Search This Blog

Friday, March 28, 2025

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.

Trump's Growing Crackdown of Dissenters on Campus

In recent weeks, a growing number of international students and green card holders at prestigious universities, including Cornell, Columbia, Georgetown, and Tufts, have been arrested and detained by federal immigration authorities. These actions appear to be part of a broader crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism within U.S. academic institutions and against dissent in general.  

Tufts University

On March 26, 2025, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University, was detained by federal agents who revoked her student visa. Ozturk had co-authored an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper condemning investments in companies linked to Israel and referring to the "Palestinian genocide" in Gaza. Her detention occurred as she was heading to an iftar dinner during Ramadan.

Columbia University

Earlier this month, Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and recent graduate of Columbia University, was arrested in his university housing. Khalil's participation in pro-Palestinian protests led to allegations of supporting Hamas, resulting in the revocation of his green card. He is currently detained while challenging the deportation order.

Subsequently, Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia junior from South Korea holding a green card, was targeted for deportation due to her involvement in similar protests. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing her detention while she contests the deportation order.

Georgetown University

Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University postdoctoral fellow on a student visa, was detained on March 17, 2025, under accusations of spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism. His attorney disputes these claims, suggesting that Suri is being targeted because of his Palestinian wife's heritage and their perceived opposition to U.S. foreign policy.

Cornell University

Momodou Taal, a Cornell graduate student with dual British and Gambian citizenship, was instructed to surrender to ICE authorities on March 22, 2025. Taal's legal team preemptively filed a lawsuit challenging the deportation order, citing concerns over potential surveillance and targeting due to his activism.

These incidents have raised significant concerns among civil rights organizations, university officials, and international communities. Critics argue that the Trump administration's actions infringe upon First Amendment rights and target individuals based on their political views. In response, legal challenges are underway, with courts issuing orders to halt certain deportations and detentions.

As this situation develops, universities and advocacy groups continue to monitor and respond to the evolving landscape of immigration enforcement affecting international students and green card holders across the nation.

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/

Rise to power of authoritarian states - Part 1 (International School History Teacher)

Structural factors refer to the context that makes the rise to power of an authoritarian state more likely. Authoritarian regimes are unusual in countries that are rich, socially stable and that have a tradition of constitutionally limited, civilian government.  If they do emerge in these sorts of countries, it is usually the result of a crisis, brought about by external factors such as war or international economic crisis.   As usual with history, the history teachers favorite acronym PESC is a good way to go about organizing these structural factors – PESC = the political, economic, social, and cultural conditions that encourage authoritarian rule. 

 


Wednesday, March 26, 2025

Tufts University student detained. Protest follows. (WCVB Channel 5 Boston)

An international student from Tufts University has been detained. Rumeysa Ozturk, 30, was meeting friends for iftar, a meal that breaks a fast at sunset during Ramadan when she was arrested.  

Video obtained by The Associated Press appears to show six people, their faces covered, taking away Ozturk’s phone as she yells and is handcuffed. 

According to the Tufts Daily, "Rumeysa Ozturk, is a Turkish national and doctoral candidate in the Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development. Ozturk is a teaching fellow, works as a doctoral research assistant at Tufts’ Children’s Television Project and completed a master’s degree at Teachers College, Columbia University, as a Fulbright Scholar."

Ozturk co-wrote an op-ed in The Tufts Daily criticizing the university’s response to its community union Senate passing resolutions that demanded Tufts “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide,” disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.

After the arrest, hundreds of Tufts students protested.  

This arrest is consistent with Trump Administration efforts to intimidate and deport Muslim foreign students. Students from Cornell, Georgetown, Columbia University have also been detained.  


A Planned Failure? The Dangerous Path to Privatizing Student Loans

In a move that has raised eyebrows across Washington and beyond, President Donald Trump recently announced a plan to transfer the U.S. Department of Education’s vast student loan portfolio—totaling a staggering $1.8 trillion—to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Ostensibly, the goal is to "reorganize" and streamline the management of federal student loans. But behind the curtain, some experts and insiders are questioning whether this bold move is merely the beginning of a much darker plan: privatization at the expense of millions of American borrowers.

