Search This Blog

Showing posts sorted by date for query Department of Education. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query Department of Education. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Sunday, March 30, 2025

NewSchool of Architecture and Design: Legal Troubles Mount

NewSchool of Architecture and Design, the last remaining US college under Ambow Education’s umbrella, is facing significant legal challenges that could threaten its survival. Enrollment has plummeted to just 280 students, and the US Department of Education has placed the institution under Heightened Cash Monitoring (HCM2) for administrative issues.

Adding to its woes, NewSchool is currently embroiled in two major lawsuits over unpaid rent and contract breaches. The first lawsuit, filed on July 15, 2024, by Art Block Investors, LLC, seeks $2.26 million in unpaid rent and common area maintenance (CAM) fees. Following trial, the San Diego Superior Court issued a Proposed Statement of Decision granting possession of the premises to the plaintiffs and awarding damages, with attorney’s fees and costs (estimated at $80,000–$100,000) to be determined. NewSchool has objected to the decision, but a final judgment is expected within 30 days, followed by a motion for fees.

The second lawsuit, filed on September 6, 2024, also by Art Block Investors, LLC, alleges breach of contract and guaranty against both NewSchool and Ambow Education Holdings Ltd., seeking $4.47 million. This claim may be offset by amounts recovered from the first lawsuit. NewSchool has responded to the complaint, but no pretrial or trial dates have been set.

The outcomes of these lawsuits could have a severe financial impact on both NewSchool and Ambow Education. If the courts rule unfavorably, the college could face eviction and substantial financial liabilities, further jeopardizing its viability. The continued litigation also diverts management’s attention and resources, potentially harming the institution’s already fragile reputation.

As of April 2025, the situation remains unresolved, leaving NewSchool’s future—and that of its parent company—hanging in the balance.

Saturday, March 29, 2025

CBO's Revised Student Loan Projections and FSA Operational Costs (Glen McGhee)

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has dramatically revised its projections for the federal student loan program, transforming what was once expected to be a profitable government investment into a significant fiscal liability. This report examines the details of these projection changes and analyzes the operational costs of the Federal Student Aid (FSA) program.

