The US Department of Government Efficiency regularly posts cuts to all US federal agencies, including the US Department of Education, which it is working on to dismantle. The cuts include "asset sales, contract/lease cancellations and
renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletion, grant
cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory
savings, and workforce reductions."
According to our sources at the US Department of Education, the number of personnel in its Office of Inspector General (OIG) is down approximately 14 percent from January 1, 2025. The number of workers there could be further reduced as President Trump issues his austerity budget. The current loses at ED-OIG include retirements, those who have chosen to be part of the deferred resignation program, and those who left the organization for positions elsewhere. While this cutting may reduce personnel costs, what will happen with less OIG workers to oversee the proper use of federal funds? Will this embolden bad actors, including predatory schools and debt servicers? We're guessing it does.
The U.S. student loan system, now exceeding $1.7 trillion in debt and affecting over 40 million borrowers, is facing significant challenges. As political pressures rise, the management of student loans could be significantly altered. A combination of potential privatization, the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education (ED), and a new role for the Department of the Treasury raises critical questions about the future of the system.
U.S. Department of Education: Strained Resources and Outsourcing
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is responsible for managing federal student loan servicing, loan forgiveness programs, and borrower defense to repayment (BDR) claims. However, ED has faced ongoing issues with understaffing and inefficiency, particularly as many functions have been outsourced to contractors. Companies like Maximus (including subsidiaries like AidVantage) manage much of the administrative burden for loan servicing. This has raised concerns about accountability and the impact on borrowers, especially those seeking loan relief.
In recent years, ED has also experienced staff reductions and funding cuts, making it difficult to process claims or maintain high-quality service. The potential for further cuts or even the elimination of the department could exacerbate these problems. If ED’s role is diminished, other entities, such as the Department of the Treasury, could assume responsibility for managing the student loan portfolio, though this would present its own set of challenges.
Potential for Privatization of the Student Loan Portfolio
One of the most discussed options for addressing the student loan crisis is the privatization of the federal student loan portfolio. Under previous administration discussions, including those during PresidentTrump’s tenure, there were talks about selling off parts of the student loan portfolio to private companies. This would be done with the aim of reducing the federal deficit.
In 2019, McKinsey & Company was hired by the Trump administration to analyze the value of the student loan portfolio, considering factors such as default rates and economic conditions. While the report's findings were never made public, the idea of transferring the loans to private companies—such as banks or investment firms—remains a possibility.
The consequences of privatizing federal student loans could be significant. Private companies would likely focus on profitability, which could result in stricter repayment terms or less flexibility for borrowers seeking loan forgiveness or other relief options. This shift may reduce borrower protections, making it harder for students to challenge repayment terms or pursue loan discharges.
The Department of the Treasury and its Potential Role
If the U.S. Department of Education is restructured or eliminated, there is a possibility that the Department of the Treasury could step in to manage some aspects of the student loan portfolio. The Treasury is responsible for the country’s financial systems and debt management, so it could, in theory, handle the federal student loan portfolio from a financial oversight perspective.
However, while the Treasury has experience in financial management, it lacks the specialized knowledge of student loans and borrower protections that the Department of Education currently provides. For example, the Treasury would need to find ways to process complex Borrower Defense to Repayment claims, a responsibility ED currently manages. In 2023, over 750,000 Borrower Defense claims were pending, with thousands of claims related to predatory practices at for-profit colleges such as University of Phoenix, ITT Tech, and Kaplan University (now known as Purdue Global). Additionally, some of these for-profit schools were able to reorganize and continue operating under different names, further complicating the situation.
The Treasury could also contract out loan servicing, but this could increase reliance on profit-driven companies, possibly compromising the interests of borrowers in favor of financial performance.
Borrower Defense Claims and the Impact of For-Profit Schools
A large portion of the Borrower Defense to Repayment claims comes from students who attended for-profit colleges with a history of deceptive practices. These institutions, often referred to as subprime colleges, misled students about job prospects, program outcomes, and accreditation, leaving many with significant student debt but poor employment outcomes.
Data from 2023 revealed that over 750,000 Borrower Defense claims were filed with the Department of Education, many of them against for-profit institutions. TheSweet v. Cardona case showed that more than 200,000 borrowers were expected to receive debt relief after years of waiting. However, the process was slow, with an estimated 16,000 new claims being filed each month, and only 35 ED workers handling these claims. These delays, combined with the uncertainty around the future of ED, leave borrowers vulnerable to prolonged financial hardship.
Lack of Transparency and Accountability in the System
While the U.S. Department of Education tracks Borrower Defense claims, it does not publish institutional-level data, making it difficult to identify which schools are responsible for the most fraudulent activity.
In response to this,FOIA requests have been filed by organizations like the National Student Legal Defense Network and the Higher Education Inquirer to obtain detailed information about which institutions are disproportionately affecting borrowers.
The lack of transparency in the system makes it harder for borrowers to make informed decisions about which institutions to attend and limits accountability for schools that have harmed students. If the Treasury or private companies take over management of the loan portfolio, these transparency issues could worsen, as private entities are less likely to prioritize public accountability.
Conclusion
The future of the U.S. student loan system is uncertain, particularly as the Department of Education faces the potential of funding cuts, staff reductions, or even complete dissolution. If ED’s role diminishes or disappears, the Department of the Treasury could take over some functions, but this would raise questions about the fairness and transparency of the system.
The possibility of privatizing the student loan portfolio also looms large, which could shift the focus away from borrower protections and toward financial gain for private companies. For-profit schools, many of which have a history of predatory practices, are responsible for a disproportionate number of Borrower Defense claims, and any move to privatize the loan portfolio could exacerbate the challenges faced by borrowers seeking relief from these institutions.
