The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has requested a list of more than 300 students who have had their visas revoked. The State Department has acknowledged receipt. We hope other media outlets will follow suit. At this point, we only know of a handful of these cases. We will keep the public informed as this story develops.
Yale University philosophy professor Jason Stanley, a leading academic in social and political philosophy, has made the bold decision to leave his esteemed position at the Ivy League institution and relocate to Toronto, Canada. His move comes amidst growing concerns about the state of higher education in the U.S. under the Trump administration, a time marked by increased political tension and the administration’s aggressive stance against academic institutions.
In a mid-interview conversation with CNN while walking across the Yale campus, Stanley addressed a group of concerned students who had gathered around him. When asked if he was really leaving, Stanley reassured them, saying, “I love Yale. But Marci, Tim, and I, we’re gonna go defend democracy somewhere else.”
Stanley, who has taught at Yale for 12 years, was clearly frustrated with the direction the United States is heading under the current administration. Known for his scholarly work, including his books How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them and Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future, Stanley has built a career focusing on the dangers of fascism, epistemology, and social philosophy. His decision to leave the U.S. reflects the increasing anxiety within the academic community regarding the restrictions placed on freedom of expression, especially for those not holding U.S. citizenship.
“Suddenly if you’re not a citizen of the United States, you can’t comment on politics if you’re a professor? That’s crazy,” Stanley told CNN. “That’s not a free society.”
Stanley’s departure has struck a nerve within the academic world, especially after recent events that have heightened concerns about the Trump administration’s policies toward higher education. His decision follows the controversial stance taken by Columbia University, which found itself in the midst of a funding crisis after President Trump threatened to withdraw federal support over allegations that the institution failed to adequately address antisemitic behavior on campus during the Israel-Hamas conflict.
The ongoing threats from the Trump administration against university funding and academic freedom, such as the executive order targeting antisemitism and the recent suspension of federal funds at multiple universities, have exacerbated tensions. Columbia responded by implementing policy changes, including restrictions on face coverings during protests and reviewing its curriculum in response to the administration’s demands.
The situation has also raised alarm about the broader implications for academic institutions. Yale’s academic freedom has not yet been directly challenged by the Trump administration, but the unfolding struggles at other prestigious universities have highlighted the precariousness of academia in the current political climate. The potential for funding cuts and the fear of administrative capitulation are pressing issues for educators, particularly in the humanities and social sciences.
Alongside Stanley, Yale history professors Marci Shore and Timothy Snyder are also moving to the University of Toronto. Both Shore, a specialist in modern European intellectual history, and Snyder, an expert in history and global affairs, have voiced similar concerns about the erosion of academic independence under the current U.S. administration. Snyder remarked that their decision was solidified after the 2024 presidential election, citing a growing fear that university administrations would increasingly bow to political pressure in order to secure federal funding.
“It’s not that I think everyone has put their head down and gotten in line,” Shore explained. “But I think a lot of people have, and I fear that university administrations will, because institutions naturally have an incentive to act in the interest of self-preservation.”
Keith Whittington, a Yale professor and cofounder of the Academic Freedom Alliance, expressed concern over the broader ramifications of these departures. “If you lose your best people who decide to go to other countries, that’s going to have long-term consequences,” Whittington warned, emphasizing the risks to U.S. leadership in scientific research and higher education.
Despite the challenges, Stanley remains resolute in his decision, insisting that it is not a matter of fear but of standing up for democratic values. “I’ll be in a much better position to fight bullies,” Stanley said, signaling his commitment to advocating for democracy and academic freedom from abroad.
In response to Stanley’s departure, Yale University issued a statement acknowledging that while the institution respects the decisions of its faculty members, it remains committed to supporting its academic community. “Yale is proud of its global faculty community,” the university said, “which includes faculty who may no longer work at the institution, or whose contributions to academia may continue at a different home institution.”
For Stanley and his colleagues, the move to Toronto represents not just a change of location, but a deep commitment to continuing the fight for democracy and academic freedom outside the increasingly polarized and politically charged atmosphere of the United States.