The CBO's updated budget projections released in 2024 reveal a stark shift in the expected financial performance of the federal student loan program. These projections represent a significant revision from earlier expectations and highlight growing concerns about the sustainability of current student lending policies.
According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), the estimated federal cost of student loans issued between 2015 and 2024 has increased by $340 billion – transforming from a projected gain of $135 billion in the 2014 baseline to an expected loss of $205 billion in the 2024 baseline15. This represents a complete reversal in the financial outlook for the program over the past decade.
This dramatic shift is particularly evident when examining the changing projections for specific loan cohorts. In 2014, the CBO projected that taxpayers would generate an 11-cent profit for every dollar of student loans issued by the federal government in fiscal year 2024. However, the most recent projections indicate that taxpayers will instead incur a 20-cent loss per dollar of loans issued this fiscal year6.
Looking ahead, the situation appears even more concerning. Over the 2024-2034 budget window, the CBO expects federal student loans to cost taxpayers $393 billion1. This amount exceeds the $355 billion CBO expects to be spent on Pell Grants, the flagship college aid program for low-income students, over the same time period1.
The projected $393 billion cost includes several components:
  • $221 billion in losses on the $1.1 trillion in student loans the federal government will issue during this period
  • $140 billion in re-estimates of the losses taxpayers will bear on outstanding loans
  • $34 billion toward administering the student loan programs6
One particularly concerning aspect of the CBO projections is the growing cost of graduate student loans. These loans are expected to make up around half of new student loans originated in the current fiscal year11. The CBO projects that taxpayers will lose $102 billion on lending to graduate students over the coming decade11. According to the CRFB, graduate school loans are now nearly as subsidized as undergraduate loans and make up half of the cost of newly issued student loans15.
The dramatic increase in projected costs has several primary causes, as identified in the CBO reports and analyses by financial experts.
The primary catalyst for the growing losses is the expansion and increased utilization of income-driven repayment (IDR) plans6. While a borrower repaying loans under a traditional fixed-term repayment plan typically repays more than the initial amount borrowed, a typical borrower using an IDR plan will repay significantly less than the original loan amount6.
The CBO projects that taxpayers will lose between 30 and 48 cents for every dollar in federal student loans issued in fiscal year 2024 and repaid on an IDR plan1. Preston Cooper notes in his LinkedIn post that "the role of IDR plans in driving these costs can't be overstated. CBO generally expects taxpayers to profit on loans repaid through traditional fixed-term repayment plans. But loans repaid on IDR plans will incur losses ranging from 30 to 48 cents on the dollar"1.
The Biden administration's student loan forgiveness initiatives are cited as significant contributors to the growing cost of the program. The House Budget Committee press release states that "$140 billion or over a third of this cost directly stems from President Biden's student loan forgiveness schemes"7. These initiatives include changes to income-driven repayment plans to make them more generous1.
Beyond the projected losses on the loans themselves, the Federal Student Aid (FSA) program incurs significant operational costs to administer federal student aid programs.
According to FSA's 2024 annual report, the agency operated on an annual administrative budget of approximately $2.1 billion during FY 20244. As of September 30, 2024, FSA was staffed by 1,444 full-time employees who are primarily based in FSA's headquarters in Washington, DC, with additional staff in 10 regional offices throughout the country4.
The Department of Education's Salaries and Expenses Overview provides additional insight into how these administrative funds are allocated. The Student Aid Administration account consists of two primary components:
  1. Salaries and Expenses
  2. Servicing Activities
In the fiscal year 2020 budget request, for example, the Student Aid Administration account totaled $1,812,000,000, with $1,281,281,000 allocated for Salaries and Expenses and $530,719,000 for Servicing Activities5.
The latest CBO projections highlight a dramatic shift in the financial outlook for the federal student loan program. What was once projected to be a profitable government investment has transformed into a significant fiscal liability, with taxpayers expected to lose hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.
This transformation raises important questions about the sustainability of current policies and the potential need for reforms to address growing costs. The substantial operational budget of FSA ($2.1 billion annually) adds to the overall fiscal impact of federal student aid programs.
As policymakers consider the future of federal student aid, they will need to grapple with balancing access to higher education with fiscal responsibility and ensuring that federal resources are allocated efficiently and effectively.
Citations:
  1. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/preston-cooper-479331a4_the-congressional-budget-office-cbo-released-activity-7209166019871809536-8vM2
  2. https://www.farmers.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/usda-farmloans-factsheet-10-20-2021.pdf
  3. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59499
  4. https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/fy2024-fsa-annual-report.pdf
  5. https://www.ed.gov/media/document/w-seoverviewpdf-39165.pdf
  6. https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2024/06/19/cbo-cost-of-federal-student-loans-nears-400-billion/
  7. https://budget.house.gov/press-release/via-forbes-cbo-cost-of-federal-student-loans-nears-400-billion
  8. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/resources/programs/farm-operating-loans
  9. https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/flexible-spending-accounts/
  10. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46143
  11. https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2.5.25_cooper_testimony_house_ed_and_workforce_final.pdf
  12. https://studentaid.gov/data-center/student/portfolio
  13. https://www.agcredit.net/loans/beginning-farmer-loans/fsa-loans
  14. https://www.oklahomafarmreport.com/okfr/2025/01/07/usda-increases-funding-for-new-specialty-crop-program-reminds-producers-of-upcoming-deadlines/
  15. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/student-loans-cost-340-billion-more-expected
  16. https://farmdoc.illinois.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/USDA-FSA-Your-Guide-to-Farm-Loans.pdf
  17. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59946
  18. https://gaswcc.georgia.gov/document/document/microloans-fact-sheet-aug-2019/download
  19. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60682
  20. https://www.farmraise.com/blog/fsa-loan-types
  21. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60713
  22. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/farm-operating-loans
  23. https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/ending-federal-student-loans
  24. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2022-2023/vol3/ch2-cost-attendance-budget
  25. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R43571
  26. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2023-2024/vol3/ch2-cost-attendance-budget
  27. https://sustainableagriculture.net/publications/grassrootsguide/credit-crop-insurance/direct-and-guaranteed-farm-loans/
  28. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/overview/budget/budget24/summary/24summary.pdf
  29. https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/fy2023-fsa-annual-report.pdf
  30. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/federal-student-aid-an-overview/
  31. https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-organization/functional-statements/fsa-functional-statements/finance
  32. https://www.pgpf.org/our-national-debt/
  33. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60419
  34. https://www.mercatus.org/research/data-visualizations/cbo-export-import-bank-fha-mortgage-guarantees-and-doed-student-loan
  35. https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-cbos-march-2024-long-term-budget-outlook