Ultimately, there is a need for greater transparency and accountability in how the student loan system operates. Whether managed by the Department of Education, the Treasury, or private companies, protecting borrowers and ensuring fairness should remain central to any future reforms. If these issues are not addressed, millions of borrowers will continue to face significant financial hardship.
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of Education launchedEndDEI.Ed.Gov, a public portal for parents, students, teachers, and the broader community to submit reports of discrimination based on race or sex in publicly-funded K-12 schools.
The secure portal allows parents to provide an email address, the name of the student’s school or school district, and details of the concerning practices. The Department of Education will use submissions as a guide to identify potential areas for investigation.
“For years, parents have been begging schools to focus on teaching their kids practical skills like reading, writing, and math, instead of pushing critical theory, rogue sex education and divisive ideologies—but their concerns have been brushed off, mocked, or shut down entirely,” said Tiffany Justice, Co-Founder of Moms for Liberty. “Parents, now is the time that you share the receipts of the betrayal that has happened in our public schools. This webpage demonstrates that President Trump’s Department of Education is putting power back in the hands of parents.”
Hands off our research! Hands off our healthcare! Hands off our jobs! The message rang out loud and clear at the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C., Feb. 25, where scientists, researchers and other higher education workers rallied against the cuts the Trump administration has been making to medical research. It’s just one way AFT members are pushing back against attacks that harm not just researchers but the millions of Americans who rely on their work for cures and treatments for everything from cancer to diabetes and Alzheimer’s.
In the spring of 2024, a federal court issued an injunction preventing the U.S. Department of Education (ED) from fully implementing the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) repayment plan. Since that ruling the program’s fate has remained uncertain, and now that the 8th Circuit Court has affirmed the blockage of SAVE it is unclear whether borrowers will be able to remain in the payment plan.
Following the federal ruling in the spring of 2024, ED was barred from canceling loans eligible for forgiveness under the SAVE, Pay As You Earn (PAYE) and Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) plans.
By July 2024, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the SAVE plan in its entirety which led to borrowers who were able to enroll in the program being placed into an interest-free forbearance, where they have remained since.
On February 18, 2025, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its long-awaited ruling, siding with the Republican-led states that filed suit against former President Biden’s administration. The court upheld the injunction, continuing to block the SAVE plan in its entirety, including the forgiveness provisions, which subsequently blocked the administration from processing forgiveness for borrowers enrolled in PAYE and ICR plans as well.
Notably, the ruling also directed the lower court to strengthen the injunction, stating that the block on the SAVE plan should be broader. The decision explicitly ordered the lower court to enjoin both the full SAVE plan ruling and what has been referred to as the "hybrid rule."
The hybrid rule was ED's attempt to continue processing time-based forgiveness applications by relying on the forgiveness provisions of the 2015 Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) plan as well as establishing monthly payments for the SAVE plan using the REPAYE plans calculation that used 10% of discretionary income, versus the SAVE plans expected 5%. The 8th Circuit’s recent ruling continues the block for this effort and effectively prevents ED from approving forgiveness applications under both SAVE and REPAYE provisions. ED in late 2024 reestablished the PAYE and ICR plans (which had been sunsetted in the regulations establishing the SAVE plan) so borrowers had additional choices for repayment plans, but debt forgiveness was and remains blocked for these plans as they fall under the same statutory affirming language as the SAVE and REPAYE plans.
It is important to note that Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) is established separately in statute and is not threatened by legal challenges to the SAVE plan.
The case will now return to the Eastern Missouri lower district court, which is tasked with issuing a final ruling on the fate of the SAVE plan. There has been no public reaction to the ruling of the 8th Circuit Court by the plaintiffs or the Trump administration, so it’s hard to assume what the next steps will be.
NASFAA will be following the case as it continues to the lower court.
About NASFAA The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) is the only national, nonprofit association with a primary focus on information dissemination, professional development, and legislative and regulatory analysis related to federal student aid programs authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended. Our membership consists of more than 29,000 financial aid professionals at nearly 3,000 colleges, universities, and career schools across the country. NASFAA member institutions serve nine out of every 10 undergraduates in the United States.
As the nation grapples with profound social and economic inequities, U.S. law schools have become a critical yet overlooked institution in perpetuating these disparities. From shaping the legal minds that go on to influence policy to training future attorneys who occupy the nation's corridors of power, law schools are playing an outsized role in entrenching systems of privilege, rather than dismantling them.
One of the most glaring manifestations of this failure is the Trump-era Supreme Court, whose composition has shifted dramatically due to the influence of elite law schools. Justices such as Brett Kavanaugh (Yale Law), Neil Gorsuch (Harvard Law), and Amy Coney Barrett (Notre Dame Law) have reshaped the Court in the image of conservative ideologies. These justices, primarily from elite institutions, have consistently sided with corporate interests over public welfare. Their rulings on critical issues like voting rights (Shelby County v. Holder, 2013), abortion access (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 2022), and corporate regulation (South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 2018) have had profound consequences, amplifying inequalities and reducing access to justice for marginalized communities. The legal minds trained in these prestigious law schools have moved away from serving the public, instead reinforcing the status quo and further consolidating power in the hands of the wealthy elite.
This trend is compounded by the overwhelming concentration of law school graduates in a handful of sectors, particularly Washington, D.C., and on Wall Street. A report from the National Association for Law Placement (NALP) reveals that nearly 70% of graduates from top law schools—such as Harvard, Yale, and Columbia—secure positions in large corporate law firms or government roles. Meanwhile, those who enter public service or work in underfunded legal fields such as public defense face a starkly different reality. According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the average starting salary for a public defender in 2020 was around $50,000, compared to $190,000 in major corporate law firms. This disparity highlights the economic realities facing graduates who pursue careers in public interest law.