In a controversial move, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Thursday that the State Department had revoked the visas of more than 300 students, a number that is expected to rise. This action is part of the White House’s growing crackdown on foreign-born students, many of whom have been involved in political activism, particularly related to pro-Palestinian protests that have been sweeping college campuses.
Rubio made it clear that the government’s focus is on what he referred to as “these lunatics” – individuals who, according to him, are using their student visas not for education but for activism. His statements, made during a visit to Guyana, came amid reports of increasing detentions and deportations of students from countries like Iran, Turkey, and Palestine.
"It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas," Rubio said, underscoring the administration’s intent to target those engaging in political activism. Some of these arrests have taken place in dramatic fashion, with students detained by masked immigration agents and sent to detention centers, often far from their homes, with limited explanation.
Among the high-profile cases is that of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish national studying in the U.S. on a student visa. Ozturk was arrested earlier this week in Somerville, Massachusetts, and is currently being held in a Louisiana detention facility. Her arrest follows her involvement in a Tufts University student newspaper article that called on the institution to divest from companies with ties to Israel and to acknowledge what she referred to as the Palestinian genocide. Importantly, Ozturk’s essay did not mention Hamas, yet her arrest has raised concerns over the broader political targeting of students engaged in activism.
Many of the students caught up in this crackdown are believed to have been involved in the pro-Palestinian protests that gained momentum on campuses last year. While the administration has not provided specific reasons for targeting these students, far-right pro-Israel groups have compiled lists of individuals they accuse of promoting anti-U.S. or anti-Israel sentiments. These lists have reportedly been shared with U.S. immigration authorities, further intensifying the political climate surrounding these detentions.
The move is part of a larger agenda by the Trump administration to clamp down on the activities of legal permanent residents and student visa holders. Immigration experts warn that such actions undermine the fundamental American right to free speech and assembly, particularly in academic settings.
Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, described the current situation as "uniquely disturbing," stating that it sends a message to the brightest minds around the world who traditionally chose to study in the U.S. for its openness and intellectual freedom. The message, he argues, is now one of rejection.
The administration's actions are said to be guided by an immigration provision dating back to the Cold War, which allows the revocation of visas if a student's activities are seen as posing "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Some of the students targeted, including Ozturk, have had their visas revoked under this justification, despite no clear evidence of criminal activity.
Other notable individuals caught in the crosshairs include Alireza Doroudi, a doctoral student from Iran at the University of Alabama, and Badar Khan Suri, an Indian graduate student at Georgetown University. Both have been detained without clear charges, sparking concerns over whether their arrests are retaliatory measures for their political views. Suri, for instance, was allegedly detained for spreading Hamas propaganda, although he has denied such claims.
This wave of detentions and visa revocations also extends to other students like Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia University student who participated in protests. Despite being a legal permanent resident, Chung now faces deportation. Similarly, Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian student at Columbia, was detained by ICE after allegedly overstaying her student visa.
The increasing number of student arrests and deportations is drawing the attention of human rights advocates, who argue that these actions are a direct attack on free speech. Samah Sisay, one of the attorneys representing detained students, expressed concern that the government's actions are not only targeting specific political views but are also intended to intimidate future student activists.
This crackdown is also raising questions about the role of U.S. universities in protecting their students. In one high-profile case, Columbia University agreed to implement significant changes after President Trump threatened to withdraw $400 million in federal research funding over accusations that the university was not doing enough to address harassment of Jewish students.
As these events unfold, the future of student activism in the U.S. appears increasingly uncertain. If these trends continue, more students may face the loss of their visas, deportation, or even criminal charges related to their political beliefs and actions on campus. The implications for free speech, academic freedom, and international student exchange are profound, and advocates are calling for a reassessment of policies that allow such widespread and seemingly arbitrary actions against students.
In the face of this growing repression, one thing is clear: the United States is now sending a strong message to the world about what it will and will not tolerate in its universities. Whether that message will stifle the tradition of academic activism remains to be seen.