Friday, March 28, 2025

State Department Responds to Questions About Student Visa Revocations

(Higher Education Inquirer) Can you tell us more about the process that the State Department is using to decide what student visas are revoked? Should students from particular countries, like Iran and China, be concerned? Besides pro-Palestinian activists, are there any other areas of activism that may be targeted, such as those concerned about climate change?

 (US State Department) 

The United States has zero tolerance for non-citizens who violate U.S. laws. Those who break the law, including students, may face visa denial, visa revocation, and/or deportation.

All visa applicants, no matter the visa type and where they are located, are continuously vetted.  Security vetting runs from the time of each application, through adjudication of the visa, and afterwards during the validity period of every issued visa, to ensure the individual remains eligible to travel to the United States.
 
When considering revocations, the Department looks at information that arises after the visa was issued that may indicate a potential visa ineligibility under U.S. immigration laws. This can include everything from arrests, criminal convictions, and engaging in conduct that is inconsistent with the visa classification, to an overstay.
 
Given our commitment to and responsibility for national security, the Department uses all available tools to receive and review concerning information about possible ineligibilities.

Columbia University’s Interim President Resigns Amid Trump Administration’s Pressure Over Campus Activism

Columbia University’s interim president, Dr. Katrina A. Armstrong, resigned on Friday, just days after the university made significant concessions to the Trump administration in exchange for the restoration of $400 million in federal research funding. Armstrong's resignation follows a tumultuous period for the institution, already reeling from the departure of her predecessor, Minouche Shafik, in August 2024.

Armstrong, who had stepped into the role of interim president during a time of political and social unrest, faced mounting pressure over the university’s handling of pro-Palestinian student activism, which sparked national controversy and calls for accountability from political leaders, including former President Donald Trump and his administration. Armstrong’s resignation marks the latest chapter in a series of leadership shifts at Columbia as it navigates the increasingly polarized political environment surrounding campus protests.

 

Effective immediately, Claire Shipman, co-chair of Columbia’s Board of Trustees, has been appointed acting president. David J. Greenwald, chair of the Board of Trustees, praised Armstrong for her dedication to the university, acknowledging her hard work during a time of “great uncertainty.” Greenwald’s statement highlighted Armstrong’s contributions to the university, saying, “Katrina has always given her heart and soul to Columbia. We appreciate her service and look forward to her continued contributions to the University.” Armstrong, who will return to lead the Irving Medical Center, had taken on the interim presidency in a period marked by increasing tensions on campus over political activism and its fallout.

Political Pressure and Concessions to the Trump Administration

The resignation comes amid significant political pressure, as the Trump administration imposed a set of demands on Columbia in exchange for the release of crucial federal funding. Earlier this month, the administration presented the university with nine conditions to restore the $400 million in research grants that had been frozen over accusations of antisemitism linked to campus protests.

In an effort to regain the funding, Columbia conceded to these demands, which included a ban on students wearing masks to conceal their identities during protests, except for religious or health reasons. Additionally, Columbia agreed to hire 36 new campus security officers with the authority to arrest students involved in protests. The university also committed to increasing institutional oversight by appointing a new senior vice provost to monitor the university's Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies.