Law schools exacerbate these inequities through their admissions processes, which heavily favor students from affluent backgrounds. A 2019 study by the Equality of Opportunity Projectfound that 70% of students attending Harvard Law, Yale Law, and other Ivy League law schools come from families in the top 20% income bracket, while less than 5% come from the bottom 20%. This financial divide is perpetuated by high tuition costs—Harvard Law's tuition and fees for the 2024 academic year exceed $70,000 annually—making it inaccessible to many who might otherwise have the talent and potential to succeed in law.
Furthermore, law schools’ connections with corporate sponsors and wealthy alumni networks often shape the curriculum and career pathways offered to students. As a result, legal education has become increasingly oriented toward corporate law, perpetuating a system that values prestige and financial gain over social justice. A 2021 report from the American Bar Foundation indicated that nearly half of law school graduates work in the private sector within the first ten years of their careers, most of them in high-paying corporate firms or lobbying groups, which further concentrates legal power in the hands of the elite.
The oversupply of lawyers entering corporate sectors—many of whom attend the nation’s top law schools—has created a system where elite law firms and government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Justice and major regulatory bodies, dominate legal decision-making. This trend is also visible in the disproportionate representation of law school graduates in Washington, D.C., where they shape policy in ways that benefit large corporations and financial institutions, while leaving the needs of the general public unmet.
A central aspect of the legal system that perpetuates inequality is the way the billionaire class profits from the injustice system itself. Wealthy individuals and corporate entities have found ways to exploit the legal system to their advantage, contributing to the concentration of wealth and power. Many billionaires and large corporations fund legal battles designed to weaken regulations, block labor rights, and influence policy decisions that benefit their financial interests.
For example, major private prison companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group, both of which have ties to influential law firms, profit from the mass incarceration of predominantly Black and Latino individuals. These private companies lobby for harsher sentencing laws and immigration policies that fill their prisons, creating a cycle of profit that thrives on systemic inequality. Legal professionals trained in elite law schools frequently represent these corporations, further entrenching the power dynamics that keep vulnerable populations incarcerated.
The billionaire class also reaps the benefits of legal loopholes and tax avoidance schemes facilitated by top-tier law firms. Lawyers trained in Ivy League schools often advise wealthy clients on ways to hide their assets, evade taxes, and exploit the legal system for personal gain, which further exacerbates income inequality. Law firms and the lawyers who work in them profit immensely by providing these services, while the broader public bears the burden of underfunded social programs and public services.
The impact of law schools’ role in the legal system is not a new development, but has historical roots. For much of U.S. history, the courts and legal institutions have played a pivotal role in limiting democracy and reinforcing inequalities. However, there have been pivotal moments when the courts, often driven by lawyers trained in the nation's top schools, expanded democracy and fought for justice.
A key moment in the history of expanding democracy was the work of Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston, both of whom were products of Howard University School of Law—a historically Black institution that stood in stark contrast to the elite, mostly white law schools of their time. Marshall, who went on to become the first African American Supreme Court Justice, and Houston, his mentor, fought tirelessly against segregation and racial discrimination. Houston's strategy, dubbed "the 'liberal' approach to civil rights," involved challenging discriminatory laws through the courts, using legal arguments rooted in equal protection and the promise of the 14th Amendment.
Houston's legal battles laid the groundwork for the landmark Brown v. Board of Education (1954) case, where the Supreme Court, under the influence of Marshall's legal strategies, overturned the doctrine of “separate but equal” and declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. This ruling, perhaps one of the most profound examples of the courts expanding democracy, was achieved through the work of legal professionals committed to social justice, many of whom came from institutions outside the mainstream elite law schools.
Unfortunately, the trend of the courts advancing civil rights was not consistent. The Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans could not be citizens, and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld racial segregation, serve as stark reminders of how the legal system can be wielded to entrench inequality and limit democracy. The very law schools that trained many of the justices responsible for these rulings were also responsible for shaping the legal education that upheld the racist and exclusionary structures of the time.
Today, the cycle of legal education serving the interests of the wealthy and powerful continues. While the courts have sometimes played a role in broadening civil rights and democracy, too often they have sided with corporate interests, limiting progress. Lawyers trained in elite law schools continue to occupy spaces where the rules of the game are rigged in favor of those with wealth and influence.
To reverse this trend, law schools must take deliberate action. They must shift their focus from training lawyers for the highest-paying and most prestigious jobs to producing attorneys who are dedicated to the public good. This includes increasing financial accessibility, offering more scholarships for low-income students, and reevaluating the curriculum to emphasize social justice, public interest law, and equitable legal reforms. Moreover, legal education should challenge the structures of wealth and power, ensuring that future lawyers are equipped to dismantle the systems that benefit billionaires and corporations at the expense of justice.
The influence of law schools in perpetuating inequality cannot be overstated. The future of the legal profession—and, by extension, the justice system—depends on whether these institutions can embrace a new mission: one that fosters true equality under the law and dismantles the structures of privilege that continue to shape our society.
This graphic is part of an email from a US Department of Education official who was recently fired without good cause. Our experiences with this dedicated public servant were always excellent, something we cannot say about others in the DC crowd. The graphic displays a number of important measures that have been enacted by ED-FSA (Federal Student Aid) over the last six years--and one giant failure, general debt relief for more than 30 million citizens. We wish the best for those Department of Education workers who remain, and who may see their jobs made more difficult, privatized, or moved to other agencies. The work cannot be easy for anyone--especially those who care about the folks they serve--the consumers and their families who are less likely to receive justice in the coming months and years.
The Trump administration has issued a two-week ultimatum for schools and universities across the United States to end all programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion — DEI — or risk losing federal funding. The Department of Education has already canceled some $600 million in grants for teacher training on race, social justice and other topics as part of its crusade against "woke" policies. This comes as President Donald Trump has said he wants to abolish the agency and tapped major Trump donor and former professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon to carry out that goal; she is expected to be confirmed by the Senate with little or no Republican opposition. Education scholar Julian Vasquez Heilig, who teaches at Western Michigan University, says Trump's moves are part of "an attempt to privatize education" in the United States, with DEI used as a wedge to accomplish a larger restructuring of social structures. "Higher education hasn't faced a crisis like this since potentially McCarthyism."