The Alleged 'Rescue' of the Loan Portfolio

The White House has framed the transfer as a necessary step to relieve the Department of Education (ED) of a heavy burden, positioning the Small Business Administration as the new "caretaker" of the nation’s student debt. According to President Trump, the SBA—under the leadership of Kelly Loeffler—will now handle the $1.8 trillion student loan portfolio, while the Department of Education focuses on other key educational initiatives.

For some, the move seems like a fresh approach to a problem that has long plagued U.S. higher education: the overwhelming student debt crisis. However, a deeper look into the mechanics of the transfer suggests that this could be the first step toward a far more troubling goal: the dismantling of the federal student loan system and the privatization of debt, a shift that could harm millions of consumers in the process.

The SBA’s Inexperience with Student Loans

For starters, the SBA has no real experience with managing educational debt. Historically, the agency has focused on small business loans, a niche financial product entirely different from student loans. The SBA is not equipped to handle the complex structure of federal student loans, which include income-driven repayment plans, loan forgiveness programs, and myriad protections for borrowers struggling to repay their debt.

While the SBA does have experience guaranteeing loans, it has never managed a portfolio of this size or complexity. With the agency also facing a 43% workforce reduction, including 2,700 staff members, it seems highly unlikely that the SBA will be able to competently manage the student loan system—especially when 40% of these loans are already in default or behind on payments.

This raises an obvious question: is the SBA being set up to fail?

The Planned Failure

According to several former senior officials within the Department of Education and others close to the discussions, the transfer of the student loan portfolio to the SBA could very well be a deliberate failure. These sources suggest that the true purpose of the transfer is not to improve the system, but to destabilize it—creating a crisis that would ultimately justify selling off the loan portfolio to private companies. In other words, the apparent "failure" of the SBA to manage the loans could be the prelude to a much broader and more damaging shift.

“This is the classic playbook of the privatization agenda: create a crisis, then say the only solution is to sell off the asset to the private sector,” one former senior Education Department employee explained. “If the SBA fails to manage the portfolio, it will create a narrative that only the private sector can do it effectively, and that will pave the way for Wall Street to swoop in.”

This strategy mirrors similar efforts in other sectors, where privatization has often been sold as a solution to government inefficiency. In the case of student loans, the "failure" of the SBA to properly manage the portfolio could lead to a private sector takeover, where for-profit companies would be free to set the terms of repayment, charge higher interest rates, and strip away borrower protections—all at the expense of consumers.

The Consumer Cost

While the government may pocket the short-term profits from selling off the portfolio, it is borrowers who will feel the brunt of the consequences. Private companies, driven by the desire for profits, would have little incentive to offer the same borrower-friendly protections currently available under the federal student loan system.

The end of income-driven repayment options, the loss of loan forgiveness programs, and an end to the temporary moratorium on student loan payments could push millions of borrowers into even deeper financial distress. Higher interest rates, less favorable repayment terms, and a complete lack of support for struggling borrowers are all potential outcomes if the loans are sold to the private sector.

Moreover, the move could disproportionately affect low-income borrowers and those already in default, who would likely face harsher terms under a privatized system. For many, this could mean years—or even decades—of paying off debt that continues to balloon, with no hope of relief.

A Dangerous Precedent

If this plan succeeds, it will set a dangerous precedent. The government's involvement in student loans has, for decades, been a safety net for borrowers. The idea of privatizing this essential system could open the floodgates for more essential public services to be sold off to private corporations, with little regard for the public good.

“Once you give the private sector control over something as critical as education debt, it’s hard to see where it stops,” said another insider. “This is not just about student loans. It’s about how we view the role of government in providing public services.”

The Long-Term Fallout

In the long run, the privatization of student loans could exacerbate the country’s growing wealth inequality, widen the racial wealth gap, and place an insurmountable burden on future generations of borrowers. For many, student loans are not just a financial issue—they are a life issue, affecting everything from career prospects to the ability to buy a home or start a family. The sale of the loan portfolio could result in an economic landscape where the cost of education becomes a permanent burden on a generation, with few avenues for relief.

A Predatory Scheme?

The proposed transfer of the student loan portfolio to the SBA may appear to be an effort to reform the system, but closer inspection reveals a much darker agenda: one that seeks to create a crisis that will pave the way for the privatization of federal student loans. While the government may stand to gain in the short term, the long-term consequences for borrowers could be devastating.