Perhaps most notably, Columbia pledged to adopt a stance of “greater institutional neutrality,” a policy that the university said would be implemented after working with a faculty committee. The decision was seen as an attempt to quell political tensions while navigating the contentious issues surrounding student activism.

A Leadership Crisis at Columbia University

Armstrong’s resignation follows the departure of Minouche Shafik, who faced widespread criticism for her handling of campus protests against the war in Gaza. Under Shafik’s leadership, Columbia became a focal point of national debates about free speech, activism, and the role of universities in responding to global conflicts. Shafik ultimately resigned after facing intense scrutiny for her handling of the protests and the occupation of an academic building by students, an incident that ended with NYPD officers forcibly removing the students.

In Armstrong’s case, her tenure was similarly marred by controversies surrounding the university’s response to the growing political activism on campus. The university's handling of pro-Palestinian protests, particularly those related to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, led to calls for stronger action from political figures, especially within the Republican Party. Armstrong’s decision to oversee negotiations with the Trump administration over the university’s federal funding placed her at the center of a storm of political and social unrest, further intensifying the pressure on her leadership.

Columbia's Future Amidst Political Turmoil

The resignation of Armstrong is a significant moment for Columbia, as the institution grapples with the broader implications of political activism within academia and the increasing role of government in shaping university policies. As the university enters another phase of leadership instability, the question remains: how will the next president balance the competing demands of activism, free speech, and political pressures from outside forces?

Columbia’s decision to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality and increase security measures reflects the complex and polarized environment that universities are navigating in today’s political climate. The growing influence of political figures like Trump and the scrutiny placed on universities over their responses to student protests signal a new era for higher education, one where the lines between campus activism and political power are increasingly blurred.

As the search for a permanent president continues, Columbia University will need to chart a course that both addresses the concerns of its diverse student body and faculty while navigating the external pressures that have shaped the university’s recent trajectory. The role of universities in fostering open dialogue, supporting activism, and protecting the rights of students will likely continue to be a central issue in higher education for years to come.

Conclusion

The resignation of Katrina Armstrong adds to a growing list of university presidents who have faced intense political pressure and scrutiny over campus activism, particularly surrounding Middle Eastern and global conflicts. Columbia’s next steps will be crucial not only for the future of the institution but also as a bellwether for how universities across the country navigate the increasingly complex landscape of political activism, academic freedom, and government intervention. The institution’s response to these challenges will undoubtedly have long-term implications for the role of higher education in a polarized society.

Higher Education Inquirer Asks State Department for List of Student Visa Revocations

The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has requested a list of more than 300 students who have had their visas revoked.  We hope that other news outlets will follow suit.  At this point, we only know of a handful of high-profile cases, from Tufts University, Columbia, Cornell, and Georgetown.

According to the State Department Press Office:

 As the Secretary indicated, the Department revokes visas every day in order to secure America's borders and keep our communities safe -- and will continue to do so.  Because the process is ongoing, the number of revocations is dynamic. The Department generally does not provide statistics on visa revocations, and due to privacy considerations, we do not discuss individual visa cases.

 


U.S. Government Targets Student Activism: Over 300 Visas Revoked Amid Escalating Deportations

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.

Higher Education Inquirer continues to follow IPO/sale of University of Phoenix

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 $1.5B to $1.7B, 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.   

The University of Phoenix has faced a number of scandalssometimes getting away with no penalty, and other times paying large fines.  

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. 




This month the Higher Education Inquirer followed up with a Freedom of Information request with the ED to obtain more up-to-date financial numbers for the University of Phoenix. We hope they will be responsive and timely enough to get the word out to the public.   

Borrower Defense Case Goes to US Supreme Court. How will it decide?

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.

Background and Legal Battle

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.

What’s at Stake

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 Political Dimension

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.

A Conservative Court’s Approach to Executive Power

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.

Conclusion

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.

