period, U.S. savings accounts paid an average annual yield of 1%. So if you had simply kept your cash in a savings account, your purchasing power would have steadily withered. The Federal Reserve's rate hikes in 2022 and 2023 boosted the yields of savings accounts, CDs and T-bills to between 3% and 5%, but those yields will shrivel again as interest rates drop. 2. Bonds don't always beat inflation Some bonds — like Treasury-Protected Inflation Securities (TIPS), Series I (inflation-tracking) bonds, and long-term Treasuries — are designed to keep pace with inflation. However, most Series EE (fixed-rate), municipal and corporate bonds struggle to stay ahead of that curve. Some of those bonds might outpace inflation over the short term with higher yields, but they usually come with a lot more credit risk than lower-yielding bonds. 3. The S&P 500 outpaces inflation Meanwhile, the S&P 500 — the index of the 500 leading publicly traded companies in the U.S. — delivered an average annual return of more than 10% since its inception in 1957. Past performance never guarantees future gains, but the S&P 500 should keep rising as long as the U.S. economy keeps expanding. So if you don't want to fret over individual stocks, you can directly invest in the S&P 500 through the low-cost Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEMKT: VOO). 4. It doesn't cost anything to get started In the past, investors were usually charged commissions for each trade. But over the past decade, commission-free trades — which were popularized by newer trading platforms like Robinhood Markets — became the industry standard. 5. Fractional trades make investing even simpler With some of the market's top stocks trading at hundreds or thousands of dollars per share, it seems like you need a lot of cash to get started. That was true in the past, but most brokerages now offer fractional trades — which allow you to gradually accumulate shares of high-flying stocks like Nvidia or Amazon. 6. Small investments add up over time If you'd invest $100 each month with a modest 8% annual return, you would compound your gains to over $150,000 in 30 years. Therefore, you don't necessarily need to set aside a lot of cash to thrive in the stock market — you just need to make consistent, bite-sized investments. 7. The top stocks aren't as volatile as you think There are plenty of risky and volatile stocks. But there are also plenty of evergreen stocks that pay predictable dividends and generate fairly stable long-term returns. For example, Coca-Cola's stock rallied 213% over the past 20 years — and if you had reinvested your dividends, you would have generated a total return of 473% and easily outpaced inflation. Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway surged 786% during the same period. 8. It's a great way to gain a financial education The stock market might seem confusing, but it becomes clearer once you understand a company's business model, evaluate its earnings reports, and realize that it only requires simple arithmetic to calculate the stock's valuations. Once you grasp those basic metrics, it becomes easier to analyze stocks and understand the broader financial markets. Teaching yourself how to invest is a great way to increase your own financial literacy and make smarter decisions with money. 9. You should secure your retirement today Being smarter with money could help you retire earlier and more comfortably. But according to the Federal Reserve, only 54.3% of Americans have retirement accounts, and a mere 4.7% of those accounts have hit $1 million in savings. Building up a portfolio of stocks, index funds and exchange-traded funds could help you join that elite minority. 10. Passive income grants you more freedom Once you build up a $1 million portfolio, you can spread it across conservative dividend stocks that pay yields of 4% to 5% to generate $40,000 to $50,000 in extra income every year. If you don't need that cash right away, you can reinvest it into the same stocks to compound your gains. That's why stocks are still definitely one of the world's greatest wealth creators — and why every adult in the U.S. should have some exposure to the stock market in their retirement accounts. John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Leo Sun has positions in Amazon and Berkshire Hathaway. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, Nvidia and Vanguard S&P 500 ETF. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
38 minutes ago
'This Week' Transcript 7-6-25: Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers Stephen Miran, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Dr. Richard Besser
A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, July 6, 2024 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive. STEPHANOPOULOS: Want to get more on this now from former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers. Also the former president of Harvard University. Larry, thank you for joining us this morning. In "The New York Times" this week, you and Robert Rubin, who also served as president -- as Treasury secretary, called this bill dangerous, said it 'posed a huge risk to the economy.' What are those risks? FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY LARRY SUMMERS: George, just to start with, what your people have been describing is the biggest cut in the American safety net in history. The Yale Budget Lab estimates that it will kill, over 10 years, 100,000 people. That is 2,000 days of death like we've seen in Texas this weekend. In my 70 years, I've never been as embarrassed for my country on July 4th. These higher interest rates, these cutbacks