In the end, the real price of this maneuver will be paid by consumers, who could face higher costs, fewer protections, and more financial instability. If this plan moves forward as expected, it will be a devastating blow to the millions of Americans who rely on the federal student loan system—a Pyrrhic victory that benefits private interests, but leaves consumers to bear the consequences.

In the quest for privatization, the true cost of this gamble may well be borne by those who can least afford it: the borrowers.

Tuesday, March 25, 2025

FACULTY UNIONS SUE TRUMP ADMIN: NO HALTING SCIENCE RESEARCH TO SUPPRESS SPEECH (American Federation of Teachers)

The faculty and national labor unions allege that the Trump administration improperly canceled Columbia University’s federal funding to compel speech restrictions on campus, damaging both vital scientific research and academic discourse

NEW YORK– The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the AFT today sued the Trump administration on behalf of their members for unlawfully cutting off $400 million in federal funding for crucial public health research to force Columbia University to surrender its academic independence. While the Trump administration has been slashing funding since its first days in office, this move represents a stunning new tactic: using cuts as a cudgel to coerce a private institution to adopt restrictive speech codes and allow government control over teaching and learning.

The plaintiffs, who represent members of Columbia University faculty in both the humanities and sciences, allege that this coercive tactic not only undermines academic independence, but stops vital scientific research that contributes to the health and prosperity of all Americans. The terminated grants supported research on urgent issues, including Alzheimer’s disease prevention, fetal health in pregnant women, and cancer research.

The Trump administration’s unprecedented demands, and threats of similar actions against 60 universities, have created instability and a deep chilling effect on college campuses across the country.  Although the administration claims to be acting to combat antisemitism under its authority to prevent discrimination, it has completely disregarded the requirements of Title VI, the statute that provides it with that authority–requirements that exist to prevent the government from exercising too much unfettered control over funding recipients. According to the complaint, the cancellation of federal funds also violates the First Amendment, the separation of powers, and other constitutional provisions.

“The Trump administration’s threats and coercion at Columbia are part of a clear authoritarian playbook meant to crush academic freedom and critical research in American higher education. Faculty, students, and the American public will not stand for it. The repercussions extend far beyond the walls of the academy. Our constitutional rights, and the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to live in a democracy are on the line,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the AAUP.

“President Trump has taken a hatchet to American ingenuity, imagination and invention at Columbia to attack academic freedom and force compliance with his political views,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten. “Let’s be clear: the administration should tackle legitimate issues of discrimination. But this modern-day McCarthyism is not just an illegal attack on our nation’s deeply held free speech and due process rights, it creates a chilling effect that hinders the pursuit of knowledge—the core purpose of our colleges and universities. Today, we reject this bullying and resolve to challenge the administration’s edicts until they are rescinded.”

“We’re seeing university leadership across the country failing to take any action to counter the Trump administration’s unlawful assault on academic freedom,” said Reinhold Martin, president of Columbia-AAUP and professor of architecture. “As faculty, we don’t have the luxury of inaction. The integrity of civic discourse and the freedoms that form the basis of a democratic society are under attack. We have to stand up.”

The complaint alleges that the Trump administration’s broad punitive tactics are indicative of an attempt to consolidate power over higher education broadly. According to the complaint, the administration is simultaneously threatening other universities with similar punishment in order to chill dissent on specific topics and speech with which the administration disagrees. Trump administration officials have spoken publicly about their plans to “bankrupt these universities” if they don’t “play ball.”

Universities have historically been engines of innovation in critical fields like technology, national security, and medical treatments. Cuts to that research will ultimately harm the health, prosperity and security of all Americans.

“Columbia is the testing ground for the Trump administration’s tactic to force universities to yield to its control,” said Orion Danjuma, counsel at Protect Democracy. “We are bringing this lawsuit to protect higher education from unlawful government censorship and political repression.”

The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York and names as defendants the government agencies that cut Columbia’s funding on March 7 and signed the March 13 letter to Columbia laying out the government's demands required to restore the funding, including the Department of Justice, Department of Education, Health and Human Services and General Services Administration. The plaintiffs are represented by Protect Democracy and Altshuler Berzon LLP.

The full complaint can be read here.