Thursday, March 27, 2025

U.S. Department of Education Revokes Waivers to California and Oregon Universities Using Federal Funding to Provide Services to Illegal Immigrants

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. 

Contact

Press Office
press@ed.gov
(202) 401-1576

Universities Eliminate DEI Programs Amid Political and Financial Pressures

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.

Texas: University of Texas at Austin

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.

Alabama: University of Alabama System

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.

North Carolina: University of North Carolina System

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: University of Virginia and Virginia Commonwealth University

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: Ohio State University

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.

Michigan: University of Michigan

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.

Utah: University of Utah and Weber State University

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.

Wyoming: University of Wyoming

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.

The National Landscape

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.

We’re taking it to the courts and the streets--and we need you (Todd Wolfson, AAUP)


The Trump administration’s assaults on education, science, campuses, and communities across the United States are unprecedented, and require an unprecedented response. We are fighting with you and for you in the streets, on campus, and in the courts.

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.

Potential Title IV Disruption Catastrophic (Glen McGhee)

Impact of Department of Education Dismantlement on Higher Education Act Programs

On March 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to begin dismantling the Department of Education, a move that threatens to create significant upheaval across higher education's federal support system. While the order cannot immediately eliminate the department without congressional approval, it has already resulted in substantial workforce reductions and signals major changes ahead for the administration of federal education programs 1.
Title IV: The Most Vulnerable and Consequential Program
Among all eight titles of the Higher Education Act (HEA), Title IV federal student aid programs would create the most severe upheaval for the higher education sector if destabilized through the Department of Education's dismantling. Title IV represents the foundation of federal financial support for higher education, administering approximately $111.6 billion in financial assistance to 9.8 million students in FY202211. This massive program encompasses Pell Grants, federal student loans, and work-study opportunities that directly enable student access and persistence.
Financial Impact Scale
The sheer financial magnitude of Title IV makes its disruption particularly consequential. In 2021 alone, 10.5 million students received $125 billion in federal student aid through the Department of Education15. Title IV's Office of Federal Student Aid received the largest departmental budget allocation - over $68 billion, with $20 billion promised for distribution during 20254. This represents the largest financial relationship between the federal government and higher education institutions.
Enrollment Consequences Already Evident
Even small disruptions to Title IV administration have already demonstrated severe enrollment impacts. Recent problems with the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) system implementation led to measurable enrollment declines:
  • 43% of private institutions reported smaller freshman classes
  • 27% noted fewer financial aid recipients
  • 18% reported decreased racial or ethnic diversity in incoming students2
These enrollment impacts disproportionately affect disadvantaged student populations. The FAFSA completion rates dropped nearly 10%, showing how administrative dysfunction can directly reduce educational access2.
Complex Regulatory Framework
Title IV administration involves an extraordinarily complex regulatory structure that would be challenging to transfer or maintain during a departmental transition. The program includes more than 300 pages of regulations, with significant compliance requirements for institutions6. Recent rule changes have created new financial responsibility, administrative capability and certification requirements applicable to institutions participating in Title IV programs7.
Presidential Assurances vs. Implementation Reality
While President Trump has indicated that essential functions like Pell Grants, Title I funding, and programs for students with disabilities would be "fully maintained and redistributed to various other agencies and departments," the implementation details remain unclear18. The executive order instructs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to "undertake all necessary actions to facilitate the dissolution" while ensuring continuous provision of services8.
However, the Department's workforce has already been reduced from over 4,000 to approximately 2,000 employees through layoffs and voluntary resignations14. This reduction in administrative capacity raises serious questions about the continuity of Title IV program implementation.
Other HEA Titles: Significant but Less Catastrophic Impact
While all HEA titles would face disruption through departmental dismantling, Title IV's combination of massive funding scale, direct impact on enrollments, and regulatory complexity makes its destabilization particularly consequential.