If you report on US colleges and universities, get to know these 19 higher education databases
by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource
No matter what issue you’re covering on the higher education beat, your story will be stronger if you ground it in high-quality data. Fortunately for journalists, government agencies and academic researchers have gathered data on an array of topics and made it available online for free. You just need to know where to find it.
That’s why we created this tip sheet. It spotlights 19 higher education databases we think you ought to know about. This list is not meant to be exhaustive. We included databases that will help journalists report on some of the most common and pressing higher education issues.
Note that most of these databases are the projects of federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and National Science Foundation. We’ll update this list periodically. Please bookmark it and share it with colleagues because it’s sure to come in handy.
This searchable database, created by the National Center for Education Statistics, provides basic information on nearly 7,000 U.S. colleges and universities. Use it to look up information about an institution’s admission rate, tuition, undergraduate enrollment, academic programs, athletic programs and other characteristics. You can also compare institutions.
The National Center for Education Statistics, commonly referred to as NCES, is part of the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education.
Journalists can use this online platform, another NCES project, to find detailed information on various topics across K-12 education and higher education. Sift through decades of data that the NCES has collected on college costs, student demographics, student debt, faculty demographics, faculty salaries, student graduation and dropout rates, and other subjects.
DataLab’s Tables Library contains more than 8,000 data tables published by the NCES. Journalists who are comfortable working with data can use the platform’s PowerStats tool to create data visualizations and run linear and logistic regressions.
You’ll find thousands of government data sets and data-heavy reports here -- the federal government’s open data site. You can search for education data by location and government agency as well as by topic category and dataset format.
Use this higher education database, maintained by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education, to find information on crime at U.S. colleges and universities that receive federal funding. You can look at three years of statistics for a single school or generate reports to examine trends across schools.
Crimes that institutions report annually to the federal government include murder, aggravated assault, rape, hate crimes, domestic violence, motor vehicle theft and violations of state or local liquor laws. Schools also must report arrests as well as any disciplinary action taken against students accused of certain crimes.
For student loan default rates, check out this higher education database, which is maintained by Federal Student Aid, an office of the U.S. Department of Education. You can search default rates by state, city, institution, institution type and degree program.
This is a national database of K-12 schools, colleges and universities that are being investigated by the federal Office for Civil Rights, a division of the U.S. Department of Education that investigates discrimination complaints. Here you can find information on investigations of alleged Title IX and Title VI violations. Title IX is a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination at K-12 schools, colleges and universities that receive federal financial assistance. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin.
This research database houses data collected as part of the Healthy Minds Study, an annual survey that asks college students about their mental health and their school environment, including campus safety, peer support and mental health services. More than 850,000 people at more than 600 colleges and universities have completed the survey since its launch in 2007.
The principal investigators of the Healthy Minds Study are researchers at the University of California-Los Angeles, University of Michigan, Wayne State University and Boston University.
Tufts University’s Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement -- commonly known as CIRCLE -- has created several online data tools journalists can use to obtain data for stories about young voters and civic engagement on college campuses. For example, its Youth Voting and Civic Engagement in America data tool allows journalists to examine the voting habits of young adults by state, county or congressional district.
If you’re looking into allegations of research fraud or misconduct, Retraction Watch can help. It maintains a database of retracted scientific papers that reporters can use to search for retractions connected to a specific researcher, university or research organization. There’s also a user guide. Retraction Watch’s parent organization is the nonprofit Center for Scientific Integrity.
Use this database, created by ProPublica, to look up tax returns and Form 990 filings for almost 2 million tax-exempt organizations, including non-profit colleges and universities. Form 990 filings contain information on an organization’s annual revenue, sources of revenue, expenses, and the names and salaries of its top executives.
The Community College Research Center’s website offers a variety of interactive platforms that allow journalists to explore data on U.S. community colleges and their students. For example, one focuses on community college finances during the pandemic. Another focuses on dual enrollment programs, which allow high school students to enroll at local colleges to earn college credits. The Community College Research Center is located at Columbia University.
This project provides data on minority-serving institutions, or MSIs. Some of these colleges and universities were founded specifically to serve racial minorities -- for example, historically Black colleges and universities only served Black students for decades. Many MSIs are historically white institutions where enrollment has grown more racially and ethnically diverse over time.
The “Data & Reports” section of the Association of American Medical Colleges’ website offers a variety of reports and datasets on medical school funding, applicants, students, faculty and tuition. It also provides information on topics such as research lab productivity and medical students’ experiences with sexual harassment.
The American Bar Association provides reports and spreadsheets featuring data on U.S. law schools, law school enrollment and law students’ bar passage rates in the “Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar” of its website. It also provides reports on trends related to tuition, student and faculty demographics and student-faculty ratios.
Go to the College Board’s website for data and reports on the SAT college-entrance exam as well as the Advanced Placement program, which provides college-level curricula and exams for use at high schools worldwide. The College Board, a nonprofit organization that administers both, collects and makes public a variety of data on AP exam scores, SAT scores, students who take the AP exam, students who take the SAT and how both programs have grown over time.
Journalists can use this U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs database to compare the GI Bill benefits offered at individual trade schools, higher education institutions and employers across the U.S. The GI Bill helps U.S. military veterans and their family members pay for college or for personal expenses while training for a job.
Each year, the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics conducts a census of colleges and universities that spend at least $150,000 on research and development. The center, part of the National Science Foundation, publishes data tables and reports on the results of its Higher Education Research and Development Survey. Journalists can use them to find information on how much money institutions have spent doing research in different fields, their sources of research funding and how much schools spent on researcher salaries versus equipment, software and other expenses.