The Evolving Landscape of Student Lending: Fintech Disruption and Bank Adaptation (Glen McGhee)

The student loan market represents a significant segment of consumer lending in the United States, with approximately $1.7 trillion in outstanding debt. This market is undergoing profound transformation as financial technology companies challenge traditional banking institutions, offering innovative lending models and digital-first experiences. This report compares the current footprint of fintechs and banks in student lending and analyzes potential market shifts if federal loan guarantees were eliminated.

The student loan market continues to expand at a significant pace despite periodic concerns about sustainability. The private student loan sector alone was valued at $412.7 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach $980.8 billion by 2032, representing a compound annual growth rate of 10.1%15. Overall, the student loans market is growing at approximately 9.2% annually over the next five years7, indicating robust demand despite economic uncertainties and policy fluctuations.
Traditional banks maintain a significant but gradually diminishing presence in the student loan market. These institutions typically offer standardized loan products with competitive rates for students with established credit histories or qualified cosigners. Their underwriting processes tend to be more conservative than newer market entrants, focusing primarily on traditional creditworthiness metrics and income verification.
Among the major bank participants in student lending, Citizens Bank stands out for its nationwide offerings for undergraduate and graduate students, as well as parent loans. The bank distinguishes itself through its multiyear approval process, reducing the need for repeated hard credit inquiries for continuing students2. Other significant bank participants include PNC Bank, which offers specialized loans for health and medical professions, and Sallie Mae, a pioneer in private student lending that has evolved from its origins as a government-sponsored enterprise.
Financial technology companies have aggressively entered the student loan market, introducing innovations in product design, underwriting methodologies, and customer experience. These entrants typically operate with lower overhead costs than traditional banks and leverage alternative data sources for credit decisions, potentially expanding access to students who might not qualify under conventional underwriting standards.
SoFi represents one of the most prominent fintech lenders, distinguished by its no-fee structure and flexible repayment arrangements with fixed APRs ranging from 4.19% to 14.83%16. College Ave provides private student loans covering up to 100% of school-certified attendance costs with APRs ranging from 3.99% to 17.99%16. Ascent has gained market recognition for its non-cosigned loan options that use future income potential rather than current credit history as the primary underwriting criterion.
Marketplace platforms have emerged as important intermediaries in the student loan ecosystem. LendKey partners with credit unions and community banks, functioning as both a marketplace and loan servicer5. Credible allows borrowers to compare offers from multiple lenders through a single application and soft credit check, streamlining the shopping process for students and families5.
Based on the search results, the following represent key players in the current student loan market:
  1. Citizens Bank - Offers multiyear approval and diverse loan options
  2. PNC Bank - Specializes in healthcare profession loans and offers scholarship opportunities
  3. Sallie Mae - Pioneer in student lending with undergraduate and graduate loan options
  4. Discover - Provides comprehensive student loan offerings with competitive rates
  5. Wells Fargo - Previously a major player but has exited the market
  6. MEFA - Regional specialized educational lender
  7. Education Loan Finance (ELFI) - The student loan division of SouthEast Bank
  8. Custom Choice - Specialized private student loan provider
  1. SoFi - Known for no-fee structure and comprehensive financial products
  2. College Ave - Offers loans covering up to 100% of attendance costs
  3. Earnest - Features borrower-friendly terms and competitive rates
  4. Ascent - Specializes in non-cosigned loan alternatives
  5. LendKey - Marketplace connecting borrowers with community banks and credit unions
  6. Credible - Student loan comparison marketplace
  7. MPower Financing - Focuses on international students
  8. Juno - Group-based negotiation platform for better loan terms
  9. Iowa Student Loan - Nonprofit state-based lender
  10. EDvestinU - Nonprofit lender affiliated with New Hampshire Higher Education Loan Corporation
  11. Stride Funding - Offers income share agreements and alternative financing models
  12. CommonBond - Socially responsible student lender (not mentioned in results but a known market participant)
These institutions represent a mix of traditional financial services providers and newer, technology-focused entrants. The market continues to evolve with mergers, acquisitions, and strategic partnerships reshaping competitive dynamics.