in subsidies to electricity, these reductions in the availability of housing, the fact that hospitals are going to have to take care of these people and pass on the costs to everybody else, and that's going to mean more inflation, more risk that the Fed has to raise interest rates and run the risk of recession, more stagflation, that's the risk facing every middle-class family in our country because of this bill. And for what? A million dollars over 10 years to the top tenth of a percent of our population. Is that the highest priority use of federal money right now? I don't think so. This is a shameful act by our Congress and by our president that is going to set our country back. STEPHANOPOULOS: Part of the president's argument is that economic growth sparked by the bill will alleviate the dangers that you talk about here. The chair of the Council of Economic Advisers is up next, and his council issued a report this week projecting $11 trillion in deficit reduction from growth, higher tax revenue and savings on debt payments. How do you respond to that? SUMMERS: It is respectfully nonsense. None of us can forecast what's going to happen to economic growth. What we can forecast is that when people have to hold government debt instead of being able to invest it in new capital goods, new machinery, new buildings, that makes the economy less productive. What we can forecast is that when we're investing less in research and development, investing less in our schools, that there is a negative impact on economic growth. There is no economist anywhere, without a strong political agenda, who is saying that this bill is a positive for the economy. And the overwhelming view is that it is probably going to make the economy worse. Think about it this way. How long can the world's greatest debtor remain the world's greatest power? And this is piling more debt onto the economy than any piece of tax legislation in dollar terms that we have ever had. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Larry, as you know, experts in the past have raised alarm bells about the deficits, and the economy seems pretty resilient in the face of that. SUMMERS: George, the best period we have had in the economy was the economy that -- was the period that Secretary Rubin and I wrote about when we served President Clinton and by acting responsibly on the deficit by listening to the CBO rather than expressing contempt for it, we reduced the deficit, set off a virtual -- virtues circle of increased investment, more growth, lower deficits, lower interest rates, and then around the cycle again. Experts warn about risks. And I can't tell you whether the financial crisis is going to come this year or whether the financial crisis is going to come five years from now. And I'm not going to do cry wolf rhetoric. By the way, I was the one who was saying for a decade after 2010 that deficit reduction didn't need to be a national priority. But anybody who looks at the numbers sees that we've never had deficits remotely like this or the prospect of debts remotely like this at a moment when the economy was strong and we were at peace anytime in our history. This is a risk that we don't need to run, and for what? To give $1 million a year to the top-tenth of a percent while, in effect, sentencing 100,000 poor Americans to death over the next 10 years because they can't get access to necessary medical procedures, because they can't get driven to a hospital, because their family members can't get supported? This is just wrong. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally -- SUMMERS: Look, there are lots of things, George, that you argue about, and Democrats, Republicans have different perspectives. This is that very rare instance where everybody outside of a mainstream sees something very dangerous happen. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, the president's team argued that tariff revenue is going to help make up some of the shortfall. What's your response? SUMMERS: Yeah, it probably will collect some revenue at the cost of higher inflation for American consumers, less competitiveness for American producers. 60 times as many people use -- work in industries that use steel as work in the steel industry, and every one of them is less competitive because of the president's tariffs. So, higher prices, less competitiveness, and not really that much revenue relative to what's being given to the very wealthy in this bill. STEPHANOPOULOS: Larry Summers, thanks very much. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's get more on the health care impact now from our former colleague, Dr. Richard Besser, president of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Rich, thank you for joining us this morning. Your -- your organization said this legislation is going to devastate the U.S. health care system. Spell out why you believe that. DR. RICHARD BESSER, FORMER CDC ACTING DIRECTOR & ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON PRESIDENT AND CEO: Yes, I mean, George, the -- the -- the -- the piece we just heard laid out some of that. This is the biggest cut to federal support to health care in history. A trillion dollars coming out of that, you know, and it will reverse generations of improvement we had been making in terms of getting people access to health care. The Congressional Budget Office says that over 11 million people will lose access to health care. I worked in community clinics for over 30 years, and in those clinics, some patients had Medicaid and some had no insurance. And I saw the struggle that people would make to determine, 'Should I come in for my health