Commonly referred to as ERIC, the Education Resources Information Center is a searchable database of education research and information found in academic journals, books and government reports. While it’s free to use ERIC, which is sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education, journalists might need subscriptions to access many journal articles and book chapters.
Donald Trump's first weeks in office have been a whirlwind of executive orders, dramatic pronouncements, hasty reversals, and — most of all — confusion.
What will become of various streams of federal funding for higher ed? Will Immigration and Customs Enforcement show up on campuses? (And if so, what will colleges do?) Will the Department of Education be shuttered – and how would that impact colleges? A recent survey of around 100 college presidents found that 78 percent found the following statement to be true: “Donald Trump is going to war with higher education.”
Rick Seltzer has cut through the chaos every morning in The Chronicle's subscriber-only newsletter, the Daily Briefing. No one has done a better job of distinguishing signal from noise and articulating the specific stakes for colleges.
Join us on Thursday, February 20 at 1 p.m. ET / 10 a.m. PT for a discussion featuring Rick and Sarah Brown, a Chronicle senior editor. At this event, Rick and Sarah will make sense of Trump's first month in office and look ahead at what it portends for colleges and the people who work at them.
Did
you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by
readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.
Trump appears bent on ridding schools of dangerous practices like critical thinking and an unsanitized study of history.
In the initial days of his second term, President Donald Trump issued several executive orders “seeking
to control how schools teach about race and gender, direct more tax
dollars to private schools, and deport pro-Palestinian protesters.” On January 29, 2025, he signed the “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling”
executive order, which mandates the elimination of curricula that the
administration deems as promoting “radical, anti-American ideologies.”
This executive order is not just an attack on critical race theory or
teachings about systemic racism — it is a cornerstone of an
authoritarian ideology designed to eliminate critical thought, suppress
historical truth and strip educators of their autonomy. Under the guise
of combating “divisiveness,” it advances a broader war on education as a
democratizing force, turning schools into dead zones of the
imagination. By threatening to strip federal funding from institutions
that refuse to conform, this policy functions as an instrument of
ideological indoctrination, enforcing a sanitized, nationalistic
narrative that erases histories of oppression and resistance while
deepening a culture of ignorance and compliance.
Concurrently, President Trump issued the “Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families”
executive order, aiming to enhance school choice by redirecting federal
funds to support charter schools and voucher programs. This policy
enables parents to use public funds for private and religious school
tuition. While proponents claim that this legislation empowers parents
and fosters competition, in reality, it is a calculated effort to defund
and privatize public education, undermining it as a democratizing
public good. As part of a broader far right assault on education, this
policy redirects essential resources away from public schools, deepening
educational inequality and advancing an agenda that seeks to erode
public investment in a just and equitable society.
In the name of eliminating radical indoctrination in schools, a third executive order,
which purportedly aims at ending antisemitism, threatens to deport
pro-Palestinian student protesters by revoking their visas, warning that even those legally in the country could be targeted
for their political views. In a stark display of authoritarianism,
Trump’s executive order unapologetically stated that free speech would
not be tolerated. Reuters
made this clear in reporting that one fact sheet ominously declared: “I
will … quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on
college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never
before. To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist
protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will
deport you.”
By gutting federal oversight, he is handing the fate of education to
reactionary state legislatures and corporate interests, ensuring that
knowledge is shaped by a state held captive by billionaires and far
right extremists. This is the logic of authoritarianism: to hollow out
democratic institutions and replace education with white Christian
propaganda and a pedagogy of repression. At issue here is an attempt to
render an entire generation defenseless against the very forces seeking
to dominate them.
What we are witnessing is not just an educational crisis but a
full-scale war on institutions that not only defend democracy but enable
it. What is under siege in this attack is not only the critical
function of education but the very notion that it should be defined
through its vision of creating a central feature of democracy, educating
informed and critically engaged citizens.
These executive actions represent an upgraded and broader version of
McCarthyite and apartheid-era education that seeks to dictate how
schools teach about race and gender, funnel more taxpayer dollars into
private institutions, and deport Palestinian protesters. The irony is
striking: The White House defends these regressive measures of
sanitizing history, stripping away the rights of transgender students
and erasing critical race theory as efforts to “end indoctrination in
American education.” In truth, this is not about the pursuit of freedom
or open inquiry, nor is it about fostering an education that cultivates
informed, critically engaged citizens. At its core, this agenda is a
deliberate attack on education as a public good — one that threatens to
dismantle not only public institutions, but the very essence of public
and higher education and its culture of criticism and democracy. The
urgency of this moment cannot be overstated: The future of education
itself is at stake.
In the raging currents of contemporary political and cultural life,
where fascist ideologies are rising, one of the most insidious and
all-encompassing forces at play is the violence of forgetting — a plague
of historical amnesia. This phenomenon, which I have referred to as “organized forgetting,”
describes the systemic erasure of history and its violent consequences,
particularly in the public sphere. This is especially evident in the
current historical moment, when books are banned in
libraries, public schools and higher education across countries, such
as the United States, Hungary, India, China and Russia. Ignoring past
atrocities, historical injustices and uncomfortable truths about a
society’s foundation is not merely an oversight — it constitutes an
active form of violence that shapes both our collective consciousness
and political realities. What we are witnessing here is an assault by
the far right on memory that is inseparable from what Maximillian
Alvarez describes as a battle over power — over who is remembered, who
is erased, who is cast aside and who is forcibly reduced to something
less than human. This struggle is not just about history; it is about
whose stories are allowed to shape the present and the future. Alvarez captures this reality with striking clarity and is worth quoting at length:
Among the prizes at stake in the endless war of politics is history
itself. The battle for power is always a battle to determine who gets
remembered, how they will be recalled, where and in what forms their
memories will be preserved. In this battle, there is no room for neutral
parties: every history and counter-history must fight and scrap and
claw and spread and lodge itself in the world, lest it be forgotten or
forcibly erased. All history, in this sense, is the history of empire — a
bid for control of that greatest expanse of territory, the past.