On March 6, 2025, Apollo and Vistria publicly announced a possible IPO or sale of the University of Phoenix. These companies have been trying to sell the University of Phoenix since 2021, but there have been no takers. The owners claim the school is worth $1.5M to $1.7M, but we (and experts we know) are skeptical, given the financials we have seen so far. The University of Phoenix was previously on sale for about $500M-$700M but the University of Arkansas System, the State of Idaho, and apparently other colleges declined the offers.
The University of Phoenix offers subprime education to folks,
historically targeting servicemembers, veterans, and people of color. While some students may profit from these robocollege credentials, one wonders what
these workers actually learn. The current student-teacher ratio at the
University of Phoenix, according to the US Department of Education, is
132 to 1.
In 2023 we made a Freedom of Action (FOIA) request to the US Department of Education (ED) to get Phoenix's most recent audited financials. In March 2025, more than 20 months later, we were provided with a 35-page report, audited by Deloitte, with numbers from 2021 and 2022.
On January 10, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Department of Education’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Career Colleges and Schools of Texas v. Department of Education. The Fifth Circuit had preliminarily enjoined the 2022 Borrower Defense to Repayment (BDR) final rule on a nationwide basis. This rule, published on November 1, 2022 (87 Fed. Reg. 65,904), is a key component of the Biden administration’s broader student loan forgiveness efforts.
The Supreme Court’s review will focus on one pivotal question: whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Higher Education Act does not permit the assessment of borrower defenses to repayment before default, in administrative proceedings, or on a group basis. Notably, the Court will not address the second question posed by the Department: whether the appeals court erred in ordering the district court to grant preliminary relief on a universal basis.
The lawsuit originated on February 28, 2023, when the Career Colleges and Schools of Texas (CCST) filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. CCST sought to enjoin and vacate the 2022 BDR rule, arguing that it creates unlawful processes, serves no legitimate purpose under the Higher Education Act, and constitutes executive overreach by the Biden administration, violating the Department’s statutory authority and the Constitution’s separation of powers.
After the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the preliminary injunction, CCST pursued an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On April 4, 2024, the Fifth Circuit overturned the lower court’s decision and, despite the Department’s objections, postponed the effective date of the 2022 BDR rule pending final judgment. The Department’s petition for rehearing was denied, prompting its appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s decision will likely have significant consequences for both borrowers and institutions. If the Court rules against the Department of Education, it could severely limit the scope of borrower defense claims, especially on a group basis, making it harder for defrauded students to receive relief. For-profit colleges and other institutions might feel emboldened to challenge similar regulations and forgiveness measures.
A ruling in favor of the Department, while seemingly less likely given the Court’s conservative majority, would affirm the Biden administration’s approach to processing borrower defenses and may secure loan forgiveness for thousands of borrowers who attended predatory institutions.
The timing of this case is crucial. Just days before the Supreme Court granted certiorari, the Biden administration announced the cancellation of loans for 150,000 borrowers—most of which were through the borrower defense process. Shortly afterward, additional forgiveness for income-based repayment plan borrowers and individual borrower defense approvals was announced. However, the future of these forgiveness efforts remains uncertain, as the second Trump administration has signaled intentions to rollback or revise Biden’s loan forgiveness policies.
Given the Supreme Court’s current composition and its recent track record in cases like West Virginia v. EPA, it seems likely that the justices will scrutinize the executive authority wielded in crafting the BDR rule. The conservative majority may favor a narrow interpretation of the Higher Education Act, signaling that large-scale forgiveness should come from Congress rather than executive agencies.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on the 2022 BDR rule will set a precedent that could define the future of student debt relief and the Department of Education’s authority. For borrowers hoping for widespread relief, the outcome could mean the difference between long-awaited forgiveness and a protracted legal battle. For institutions, particularly for-profits, a ruling against the Department could bolster their resistance to accountability measures.
In recent weeks, a growing number of international students and green card holders at prestigious universities, including Cornell, Columbia, Georgetown, and Tufts, have been arrested and detained by federal immigration authorities. These actions appear to be part of a broader crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism within U.S. academic institutions and against dissent in general.
Tufts University
On March 26, 2025, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University, was detained by federal agents who revoked her student visa. Ozturk had co-authored an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper condemning investments in companies linked to Israel and referring to the "Palestinian genocide" in Gaza. Her detention occurred as she was heading to an iftar dinner during Ramadan.