care,' 'Should I pay for my medications,' or, 'Should I use that money for rent, to put food on the table?' This bill will make it so much harder and will put so many more people in that position. STEPHANOPOULOS: Defenders of the president's plan said that the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, as you just cited, has a history of overestimating the coverage cuts, and that most states will find workarounds to these work requirements. How do you respond to that? BESSER: Well, you know, we have an example. Arkansas tried work requirements -- the idea that anyone who should be able to work should work to get benefits. And what they found was that the number of people working didn't go up at all, but over 11,000 people lost their Medicaid insurance. And it not only affects those individuals, which is bad enough, but rural hospitals across America depend on Medicaid dollars to stay in existence. It's predicted that there could be hundreds of rural hospitals that close. Those hospitals are also a driver for businesses. Businesses don't want to move into a community without a hospital. There are so many repercussions of this bill. I don't know how someone can go back to their district and face the people who voted for them after they intentionally are causing so much pain and harm across our nation. STEPHANOPOULOS: Beyond the cuts on Medicaid, there are also some changes for -- to those who are covered by the Affordable Care Act and the overall impact on health insurance costs. What should we expect? BESSER: Well, you know, this -- we all know that the Affordable Care Act wasn't the end game. We're the only wealthy nation in which not every person who lives here has access to health care, but the Affordable Care Act moved us in that direction. But this does nothing to help people who have health insurance but are finding it too expensive. This makes it harder in terms of not providing people with the -- with the extra supplement to help pay for their insurance. So, we're going to see more and more people who are not able to get the care that they need. And what that leads to is that people who were healthy become unhealthy and become unable to work. People with disabilities in particular can be hit hard. One-third of people with disabilities get Medicaid and it helps keep people healthy with disabilities so they can work. That's going to be -- that's going to be a challenge with this. STEPHANOPOULOS: How can organizations like yours fill the gap? BESSER: Well, we can't. What we can do is work with others to put forward a vision of what should be. We should be a nation in which every single person has access to high quality, comprehensive, affordable health care. We're going to be working on that. We're going to be putting forward that message. But we cannot fill the gap from what the government is doing. And there's an assault on health care that's coming from all sides. You know, this bill is doing it to the health care system, to food support. We're seeing it with our secretary of health who's doing it to our vaccine system. There are so many assaults. The National Institutes of Health, which is where our cures and future treatments come from, they're under assault. You know, it's hard to pick one of these, and philanthropy cannot fill those gaps, but we can use our voice to call out the concerns that we see for health broadly across our nation. STEPHANOPOULOS: Rich Besser, thanks very much. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's get a response now from Stephen Miran, the Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. Steve, thanks for coming in this morning. You just heard Mr. Summers right there. He starts out saying the bill is dangerous, huge risks. STEPHEN MIRAN, CHAIR, WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS: Thanks for having me. Look, I think that there's been a lot of -- a lot of doom mongering, a lot of scare mongering, and this isn't the first time, by the way. During the president's first term, lots of folks said that the president's historic tariffs on China during the first term were going to be terrible for the economy. And there was no lasting evidence of that whatsoever. There was no meaningful economic inflation, no meaningful economic slowdown. Everything was actually pretty OK in response to the tariffs last time. And thus far again, this time, we've had a repeat of the same performance whereby lots of folks predicted that it would end the world, there would be some sort of disastrous outcome. And once again, tariff revenue is pouring in. There's no sign of any economically significant inflation whatsoever, and job creation remains healthy. STEPHANOPOULOS: Job creation does remain healthy. But let's talk about the Bill to begin. I want to get back to tariffs in a second. This increase in the debt, he says that every major economist who doesn't have a political agenda, agrees that this is going to pose a danger to the economy because of the increased debt service payments. MIRAN: Yeah, I don't think that's -- I don't think that that's true at all. And I think the historical record is on our side. It's the same combination of policies, tax cuts, deregulation, trade renegotiation, and energy abundance that gave us astounding economic growth in the president's first term, 2.8 percent until the pandemic. And that's exactly what we forecast again, very similar numbers. STEPHANOPOULOS: That was one year. MIRAN: No, no, no, 2017 to 2019. The annualized rate over those three years was 2.8 percent. Right? Very high economic growth as a result of these same policies. And that's just a statistical fact. And so, what the