Maximus AidVantage

[Image of AidVantage operations in Greenville, Texas. Note the barbed wire fence.]

The recent decision to have the Small Business Administration (SBA) take over the federal student loan portfolio has sent shockwaves through the world of education finance. As the SBA — an agency traditionally focused on supporting small businesses — begins to manage a multi-billion dollar portfolio of student loans, borrowers, consumer protection advocates, and financial experts alike are left to question what this transition means for the future of loan servicing, borrower protections, and higher education financing.

At the heart of this shift is the role of Maximus AidVantage, one of the major student loan servicers handling federal loans. Maximus has already come under scrutiny for its inefficiency, poor customer service, and mishandling of crucial borrower programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. The company’s track record has led to widespread frustration, with many borrowers reporting significant issues, including misinformation, lost paperwork, and mistakes that have placed them at risk of financial hardship.

Yet, despite these concerns, Maximus has maintained its position at the helm of federal student loan servicing. Its CEO, Bruce Caswell, has been compensated handsomely for overseeing the company’s role in this controversial space. According to recent financial reports, Caswell’s total compensation has included a base salary of over $1.3 million, with total compensation often exceeding $8 million when accounting for bonuses, stock options, and other forms of remuneration. This high pay, especially in light of the company’s poor performance in customer service and loan servicing, raises questions about the priorities of both the company and the federal government, which continues to entrust Maximus with managing the finances of millions of borrowers.

The Shift to the SBA: A Lack of Expertise

The most immediate concern surrounding the SBA’s takeover of student loan management is its lack of expertise in this field. The SBA’s core mission has been to assist small businesses, offering loan guarantees and financial support to promote economic growth. While it is well-equipped to manage business loans, the agency has no experience dealing with the unique and complex needs of student loan borrowers. Federal student loans involve intricate repayment plans, borrower protections, and specialized programs like PSLF, all of which require a deep understanding of the educational sector and the financial struggles of students and graduates.

Transferring such an important and complex responsibility to the SBA without a clear plan for adaptation could lead to mismanagement, inefficiencies, and disruptions for millions of borrowers. The SBA simply isn’t set up to handle issues like loan forgiveness, income-driven repayment plans, and the variety of special accommodations that are necessary for student borrowers. If the SBA isn’t adequately staffed or resourced to take on these new responsibilities, students could be left in the lurch, facing delays, confusion, and even errors in their loan servicing.

A Confusing Transition for Borrowers

For those already dealing with the intricacies of federal student loans, this transition to the SBA is likely to create a significant amount of confusion. Student loan borrowers rely on clear communication, accurate account management, and timely assistance when navigating repayment plans. The Department of Education has long been the agency responsible for ensuring that these programs are managed effectively, but with the SBA taking over, borrowers may face new systems, new contacts, and, potentially, a lack of clarity about their loan status.

One of the biggest risks in this transition is the potential disruption of critical loan repayment programs, such as PSLF, which allows public service workers to have their loans forgiven after ten years of payments. These programs require careful management to ensure that borrowers meet the necessary qualifications. The SBA is not accustomed to handling such programs and may struggle to maintain the same level of efficiency and accuracy, especially if the agency does not prioritize dedicated support for student loan borrowers.

Diminished Consumer Protections

Perhaps the most concerning outcome of the SBA taking over student loans is the potential erosion of consumer protections. The Department of Education has a specific mandate to protect borrowers, which includes holding loan servicers accountable for mishandling accounts and ensuring transparency in loan servicing practices. The SBA, however, has never been tasked with such consumer-focused regulations, and its shift to managing student loans raises concerns that borrower rights might not be adequately enforced.

For example, the SBA may not have the resources or inclination to monitor loan servicers like Maximus closely, allowing them to continue engaging in deceptive practices without fear of regulatory repercussions. The agency might also be less likely to step in when borrowers face issues such as misapplied payments, incorrect information about forgiveness programs, or poorly managed accounts. With the SBA’s focus on business rather than consumer welfare, student loan borrowers may find themselves facing more hurdles without the protections that the Department of Education once provided.

The Impact on Repayment and Forgiveness Programs

Another pressing issue is the potential disruption of repayment and forgiveness programs under SBA oversight. Programs like Income-Driven Repayment (IDR), designed to help borrowers pay off their loans based on their income, require careful management and regular updates. Similarly, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is highly specific and requires rigorous tracking of borrowers’ payments and work history to ensure they qualify for forgiveness after ten years.

If the SBA is not adequately equipped to handle these specialized programs, borrowers might find themselves in a precarious position, especially if their loans are mismanaged or if they are denied forgiveness due to administrative errors. The confusion caused by the transition could delay or even derail borrowers’ efforts to achieve loan forgiveness, leaving them stuck with debt for longer than expected.

The Role of Maximus: Financial Incentives Amidst Failure

Amidst the uncertainty of this transition, Maximus continues to play a key role in servicing the federal student loan portfolio. Yet, despite its persistent failures in managing accounts and borrower relations, Maximus has remained highly profitable, with Bruce Caswell’s executive compensation reflecting this success in terms of revenue but not in terms of customer satisfaction.