Columbia University
Earlier this month, Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and recent graduate of Columbia University, was arrested in his university housing. Khalil's participation in pro-Palestinian protests led to allegations of supporting Hamas, resulting in the revocation of his green card. He is currently detained while challenging the deportation order.
Subsequently, Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia junior from South Korea holding a green card, was targeted for deportation due to her involvement in similar protests. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing her detention while she contests the deportation order.
Georgetown University
Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University postdoctoral fellow on a student visa, was detained on March 17, 2025, under accusations of spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism. His attorney disputes these claims, suggesting that Suri is being targeted because of his Palestinian wife's heritage and their perceived opposition to U.S. foreign policy.
Cornell University
Momodou Taal, a Cornell graduate student with dual British and Gambian citizenship, was instructed to surrender to ICE authorities on March 22, 2025. Taal's legal team preemptively filed a lawsuit challenging the deportation order, citing concerns over potential surveillance and targeting due to his activism.
These incidents have raised significant concerns among civil rights organizations, university officials, and international communities. Critics argue that the Trump administration's actions infringe upon First Amendment rights and target individuals based on their political views. In response, legal challenges are underway, with courts issuing orders to halt certain deportations and detentions.
As this situation develops, universities and advocacy groups continue to monitor and respond to the evolving landscape of immigration enforcement affecting international students and green card holders across the nation.
Today, the U.S. Department of Education revoked waivers to California and Oregon colleges and universities that are using federal funds to provide services to illegal aliens under the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3). The mission of the P3 Program is to allow states and localities to integrate program funding across federal agencies to improve the systems serving disconnected youth, not provide entitlements to illegal immigrants. Through P3 waivers approved during the Biden Administration, colleges and universities diverted taxpayer-funded TRIO program services meant for low-income students, first generation college students, and individuals with disabilities to illegal immigrants.
“American taxpayer dollars will no longer be used to subsidize illegal immigrants through Department of Education programs,” said Acting Under Secretary James Bergeron. “The TRIO Program was designed to provide support and guidance to disadvantaged Americans as they navigate the road to and through postsecondary education. The Department will not allow the true purpose of the program to be corrupted to advance an American-last agenda.”
The U.S. Department of Education sent notices to the impacted colleges and universities through the California Higher Education Collaborative and Oregon Higher Education Coordinating Commission today.
Background:
The Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2014 created the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3), which authorizes states to enter into pilots to use funding from across multiple federal discretionary programs to support efforts to improve the systems serving America’s youth and their outcomes.
Under the Biden Administration, the Department approved a P3 waiver allowing illegal immigrants to receive TRIO Program services. The TRIO Programs are federal student aid programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act designed to identify and provide additional academic and career services for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. TRIO includes eight programs targeted to serve and assist low-income individuals, first-generation college students, and individuals with disabilities through the academic pipeline from middle school to postbaccalaureate programs.
California’s waiver began in November 2022 and was set to expire in September 2026.
Oregon’s waiver began in October 2023 and was set to expire in in September 2027.
In a sweeping trend across the United States, numerous public universities are dismantling their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices and programs in response to mounting political and financial pressures. Republican-led state legislatures have spearheaded efforts to defund or outlaw DEI initiatives, leading to widespread changes in higher education institutions that once championed diversity-related policies.
One of the most high-profile cases is the University of Texas at Austin, which eliminated its DEI initiatives to comply with Texas Senate Bill 17. The law, which went into effect in 2024, prohibits public colleges from requiring DEI training and workshops, resulting in the dismissal of approximately 60 DEI staff members.
Similarly, in July 2024, the University of Alabama System—comprising its flagship Tuscaloosa campus, the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and the University of Alabama in Huntsville—closed its DEI offices. The move was made in response to new legislation banning public institutions from maintaining DEI-related offices and programs.
The University of North Carolina system's Board of Governors took a similar approach, eliminating DEI officers across all campuses. This action aligns with a broader Republican effort in the state to curb diversity-focused programs at taxpayer-funded institutions.