The potential elimination of federal student loan guarantees would fundamentally alter the market landscape, likely causing significant contraction and restructuring. This change would transform both the size of the market and the nature of participating institutions.
Without federal guarantees, student lending would revert to pure risk-based lending principles, dramatically changing accessibility and terms. The current market structure exists largely because federal guarantees remove most default risk for lenders, enabling broader access to financing and more favorable terms than would otherwise be available.
A Reddit discussion highlighted this dynamic: "Making students loans not guaranteed and having it work like a real loan and with that allowing it to be bankruptible would seem like a good idea"10. However, this would mean loan approval would be "based on criteria such as the borrower's ability to repay within a reasonable time frame and their high school performance"10, fundamentally changing who could access education financing.
If federal guarantees disappeared, the market would likely undergo significant consolidation:
  1. : Banks with substantial balance sheets and diverse revenue streams would have the greatest capacity to absorb increased lending risk. Among current participants, Citizens Bank, PNC Bank, and Discover would be best positioned to maintain student lending operations, though with substantially tightened criteria and higher rates.
  2. : Only those fintechs with sophisticated risk assessment models, alternative revenue streams, or access to institutional capital would likely survive. SoFi, having diversified beyond student lending into banking, investing, and insurance, would be among the strongest contenders. Earnest, with its sophisticated approach to underwriting, and Ascent, which already specializes in future-earnings-based lending, might also persist.
  3. : The market would likely shift toward income-based repayment models like those offered by Stride Funding, which ties repayment to future earnings rather than relying on traditional debt structures9. These models effectively shift some risk from borrowers to investors who bet on future earnings potential.
The student loan market would likely contract substantially from its current size, perhaps by 50-70%, as lenders would focus primarily on:
  1. Students pursuing high-return degrees at prestigious institutions
  2. Borrowers with exceptional credit profiles or financially strong cosigners
  3. Fields of study with clear employment paths and strong salary prospects
The market might realistically shrink to 7-10 major players from the current diverse landscape. The following institutions would be most likely to maintain significant student lending operations:
  1. Citizens Bank
  2. PNC Bank
  3. Discover
  4. SoFi
  5. Earnest
  6. Ascent
  7. Stride Funding or similar income-share agreement providers
Smaller regional banks, credit unions, and less-capitalized fintechs would likely exit the market entirely or dramatically reduce their student lending portfolios.
The removal of federal student loan guarantees would represent a fundamental restructuring of higher education financing in America. While it might address concerns about tuition inflation and excessive student debt, it would also significantly restrict educational access for many students, particularly those from lower and middle-income backgrounds.
Financial institutions with sophisticated risk assessment capabilities, substantial capital reserves, and diversified business models would be best positioned to remain in the market. The shift would likely accelerate innovation in alternative financing models, potentially leading to more alignment between educational costs and expected post-graduation outcomes.
For students, the changed landscape would require more careful consideration of educational investments, with greater emphasis on return-on-investment calculations for various fields of study and institutions. For higher education institutions, this shift would create strong pressure to demonstrate value and employment outcomes, potentially leading to significant changes in program offerings and pricing models.
This market transformation would ultimately test whether private financial markets alone can effectively finance broad access to higher education or whether some form of public support remains necessary to achieve societal goals of educational opportunity and economic mobility.
Citations:
  1. https://dirox.com/post/top-fintech-trends-2025
  2. https://www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/student-loans-from-banks/
  3. https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamminsky/2025/03/12/yes-your-student-loans-will-be-impacted-by-the-mass-department-of-education-layoffs/
  4. https://thefinancialbrand.com/news/payments-trends/smaller-card-issuers-risk-losing-volume-to-bank-and-fintech-bnpl-players-187234
  5. https://money.com/student-loans/
  6. https://abc13.com/post/loan-expert-breaks-down-impact-shrinking-department-educations-changes-involving-student-borrowers-repayment-rules/16007586/
  7. https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/global-education-student-loans-market
  8. https://thefinancialbrand.com/news/payments-trends/consumer-lending-to-pick-up-in-2025-186906
  9. https://builtin.com/articles/fintech-lending-applications