people who predict big deficits don't understand is that economic growth is going to soar in response to these policies. If you give massive incentives for investment, huge incentives for new factories, full expensing on new factories, full expensing on equipment, full expensing on R&D expenditures, that incentivizes more of this stuff. You're going to get more people investing in factories as a result of these tax benefits. More investment means more income. More income means more tax revenue. And as a result, deficits go down. STEPHANOPOULOS: Why should we not believe the CBO when they say that something approaching a little more than 11 million people are going to be -- are going to lose their healthcare coverage because of the Medicaid cuts? MIRAN: Well, because they've been wrong in the past. When Republicans repealed the individual mandate penalty during the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in the president's first term, CBO predicted that there was going to be about 5 million people losing their insurance by 2019. And you know what? The number was not very significantly changed at all. It was a tiny fraction of that. And so, they've been wrong in the past. And look, if we don't pass the -- if we didn't pass the Bill, eight to nine million people would've lost their insurance for sure, as a result of the biggest tax act in history creating a huge recession. The best way to make sure people are insured is to grow the economy, get them jobs, get them working, get them insurance through their employer. Creating jobs, creating a booming economy is always the best way to get people insured. STEPHANOPOULOS: On tariffs, the deadline, the president's deadline is approaching for the deals. We've only seen three deals so far. What should we expect next? MIRAN: Well, I'm still optimistic that we're going to get a number of deals later this week. Part of that is because all the negotiating goes through a series of steps that lead to -- that lead to a culmination timed with the deadline. But it's important that countries line up to make concessions to get those deals, to convince the president that they should get lower tariff rates. And thus far, it's been happening. The president has very successfully used leverage and the threat of tariffs to get companies to create -- to grant concessions to open their markets to U.S. goods. STEPHANOPOULOS: But we've only seen an agreement with Britain. It's really just the framework of an agreement. We've seen the agreement with Vietnam. Where are the other deals? MIRAN: Well, I'm -- as I said, I'm still expecting a number to come this week. The Vietnam deal was fantastic. It's extremely one-sided. We get to apply a significant tariff to Vietnamese exports. They're opening their markets to ours, you know, applying zero tariff to our exports. It's a fantastic deal for Americans. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, if the -- but if these other deals don't come in this week, will the president be extending the deadline? MIRAN: Well, my expectation would be that countries that are negotiating in good faith and making the concessions that they need to, to get to a deal, but the deal is just not there yet because it needs more time, my expectation would be that those countries get a roll, get, you know, sort of, get the date rolled. STEPHANOPOULOS: Like which countries are those? MIRAN: Well, I mean, I think we're seeing lots of good progress on a variety of countries. You know, I -- to be clear, I'm not a trade negotiator. I'm not involved in the details of these talks, but I hear good things about the talks with Europe. I hear good things about the talks with India, you know? And so, I would expect that a number of countries that are in the process of making those nego -- making those concessions, you know, they might see their date rolled. For the countries that aren't making concessions, for the countries that aren't negotiating in good faith, I would expect them to sort of see higher tariffs. But, again, the president will decide -- you know, the president will decide later this week, and in the time following, whether or not the countries are doing what it takes to get access to the American market like they've grown accustomed to. STEPHANOPOULOS: We saw new jobs numbers come in this week. As I said, the economy seems pretty resilient. But underneath the overall numbers, there does seem to be some slowdown among private sector job creation. Concerned? MIRAN: Well, it's not really a concern because of the huge incentives we have to unleash growth in the -- in the near future. The One Big, Beautiful Bill is going to create growth on turbocharge. Cutting regulations, cutting red tape so that companies can invest, build higher when and where they want instead of spending years begging permission from Washington is going to turbocharge growth. Opening foreign markets to U.S. exports by getting concessions through trade renegotiation is going to turbocharge growth. Low energy prices like the president is achieving, lowest gas prices since 2021 at the pump is going to turbocharge growth. And all that's to come. STEPHANOPOULOS: You say this is all going to turbocharge growth. We have seen some experience with this back -- in Ronald Reagan's day, back in 1981. He had huge tax cuts. The growth didn't come, and they had to end up raising taxes for several years after that. Concerned that could happen again? MIRAN: Well, like I said before, you know, history's on our side. If you look at what happened in the president's first term, growth soared and there was no real material, you know, meaningful long-term decline in revenue. Revenue as a share of GDP was 17.1 percent last year, the same as it was before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. So, you got this huge surge in growth as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. There was no material long-term decline in revenue. Corporate revenue even went up as a share of GDP from 1.6 to 1.9 percent. And the growth delivered. And we expect the same thing to happen this time.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump can shatter the abortion pill cartel