Organized forgetting also helped fuel the resurgence of Donald Trump,
as truth and reason are being systematically replaced by lies,
corruption, denial and the weaponization of memory itself. A culture of
questioning, critique and vision is not simply disappearing in the
United States — it is actively maligned, disparaged and replaced by a
darkness that, as Ezra Klein
observes, is “stupefyingly vast, stretching from self-destructive
incompetence to muddling incoherence to authoritarian consolidation.”
This erosion affects institutions of law, civil society and education
— pillars that rely on memory, informed judgment and evidence to foster
historical understanding and civic responsibility. The attack on the
common good goes beyond the distractions of an “attention economy”designed
to distort reality; it reflects a deliberate effort to sever the ties
between history and meaning. Time is reduced to fragmented episodes,
stripped of the shared narratives that connect the past, present and
future.
This crisis embodies a profound collapse of memory, history,
education and democracy itself. A culture of manufactured ignorance —
rooted in the rejection of history, facts and critical thought — erases
accountability for electing a leader who incited insurrection and
branded his opponents as “enemies from within.” Such authoritarian
politics thrive on historical amnesia, lulling society into passivity,
eroding collective memory and subverting civic agency. This is
epitomized by Trump’s declaration
on “Fox & Friends” that he would punish schools that teach students
accurate U.S. history, including about slavery and racism in the
country. The call to silence dangerous memories is inseparable from the
violence of state terrorism — a force that censors and dehumanizes
dissent, escalating to the punishment, torture and imprisonment of
truth-tellers and critics who dare to hold oppressive power accountable.
At its core, the violence of forgetting operates through the denial
and distortion of historical events, particularly those that challenge
the dominant narratives of power. From the colonial atrocities and the
struggles for civil rights to the history of Palestine-Israel relations,
many of the most significant chapters of history are either glossed
over or erased altogether. This strategic omission serves the interests
of those in power, enabling them to maintain control by silencing
inconvenient truths. As the historian Timothy Snyder
reminds us, by refusing to acknowledge the violence of the past,
society makes it far easier to perpetuate injustices in the present. The
politics of organized forgetting, the censoring of history and the
attack on historical consciousness are fundamental to the rise of far
right voices in the U.S. and across the world.
With the rise of regressive memory laws, designed to repress what
authoritarian governments consider dangerous and radical interpretations
of a country’s past, historical consciousness is transformed into a
form of historical amnesia. One vivid example of a regressive memory law
was enacted by Trump during his first term. The 1776 Report,
which right-wingers defended as a “restoration of American education,”
was in fact an attempt to eliminate from the teaching of history any
reference to a legacy of colonialism, slavery and movements which
highlighted elements of American history that were unconscionable,
anti-democratic and morally repugnant. Snyder highlights the emergence
of memory laws in a number of states. He writes in a 2021 New York Times article:
As of this writing, five states (Idaho, Iowa, Tennessee, Texas and
Oklahoma) have passed laws that direct and restrict discussions of
history in classrooms. The Department of Education of a sixth (Florida)
has passed guidelines with the same effect. Another 12 state
legislatures are still considering memory laws. The particulars of these
laws vary. The Idaho law is the most Kafkaesque in its censorship: It
affirms freedom of speech and then bans divisive speech. The Iowa law
executes the same totalitarian pirouette. The Tennessee and Texas laws
go furthest in specifying what teachers may and may not say. In
Tennessee teachers must not teach that the rule of law is “a series of
power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.”… The
Idaho law mentions Critical Race Theory; the directive from the Florida
school board bans it in classrooms. The Texas law forbids teachers from
requiring students to understand the 1619 Project. It is a perverse
goal: Teachers succeed if students do not understand something.
A major aspect of this forgetting and erasure of historical memory is the role of ignorance,
which has become not just widespread but weaponized in modern times.
Ignorance, particularly in U.S. society, has shifted from being a
passive lack of knowledge to an active refusal to engage with critical
issues. This is amplified by the spectacle-driven nature of contemporary
media and the increasing normalization of a culture of lies and the
embrace of a language of violence, which not only thrives on distraction
rather than reflection, but has become a powerful force for spreading
bigotry, racial hatred and right-wing lies. In addition, the mainstream
media’s obsession with spectacle — be it political drama, celebrity
culture or sensationalist stories — often overshadows the more
important, yet less glamorous, discussions about historical violence and
systemic injustice.
This intellectual neglect allows for a dangerous cycle to persist,
where the erasure of history enables the continuation of violence and
oppression. Systems of power benefit from this amnesia, as it allows
them to maintain the status quo without having to answer for past
wrongs. When society refuses to remember or address past injustices —
whether it’s slavery, imperialism or economic exploitation — those in
power can continue to exploit the present without fear of historical
accountability.
To strip education of its critical power is to rob democracy of its transformative potential.
The cultural impact of this organized forgetting is profound. Not
only does it create a void in public memory, but it also stunts
collective growth. Without the lessons of the past, it becomes nearly
impossible to learn from mistakes and address the root causes of social
inequalities. The failure to remember makes it harder to demand
meaningful change, while reproducing and legitimating ongoing far right
assaults on democracy.
The violence of organized forgetting is not a mere act of neglect; it
is a deliberate cultural and intellectual assault that undercuts the
foundations of any meaningful democracy. By erasing the past, society
implicitly condones the ongoing oppression of marginalized groups and
perpetuates harmful ideologies that thrive in ignorance. This erasure
silences the voices of those who have suffered — denying them the space
to speak their truth and demand justice. It is not limited to historical
injustices alone; it extends to the present, silencing those who
courageously criticize contemporary violence, such as Israel’s
U.S.-backed genocidal war on Gaza, and those brave enough to hold power
accountable.