  10. https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1h0nqx0/would_getting_rid_of_guaranteed_student_loans_be/
  11. https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/fintech-lending-market-22833
  12. https://money.com/best-banks-for-students/
  13. https://www.skyquestt.com/report/fintech-lending-market
  14. https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/01/insights-finance-ftec-whats-next-for-fintechs-in-2025
  15. https://www.fintechfutures.com/techwire/private-student-loans-market-to-reach-980-8-billion-globally-by-2032-at-10-1-cagr-allied-market-research/
  16. https://www.debt.com/student-loan/types/private/best/
  17. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/fintech-market-108641
  18. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Assessing-the-Impact-of-New-Entrant-Nonbank-Firms.pdf
  19. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-survey-reveals-impacts-of-student-loan-debt-relief-and-repayment-challenges/
  20. https://www.techmagic.co/blog/fintech-trends/
  21. https://educationdata.org/student-loan-refinancing
  22. https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/ending-federal-student-loans
  23. https://www.spglobal.com/_assets/documents/ratings/research/101610419.pdf
  24. https://www.cnbc.com/select/best-big-banks-for-student-loan-refinancing/
  25. https://studentaid.gov/manage-loans/forgiveness-cancellation/debt-relief-info
  26. https://www.accenture.com/content/dam/accenture/final/industry/banking/document/Accenture-Banking-Top-10-Trends-2025-Report.pdf
  27. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/best-private-student-loans/
  28. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-student-loan-debt-trends-economic-impact
  29. https://www.independentbanker.org/article/2025/02/05/kick-lending-up-a-notch-with-digital-solutions
  30. https://www.nerdwallet.com/best/loans/student-loans/student-loan-refinance-companies
  31. https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf
  32. https://www.credible.com/student-loans/best-student-loan-companies
  33. https://globalxetfs.co/en/fintech-momentum-could-continue-into-2025/
  34. https://money.usnews.com/loans/student-loans/best-private-student-loans
  35. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-would-increase-costs-block-debt-cancellation-for-student-loan-borrowers/
  36. https://fineksus.com/top-banking-and-fintech-trends-for-2025/
  37. https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/34788/What_a_Second_Trump_Term_Could_Mean_for_Student_Financial_Aid
  38. https://www.globalxetfs.com/fintech-momentum-could-continue-into-2025/
  39. https://www.lendingtree.com/student/
  40. https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/student-loans/best-student-loan-refinance-companies
  41. https://studentaid.gov/understand-aid/types/loans/interest-rates
  42. https://www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/private-student-loans/
  43. https://www.mossadams.com/articles/2025/02/2025-financial-services-outlook
  44. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/07/31/2024-16838/request-for-information-on-bank-fintech-arrangements-involving-banking-products-and-services
  45. https://www.usnews.com/banking/student-accounts
  46. https://hesfintech.com/blog/lending-trends-2025/
  47. https://fintech-market.com/blog/consumer-lending-trends-in-2025
  48. https://www.siegemedia.com/strategy/fintech-statistics
  49. https://firstpagesage.com/business/fintech-valuation-multiples/
  50. https://www.retailbankerinternational.com/features/banking-and-payments-experts-share-sector-forecasts-for-2025/
  51. https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/industry/credit-and-lending
  52. https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the-assault-on-the-save-plan-has-brought-student-debt-relief-to-a-crossroads/
  53. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/fintechs-a-new-paradigm-of-growth
  54. https://www.studentloanprofessor.com/student-loan-companies/
  55. https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/student-loans/best-private-student-loans
  56. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/student-loan-forgiveness-what-know-ahead-2025
  57. https://www.acainternational.org/news/three-fintech-predictions-for-2025/
  58. https://www.datocms-assets.com/23873/1728379495-final_07-10_pledge-impact-report.pdf
  59. https://futureskillsacademy.com/blog/fintech-in-student-loan-management/
  60. https://plaid.com/resources/fintech/fintech-trends/
  61. https://milkeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/FinTechFeb2025.pdf
  62. https://geniusee.com/single-blog/fintech-industry-trends
  63. https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/student-loans/best-graduate-student-loans
  64. https://www.marketresearchfuture.com/reports/student-loan-market-22878
  65. https://www.consumerfinanceandfintechblog.com/2024/09/cfpb-settles-action-against-student-loan-servicer-with-industry-ban/
  66. https://www.forbes.com/advisor/student-loans/best-low-interest-student-loans/
  67. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/regulatory/articles/future-of-fintechs-risk-and-regulatory-compliance.html
  68. https://protectborrowers.org/elon-and-doge-are-attempting-to-illegally-delete-the-cfpb/