Virginia’s universities have also fallen in line with state directives to eliminate race-based initiatives. Both the University of Virginia (UVA) and Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) dissolved their DEI offices following pressure from the state’s Secretary of Education, who emphasized that taxpayer funds should not be used to support such programs.
Ohio State University announced it would dissolve all DEI offices and programs after facing political pressure from both federal and state lawmakers. The move marks a significant shift for one of the nation's largest public universities, which had previously invested heavily in diversity initiatives.
The University of Michigan has announced major changes to its DEI initiatives. Based on input from stakeholders and recent federal actions, the university has decided to:
Close the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (ODEI) and the Office for Health Equity and Inclusion (OHEI). Student-facing services in ODEI will shift to other offices focused on student access and opportunity.
Discontinue the DEI 2.0 Strategic Plan, along with related programming, progress reporting, training, and funding. DEI leads within schools and colleges will return to their core responsibilities.
Require all units to update their web presence to reflect current programmatic directions and comply with federal executive orders and guidance.
End the use of diversity statements in faculty hiring across the university and prohibit DEI-related statements in admissions, hiring, promotion, awards, and performance evaluations.
Conduct an expedited review by the Office of the General Counsel to ensure all policies and programs comply with federal law and guidance.
In Utah, the University of Utah and Weber State University not only eliminated DEI offices but also shut down cultural resource centers that catered to Black students, LGBTQ students, and women. These closures further underscore the broad pushback against DEI efforts in public institutions.
The University of Wyoming eliminated its DEI office as part of a state-mandated funding cut for diversity programs, marking another instance of legislative intervention in public higher education.
These eliminations are part of a broader national movement driven by Republican-controlled legislatures seeking to dismantle what they see as ideologically driven DEI programs. Opponents argue that DEI initiatives promote exclusion rather than inclusion, while supporters claim that the rollback threatens progress toward a more equitable educational environment.
Adding to this nationwide shift, last Thursday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision allowing the enforcement of two related executive orders: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity and Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.
That same day, another executive order, Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities, directed the Secretary of Education to take steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and demanded further scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
Last month, the Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague Letter that interprets the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions to apply to other university policies and programs beyond admissions decisions.
As universities grapple with these changes, the long-term impact on campus culture, faculty hiring, and student support services remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the battle over DEI in higher education is far from over.
While there are some exceptions, the truth is clear: We cannot count on college administrations to take a stand and take the lead in defending our campuses and communities. Instead, faculty and unions are leading the fight and we need you in it.
This week alone, the AAUP, working in partnership with our chapters, the AFT, and other allies, filed three lawsuits against the Trump administration.
—We sued the administration for its illegal revocation of $400 million in federal funding from Columbia University. We believe that the funding cuts and related demands, which undermine critical scientific and medical and suppress speech, are an unlawful attack on the First Amendment and academic freedom and must be stopped.
—We filed suit to protect free speech rights across colleges and universities against the chilling effect of the Trump administration’s immigration deportation policies.
—We filed a legal action to stop the dismantling of the Department of Education and mass firings that will decimate the crucial services that benefit every person residing in the US.
We cannot win these lawsuits, protect academic freedom, and defend higher education without you. AAUP members have stepped up to provide information and testimony, and they have put themselves on the line as public participants in these legal cases.
We need you with us—please join now. If you're not an active or retired teacher, researcher, graduate student, or similar, you can join as a supporter--just choose "associate member" as you go through the join process.
In solidarity,
Todd Wolfson, AAUP President
P.S.—We need you in the streets, too! On April 8, please join us in a National Day of Action to stand up for education and research.
Impact of Department of Education Dismantlement on Higher Education Act Programs
Structural factors refer to the context that makes the rise to power of an authoritarian state more likely. Authoritarian regimes are unusual in countries that are rich, socially stable and that have a tradition of constitutionally limited, civilian government. If they do emerge in these sorts of countries, it is usually the result of a crisis, brought about by external factors such as war or international economic crisis. As usual with history, the history teachers favorite acronym PESC is a good way to go about organizing these structural factors – PESC = the political, economic, social, and cultural conditions that encourage authoritarian rule.