Other HEA titles, while important, would not create the same level of immediate financial and enrollment chaos:
  • Title I: Provides general provisions and administrative requirements, but lacks direct funding mechanisms
  • Title II: Supports teacher preparation programs, but with significantly smaller funding scales
  • Title III: Provides institutional aid for minority-serving institutions, representing important but more targeted support
  • Titles V-VIII: Offer specialized program support for specific institutional types or educational priorities
Conclusion
The dismantling of the Department of Education threatens all federal higher education programs, but Title IV student aid programs represent the most consequential area for potential upheaval. The scale of financial support, direct impact on enrollment and access, complexity of administration, and early evidence from FAFSA disruptions all indicate that Title IV destabilization would produce the most severe consequences for higher education institutions and students.
While the administration has promised to maintain essential functions, the mechanisms for doing so remain unclear, and the significant reduction in departmental workforce suggests potential administrative challenges ahead. The higher education community must closely monitor this transition to ensure that critical student financial support systems remain functional during this unprecedented departmental restructuring.
Citations:
  1. https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5179987-trump-executive-order-department-of-education-linda-mcmahon/
  2. https://www.insightintodiversity.com/fafsa-issues-led-to-decreased-enrollment/
  3. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IF12780.html
  4. https://onwardstate.com/2025/03/20/how-the-dismantling-of-the-department-of-education-will-affect-college-students-across-the-nation/
  5. https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf
  6. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-crisis-and-politics-of-higher-education/
  7. https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2024/2/significant-new-financial-responsibility-administrative-capability-and-certification-requirements-loom-ahead-for-title-iv-institutions
  8. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/education-department-trump-what-is-next-student-loans-fafsa-rcna197302
  9. https://www.startribune.com/trump-orders-a-plan-to-dismantle-the-education-department-while-keeping-some-core-functions/601240066
  10. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/dozens-colleges-see-fafsa-turmoils-impact-freshman-classes-rcna167342
  11. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43351.pdf
  12. https://www.asugsvsummit.com/video/preview-of-the-great-upheaval-higher-educations-past-present-and-uncertain-future
  13. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/20/politics/dismantling-department-of-education-trump/index.html
  14. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2024/11/04/what-abolishing-education-department-could-mean
  15. https://campuscafesoftware.com/title-iv-student-financial-aid-guide/
  16. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2025/03/13/how-education-department-layoffs-could-affect-higher
  17. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2024/11/14/future-financial-aid-under-trump
  18. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-03-19/trump-to-order-a-plan-to-shut-down-the-us-education-department
  19. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2024/10/23/after-fafsa-issues-steep-drop-first-year-enrollment
  20. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2020-2021/appendices/appx-g-higher-education-act-1965-table-contents-august-26-2020
  21. https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/35894/Trump_Signs_Executive_Order_Seeking_to_Dismantle_ED
  22. https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/35508/ED_Title_IV_Student_Aid_Exempt_From_White_House_Pause_on_Federal_Grants_and_Loans
  23. https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/how-dismantling-department-education-would-harm-students
  24. https://www.carnegiehighered.com/blog/fafsa-delays-impact-2024-enrollment/
  25. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/functional-area/Overview%20of%20Title%20IV
  26. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2025/02/07/five-ways-education-department-impacts-higher-ed
  27. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/12/education-department-cuts-student-loan-fafsa-iep-impact/82310137007/
  28. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-fafsa-student-loans-what-does-the-department-of-education-do/
  29. https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/dallas-cowboys-free-agency-draft-2025
  30. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/06/22/gen-z-millennials-debt-inflation/
  31. https://help.studentclearinghouse.org/compliancecentral/knowledge-base/gainful-employment-financial-value-transparency-faqs/
  32. https://19thnews.org/2025/03/trump-executive-order-department-of-education/
  33. https://www.ctpost.com/news/education/article/bridgeport-school-superintendent-search-20230032.php
  34. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/electronic-announcements/2024-06-20/implementation-gainful-employment-funding-metric-requirements-institutions-under-administrative-capability-and-financial-responsibility
  35. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43159
  36. https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/trump-wants-to-end-education-department-what-does-that-mean-for-financial-aid/