The abortion pill is the only life-ending drug that does not require consultation or any assurance of accurate identifying information. In fact, for a drug that is intended to end a pregnancy, distributors do not even have to confirm pregnancy at all. Anyone not looking through the rose-colored glasses handed out by the abortion lobby can see this lack of regulation for what it clearly is: a recipe for rampant abuse. Several women have already come forward, sharing how their partner ordered the pill and drugged them, forcing abortions. Victims of sex trafficking have also come forward, recounting how they were forced to abort — often multiple times — by their captors, using the abortion pill. Somehow, these women go largely ignored by policymakers and those with the power to prevent future abuse. Abortion pill manufacturers and distributors have been allowed to form a cartel across and within the borders of the U.S. that has gone unchecked. Even those who pride themselves on giving women 'choice' should recognize there is no choice in such abuse. There is no consent in being forced to abort a wanted child. Abortion advocates' core pillar of 'autonomy' has been torn down to nothing more than rubble. As a nation, we attack the foreign cartels threatening the American people in many ways. But can we identify and shatter the ones we have allowed to form within our own borders? Since the Biden-era FDA used the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to remove the in-person dispensing requirement for the abortion drug mifepristone in 2021, abortion pill distributors have rapidly built their expansive cartel. Women and their abusers can access these cartel distributors online and are often required to fill out questionnaires that have no way to verify whether the alleged patient is actually the one behind the screen. Some of the questionnaires tied to these tele services ask you to confidentially verify your name and other personal identifying information. They even ask if you are being forced to order the pills. But what use are any of these questions when the abuser can easily circumvent the system and identify as the victim? In his first term, President Trump ordered one foreign abortion pill distributor to cease and desist illegal trafficking of abortion drugs not approved by the FDA into the U.S. Unfortunately, the administration did not follow through on its warning to the doctor in charge, and trafficking of the pill has only escalated. This term, the Trump administration has the opportunity and ability to send the abortion pill cartel packing. Most urgently, the Trump FDA can reinstate the in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone. New data shows that by the end of 2024 one in four abortions were provided via 'telehealth,' demonstrating real and immediate impact reinstating REMS requirements would have. This unilateral administrative action can put a swift end to the domestic and criminal mail-order distribution of abortion pills. Although it will not prevent foreign cartel partners from sending the drugs into the country or in-person dispensing at brick-and-mortar abortion businesses, it is a first step. The Trump administration also needs to heighten scrutiny around mifepristone by working with the Department of Health and Human Services and the DEA to designate the drug as a controlled substance. Drugs with high potential for abuse and which may lead to psychological or physical damage are set to only be prescribed by certain licensed practitioners that hold DEA certifications — and mifepristone should not be an exception. Abuse of the abortion pill is rampant. Recent studies have shed further light on the expanded physical and psychological adverse events women are experiencing by taking mifepristone. Women being forced into abortion via the deregulation of the abortion pill are even more likely to experience these dangerous outcomes. The U.S. Code already creates heightened oversight and penalties for importation of controlled substances. If the Trump administration designates the abortion pill as a controlled substance, it will equip the Department of Justice to prosecute members of the cartel — both foreign and domestic — to the fullest extent of the law. Trump must also work alongside the Republican Congress to uphold state laws that prevent abortion pill trafficking. States such as Louisiana and Texas have laws in place that prohibit the abortion pill from being sent women within their borders, but it has been an uphill battle to enforce them, with pro-abortion states enacting shield laws to prevent prosecution of cartel abortionists engaging in pill trafficking. This term, Trump must hold true to abolish cartels — including the ones previous administrations have given free rein within our own borders. If Trump truly believes abortion to be a state issue, he should ensure that states have the power to protect their citizens. Women deserve to live without the paranoia that they might be the next victim of this dangerous cartel. Gavin Oxley is a public relations consultant currently serving at Americans United for Life.