The act of forgetting is not passive; it actively supports systems of
oppression and censorship, muffling dissent and debate, both of which
are essential for a healthy democracy.
Equally dangerous is the form of historical amnesia that has come to
dominate our contemporary political and cultural landscape. This
organized forgetting feeds into a pedagogy of manufactured ignorance
that prioritizes emotion over reason and spectacle over truth. In this
process, history is fragmented and distorted, making it nearly
impossible to construct a coherent understanding of the past. As a
result, public institutions — particularly education — are undermined,
as critical thinking and social responsibility give way to shallow,
sensationalized narratives. Higher education, once a bastion for the
development of civic literacy and the moral imperative of understanding
our role as both individuals and social agents, is now attacked by
forces seeking to cleanse public memory of past social and political
progress. Figures like Trump embody this threat, working to erase the
memory of strides made in the name of equality, justice and human
decency. This organized assault on historical memory and intellectual
rigor strikes at the heart of democracy itself. When we allow the
erasure of history and the undermining of critical thought, we risk
suffocating the ideals that democracy promises: justice, equality and
accountability.
A democracy cannot thrive in the absence of informed and engaged
agents that are capable of questioning, challenging and reimagining a
future different from the present. Without such citizens, the very
notion of democracy becomes a hollow, disembodied ideal — an illusion of
freedom without the substance of truth or responsibility. Education, in
this context, is not merely a tool for transmitting knowledge; it is
the foundation and bedrock of political consciousness. To be educated,
to be a citizen, is not a neutral or passive state — it is a vital,
active political and moral engagement with the world, grounded in
critical thinking and democratic possibility. It is a recognition that
the act of learning and the act of being a citizen are inextricable from
each other. To strip education of its critical power is to rob
democracy of its transformative potential.
Confronting the violence of forgetting requires a shift in how we
engage with history. Intellectuals, educators and activists must take up
the responsibility of reintroducing the painful truths of the past into
public discourse. This is not about dwelling in the past for its own
sake, but about understanding its relevance to the present and future.
To break the cycles of violence, society must commit to remembering, not
just for the sake of memory, but as a critical tool for progress.
Moreover, engaging with history honestly requires recognizing that
the violence of forgetting is not a one-time event but a continual
process. Systems of power don’t simply forget; they actively work to
erase, rewrite and sanitize historical narratives. This means that the
fight to remember is ongoing and requires constant vigilance. It’s not
enough to simply uncover historical truths; society must work to ensure
that these truths are not forgotten again, buried under the weight of
media spectacles, ideological repression and political theater.
Ultimately, the violence of forgetting is an obstacle to genuine
social change. Without confronting the past — acknowledging the violence
and injustices that have shaped our world — we cannot hope to build a
more just and informed future. To move forward, any viable democratic
social order must reckon with its past, break free from the bonds of
ignorance, and commit to creating a future based on knowledge, justice
and accountability.
The task of confronting and dismantling the violent structures shaped
by the power of forgetting is immense, yet the urgency has never been
more pronounced. In an era where the scope and power of new pedagogical
apparatuses such as social media and AI dominate our cultural and
intellectual landscapes, the challenge becomes even more complex. While
they hold potential for education and connection, these technologies are
controlled by a reactionary ruling class of financial elite and
billionaires, and they are increasingly wielded to perpetuate
disinformation, fragment history and manipulate public discourse. The
authoritarian algorithms that drive these platforms increasingly
prioritize sensationalism over substance, lies over truth, the
appropriation of power over social responsibility, and in doing so,
reinforce modes of civic illiteracy, while attacking those fundamental
institutions which enable critical perspectives and a culture of
questioning.
The vital need for collective action and intellectual engagement to
reclaim and restore historical truth, critical thinking and social
responsibility is urgent. The present historical moment, both
unprecedented and alarming, resonates with Antonio Gramsci’s reflection
on an earlier era marked by the rise of fascism: “The old world is
dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of
monsters.”
In the face of a deepening crisis of history, memory and agency, any
meaningful resistance must be collective, disruptive and
unapologetically unsettling — challenging entrenched orthodoxies and
dismantling the forces that perpetuate ignorance and injustice. This
struggle needs to be both radical in its essence and uncompromising in
its demands for social change, recognizing education as inseparable from
politics and the tangible challenges people face in their everyday
lives. In this collective effort lies the power to dismantle the
barriers to truth, rebuild the foundations of critical thought, and
shape a future rooted in knowledge, justice and a profound commitment to
make power accountable. Central to this vision is the capacity to learn
from history, to nurture a historical consciousness that informs our
present and to reimagine agency as an essential force in the enduring
struggle for democracy. This call for a radical imagination cannot be
confined to classrooms but must emerge as a transformative force
embedded in a united, multiracial, working-class movement. Only then can
we confront the urgent crises of our time.
We’re resisting Trump’s authoritarian pressure.
As
the Trump administration moves a mile-a-minute to implement right-wing
policies and sow confusion, reliable news is an absolute must.
Truthout
is working diligently to combat the fear and chaos that pervades the
political moment. We’re requesting your support at this moment because
we need it – your monthly gift allows us to publish uncensored,
nonprofit news that speaks with clarity and truth in a moment when
confusion and misinformation are rampant. As well, we’re looking with
hope at the material action community activists are taking. We’re
uplifting mutual aid projects, the life-sustaining work of immigrant and
labor organizers, and other shows of solidarity that resist the
authoritarian pressure of the Trump administration.
