According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 2066, the repeal of the Texas Research Incentive Program (TRIP) is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state. While TRIP provides matching funds to public universities to encourage private donations for research enhancement, the amount of state funding disbursed is contingent on legislative appropriations. As such, the repeal of the statute alone does not automatically reduce current spending unless the Legislature also withholds future appropriations for the program.

The TRIP program is administered by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and has historically supported research capacity-building efforts at institutions within the University of Texas System, Texas Tech University System, Texas State University System, University of Houston System, and others. Despite this broad institutional footprint, the LBB does not anticipate that removing statutory authority for the program would generate meaningful short-term savings or costs, particularly if existing appropriations are already spent or reallocated through the budget process.

At the local level, the bill is also projected to have no significant fiscal implications for local government entities. However, it may indirectly affect university fundraising strategies, as the removal of matching state funds could decrease the incentive for private donors to contribute to public research initiatives. While this dynamic might place financial pressure on some university systems in the long term, those effects are considered indirect and outside the scope of the LBB’s official fiscal impact determination.

SB 2066 repeals the Texas Research Incentive Program (TRIP), a state initiative that provides matching funds to eligible public universities to incentivize private donations for research enhancement and faculty recruitment. While TRIP was initially created to elevate the research capabilities of emerging institutions and attract external funding, this bill reflects a policy judgment that the program has either fulfilled its role or no longer represents an efficient or necessary use of state resources.

The fiscal note underscores that repealing TRIP is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state, largely because appropriations to the program are discretionary and tied to budgetary decisions. Importantly, the state budget (S.B. 1) already includes contingency funding to address a backlog of certified but unmatched donations, signaling the Legislature’s intent to responsibly sunset the program without defaulting on prior commitments​.

From a limited government standpoint, repealing TRIP helps reduce the state's involvement in directing research priorities through financial incentives. Over time, the existence of state matching funds can encourage universities to shift focus toward donors aligned with funding formulas rather than independent academic goals. Eliminating the program reinforces the idea that research funding decisions should emerge from the private sector and institutional leadership—not from ongoing state subsidy mechanisms.

While concerns exist about the potential downstream impact on research activity and public-private partnerships, the bill provides a clear opportunity to rein in the scope of government in higher education finance and return focus to core state functions. Institutions can continue to seek private donations on their own merit, without dependency on state matches. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 2066 as a step toward disciplined governance and fiscal responsibility.

• Individual Liberty: While TRIP’s goal of expanding research could be seen as advancing academic freedom, its reliance on state matching funds ties private philanthropy to government oversight and bureaucracy. By repealing TRIP, the bill arguably enhances institutional autonomy by removing the incentive for universities to tailor fundraising strategies around state-defined metrics. In this way, the repeal may encourage universities and private donors to collaborate free from political influence, preserving intellectual independence.
• Personal Responsibility: TRIP neither imposes obligations on individuals nor shields them from the consequences of their actions. However, its repeal aligns with a view of higher education institutions as self-governing bodies responsible for managing their own fundraising and research agendas without reliance on state subsidies. The principle is indirectly reinforced by reducing institutional dependency on state funding mechanisms.
• Free Enterprise: Though TRIP fosters public-private partnerships, it does so by using taxpayer dollars to artificially steer private investment into research priorities favored by the state. Its repeal removes a state incentive that may have distorted market behavior by favoring certain institutions or types of research. In theory, this opens the door to a more organic funding ecosystem, where philanthropic and industry support flows to universities based on demonstrated innovation, efficiency, and private value.
• Private Property Rights: TRIP does not directly implicate the use or control of private property. However, by eliminating a state-run matching program, the bill respects donor intent more purely, as contributions are no longer filtered through state criteria for matching funds. This allows property owners (donors) greater clarity and freedom in how their funds are used.
• Limited Government: This is the bill’s strongest alignment with liberty principles. TRIP is a discretionary state program that utilizes public funds to supplement private giving—a role that critics argue exceeds the proper scope of state government. Repealing TRIP removes the administrative costs, rulemaking authority, and long-term budget considerations associated with managing the program. It represents a clear rollback of government involvement in higher education philanthropy and research funding.