A week after the Justice Department sued Maryland over its Dream Act, one number from that lawsuit has taken on a life of its own online: $9 million. Here’s where it actually comes from, what it measures, and what the loudest posts about it are getting wrong.
By Michael Phillips | MDBayNews
The $9 million figure driving this week’s outrage cycle is accurate as far as it goes—and considerably narrower than the story being told about it.
Since the Justice Department filed suit against Maryland on July 17 over its Dream Act, one figure from that case has spread far beyond the legal filing itself: $9 million. It’s the number Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward cited in DOJ’s announcement, and it’s now showing up in viral posts, campaign statements, and shares from accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers, almost always presented as $9 million in taxpayer money handed directly to people in the country illegally.
That’s not what the number is. It’s real, it’s sourced, and it’s worth taking seriously — but it measures something narrower than “spending,” and the gap between the figure and how it’s being described is doing a lot of the work in the outrage cycle around it.
Where the Number Actually Comes From
The $9 million traces to a 2025 report from Maryland Higher Education Commission Secretary Sanjay Rai, cited directly in DOJ’s complaint. It measures the combined tuition reduction — the difference between what out-of-state tuition would have cost and what students actually paid at the in-state rate — for undocumented students enrolled under the Dream Act between summer 2024 and spring 2025: roughly 500 students across 15 community colleges and 309 students across nine public four-year universities.
The figure is a rate differential, not a cash outlay.
Critically, the figure is a rate differential, not a cash outlay — money the state never collected from these students, not money the state cut a check for. That distinction is the difference between “foregone revenue” and “an appropriated expenditure,” and it matters for how the number should be read. No line item in Maryland’s budget sends $9 million to undocumented students. The number represents the gap between two hypothetical tuition bills.
No line item in Maryland’s budget sends $9 million to undocumented students.
“Costing Maryland taxpayers roughly $9M for just one academic year.”
— Stanley Woodward, Associate U.S. Attorney GeneralHow It’s Being Used
DOJ’s own framing already leans toward “cost,” not “reduction” — Woodward’s statement describes the state as “subsidizing education for illegal aliens” at that price tag. Online, the framing has gotten considerably less careful. Posts amplifying the figure this week have described it as taxpayer money being “burned” or “spent,” language that implies a direct transfer rather than a discount off a bill the state was never on track to collect in full anyway.
Del. Matt Morgan (R-St. Mary’s) was one of the Maryland elected officials amplifying the number this week, framing it as a straightforward before-and-after: what in-state families pay versus what undocumented students receive. Morgan said in his post that he’d raised the same policy on the House floor previously. He argued hardworking Maryland families scrape and sacrifice for the same education undocumented students get at a discount. It’s a real political argument about fairness — but it’s a values argument, not a correction to the dollar figure itself, which nobody serious disputes.
What the Number Leaves Out
The $9 million also doesn’t capture the other side of the ledger DOJ isn’t arguing about: what these roughly 809 students still paid. Dream Act eligibility gets a student the in-state or in-county rate — not free tuition. Every one of them was still billed, and the state still collected on those bills. The $9 million is the delta between that collected amount and the out-of-state rate they’d otherwise have owed, a rate most in-state Maryland residents also never pay, since it applies only to nonresidents.
Eliminating the discount wouldn’t necessarily recover $9 million for the state—it could simply mean fewer students enroll.
There’s a further question neither DOJ nor Maryland’s defenders have addressed: whether that $9 million was ever realistically collectible. If most of these roughly 809 students couldn’t afford the out-of-state rate, eliminating the discount wouldn’t recover $9 million for the state — it would just mean fewer of them enroll. The number describes tuition actually foregone on real students currently enrolled; it isn’t necessarily a reliable estimate of what repeal would recover. This outlet hasn’t found Maryland-specific data on how these students or their families would respond to losing the discount, so treat this as an open question the lawsuit raises rather than a settled fact — but it’s a real gap in the $9 million framing on both sides of the debate.
A Number That Describes a Growing Program
Whatever the number is in next year’s report, it’s measuring a program that’s structurally easier to qualify for than it was a year ago.
One thing worth separating from the “cost versus reduction” debate: the $9 million is a snapshot of a policy that has gotten more generous since Maryland voters last weighed in on it directly. The version of the Dream Act ratified at referendum in November 2012 required a student’s family to file Maryland tax returns for three consecutive years to qualify. The General Assembly’s 2024 In-State Tuition Modernization Act cut that to two years, a change lawmakers made permanent earlier in 2026 — expanding eligibility without sending the revision back to voters. A 2019 amendment separately broadened which postsecondary benefits qualifying students could access.
That matters for how to read the $9 million going forward. It’s a one-year figure from a two-years-and-still-tightening eligibility window, not a fixed cost from a static law. Whatever the number is in next year’s MHEC report, it’s measuring a program that’s structurally easier to qualify for than it was a year ago — which is a separate, and more durable, point than any single year’s dollar total.
None of this settles whether Maryland’s Dream Act should exist or whether DOJ’s legal theory will prevail.
None of this settles whether Maryland’s Dream Act should exist, or whether DOJ’s preemption theory will hold up in court — that fight is now underway, and this outlet has covered it separately. But the $9 million figure driving this week’s outrage cycle is accurate as far as it goes and considerably narrower than the “taxpayers are funding illegal immigration” framing racking up shares. It’s a real number attached to an inflated story about what it means.
Sources U.S. Department of Justice, complaint filed July 17, 2026, U.S. District Court for Maryland · Statement of Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, July 17, 2026 · Maryland Higher Education Commission, 2025 report of Secretary Sanjay Rai · Public statements, Del. Matt Morgan (R-St. Mary’s)
Keep MDBayNews Reporting Free
MDBayNews exists to help Marylanders understand decisions made by state and local leaders — especially when those decisions affect daily life, rights, and public services.
If this article helped clarify what’s happening or why it matters, reader support makes it possible to keep publishing clear, independent reporting like this.
Have a tip or documents to share?
We review submissions carefully and confidentially. Anonymous tips are welcome when appropriate.
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.