As we work to dispel the atmosphere of political despair, we ask that you contribute to our journalism. Over 80 percent of Truthout’s
funding comes from small individual donations from our community of
readers, and over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring
monthly donors.
8
days remain in our fundraiser, and you can help by giving today.
Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.
This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.
There was no mention in the letter about legacy admissions at elite and highly selective universities which systematically discriminate because of social class.
According to the Dear Colleague letter:
The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent.
The Higher Education Inquirer will document those with power in higher
education who fall in line and are complicit in these anti-democratic efforts.
We hope there will be dissenters with power,
university presidents, trustees, and donors, who are willing to come
forward and organize others to do the same thing. But we know that
struggles like this cannot depend on those with power to step forward.
We pray that
these people in power, at the very least, will not prohibit action from
students who want to exercise their God-given civil rights, including First Amendment rights of speech and assembly.
After last year’s reauthorization of several regional accreditors, this submission recounts a case study that exemplifies troublesome concerns about the apparent lack of precision among regional accreditors (both of whom were reaffirmed by this body last year).
As a consequence of being placed on Heightened Cash Management, Bay State was severely sanctioned by its accreditor New England Commission on Higher Education (NECHE) and after a January 12, 2023 commission meeting lost its regional accreditation.
This came after a scathing recount of concerns by Massachusetts legislators (Warren, Pressley) who called on NECHE to explain how it would come to its decision (2023.01.10 Letter to NECHE Regarding Bay State College Concerns.pdf). Following NECHE’s action, Senator Warren and Representative Pressley called on the Department to discharge all student loans for Bay State College students
Almost simultaneously, WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC) filed sanctions against Ambow’s only other asset, NSAD for similar concerns that precipitated Bay State’s accreditation revocation. They issued a warning and ordered a team visit for February 2024. This came after an en-masse resignation of all non-Ambow board members and the sudden resignation of NSAD’s brand new president who was alarmed that NSAD refused to pay its landlord and other vendors.
After a team visit in February 2024 (NSAD - Team Report SV fall 2023.pdf | Powered by Box) in which the visiting team commends the new board of NSAD (four of whom, the majority, served similar role at defunct Bay State College; and for the hiring of failing Ambow Education Inc. COO Chaio-Ling Hsu as President of NSAD and lauded the appointment of a chief academic officer no longer employed nine months after this report) the commission acted in March, In March, the commission acted to remove the formal warning and to reschedule a follow up visit in 2026 (CAL_240306_NSAD_SV.pdf | Powered by Box)
In the meantime, Ambow continues to struggle. They fired their CFO (Jin Huang now holds the positions of CEO, CFO and Chairman of the Board) and moved their corporate office from Beijing to a small, shared office space in Cupertino, California. They continue to send barrages of press releases of little veracity or import in what one stock analyst describes: “All signs point to a business strategy based more on PR—and possibly on outright deception—than on an interest in product and execution”.
What should concern the public is that two regional accreditors from each coast see the risk of this ultimate owner very differently. One immediately warned the public by removing accreditation. The other, despite no sign of growth in enrollment nor of financial stability removed warnings and even commended what appears to be minimal alteration. This provides a confusing message to the public about whether an ultimate owner of colleges has the skills and the means to lead a college into the future.
One additional note: It seems that some of the expenses of the college for both Bay State and NSAD were siphoned to the parent company, leaving necessary and usual expenses of any college off book for the college and unknown to the regulators - unlike the federal government requirement of financial statements of both the college entity and the ultimate owner. Additionally, Ambow remains in court for disputes with their landlord and for wage theft of its former President. While one would expect to see vast improvements with a college removed from warning by its accreditor, it seems simply more of the same.
This report urges NACIQI to take the position that if an owner loses accreditation for any single institution under its management, any and all institutions accredited by any certified accreditor issue an immediate probation of accreditation, and that each accreditor shares its findings with one another to ensure precision and allow the public confidence. For additional information about our ongoing investigation, please visit the Higher Education Inquirer.
Thanks to Alan Collinge and Student Loan Justice for this information on government contractors for the US Department of Education's Student Loan Portfolio.
February 13, 2025 | WASHINGTON, D.C. — Following today’s Senate HELP Committee’s confirmation hearing to consider Linda McMahon to serve as Secretary of Education, the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) issued the following statement:
Statement from Aissa Canchola Bañez, Policy Director of SBPC:
“Linda McMahon’s testimony was nothing more than two hours worth of gaslighting. McMahon had the opportunity to state clearly and unequivocally that she will protect students, borrowers, and working families across the nation from the chaos that has already ensued as a result of President Trump and Elon Musk’s work to make their Project 2025 agenda the law of the land. She did not.
“When asked whether she would abide by a directive by President Trump that breaks a law, her nonanswer spoke volumes. It is clear that Linda McMahon’s blind loyalty to President Trump will guide her decision-making should she be confirmed to serve as the nation’s highest education official—and our students and communities will pay the price.
“Now more than ever, students, borrowers, and working families need an Education Secretary who will protect their interests, not the interests of private entities seeking to line their pockets off of our public education system. It is clear that Linda McMahon will not be that Education Secretary. We call on Senators to stand with students, educators, and working families across the nation and reject her nomination.”
Since the announcement of Linda McMahon’s nomination, the SBPC has consistently sounded the alarm that McMahon’s longtime loyalty to President Trump would make her a “rubber stamp” on the most harmful aspects of the Project 2025 agenda. SBPC also submitted a letter of opposition to Linda McMahon’s nomination, which was submitted into the Congressional record during the hearing.
Further Reading
SBPC letter to the Senate HELP Committee opposing Linda McMahon’s nomination: See Here
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) is a nonprofit organization focused on eliminating the burden of student debt for millions of Americans. We engage in advocacy, policymaking, and litigation strategy to rein in industry abuses, protect borrowers’ rights, and advance racial and economic justice.