Maximus’s reported $8 million in total compensation for Caswell, despite the company’s history of customer complaints, raises serious questions about priorities. While Maximus rakes in millions from servicing federal loans, borrowers are left to deal with the consequences of mistakes, misinformation, and poor service. In a system where the stakes are incredibly high for borrowers, this disparity between executive pay and customer service is concerning, especially in light of the SBA’s takeover, which promises more uncertainty.

Adding to the controversy, Maximus has also been involved in labor disputes with the Communications Workers of America (CWA), its workers' union. These disputes, which have centered on issues such as wages, benefits, and working conditions, further complicate the company’s already tarnished reputation. Workers have accused Maximus of engaging in unfair labor practices and failing to adequately support employees who are tasked with assisting borrowers. If these labor disputes continue to affect employee morale and productivity, it could lead to even worse service for borrowers who are already dealing with a complicated and frustrating loan servicing process. The combination of poor customer service, labor unrest, and executive compensation that seems out of sync with the company’s performance paints a troubling picture for the future of student loan management under Maximus.

The Threat of Reduced Loan Forgiveness and IDR Plans

Adding to the turmoil surrounding the future of student loans is the growing effort by the U.S. government to reduce or even eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans. These programs were designed to provide crucial relief for borrowers working in public service or those struggling with debt relative to their income. However, recent reports suggest that the government may look to reduce eligibility for these programs, impose stricter requirements, or completely eliminate them altogether as part of broader fiscal policy adjustments.

The removal of or reductions to these programs would leave borrowers with fewer avenues to manage their debt, potentially increasing default rates and extending the time it takes for borrowers to repay their loans. For individuals in public service jobs or those facing financial hardship, these changes would have a devastating impact on their ability to achieve financial stability and pay down their student loans. If the SBA, with its lack of focus on education finance, inherits this responsibility without reinforcing these programs, borrowers might find themselves in a far worse position than ever before.

Furthermore, this reduction in borrower protections and streamlining of repayment options may also be part of a broader strategy to push more borrowers into private loan options, which could further exacerbate financial hardship for those who are already struggling. With private loans often carrying higher interest rates, less favorable repayment terms, and fewer options for deferral or forgiveness, such a shift would mark a significant pivot towards privatization, benefiting financial institutions while leaving borrowers with even fewer protections and much higher costs.

A Plan to Push Consumers Toward Private Loans?

Many experts are beginning to question whether the government’s plans for overhauling student loan servicing are part of a larger agenda to move borrowers toward private loans. By reducing or eliminating federal loan protections, forgiveness programs, and income-driven repayment options, the government may be attempting to create a vacuum in which private lenders can step in and offer alternative (and likely more expensive) financing options.

This push toward privatization could significantly increase profits for private lenders while making it harder for borrowers to repay their loans. With private loans lacking many of the protections and flexible repayment options offered by federal loans, such a shift could result in higher default rates and greater financial instability for borrowers, particularly for those with already high debt levels.

Conclusion: A New Era of Uncertainty

The transition of student loan servicing to the Small Business Administration represents a significant shift in the federal student loan system, one that could lead to inefficiencies, confusion, and a reduction in protections for borrowers. With agencies like Maximus AidVantage continuing to profit from loan servicing despite failing borrowers, ongoing labor disputes, and a focus on executive compensation over customer service, and the SBA stepping into a complex arena with limited experience, the future of student loan servicing seems fraught with challenges.

The push to reduce or eliminate key student loan forgiveness programs like PSLF and IDR only adds to the uncertainty, leaving millions of borrowers facing a potentially more difficult future. Moreover, the possibility of moving consumers toward private loans with fewer protections and harsher terms would deepen the financial struggles of many borrowers. This move underscores the importance of effective oversight and the need for federal agencies to prioritize the well-being of borrowers over financial interests. The student loan system should be about more than just revenue generation — it should be about supporting borrowers and ensuring that they can achieve financial freedom, not be left trapped in a cycle of debt and frustration. Without proper management, this new era of student loan servicing risks deepening the crisis for millions of Americans who are already struggling to keep up with their education-related debts.

International Students Increasingly Wary of Study in US

Since Donald Trump returned to the U.S. presidency in January 2025, international perceptions of American higher education have shifted dramatically. Around the globe, students, educators, and policymakers are reassessing the value, safety, and accessibility of studying or collaborating with U.S. institutions. Here is a snapshot of specific reactions from different parts of the world.

Growing Caution Among Prospective International Students

According to a Keystone Education Group survey, about 42% of international students said they are less likely to consider studying in the U.S. Concerns about visa restrictions, political instability, and potential discrimination have driven many to explore alternative destinations such as Canada, Australia, and Germany.

China: Escalating Distrust and Diversion

Chinese students and families, once the largest international cohort in U.S. higher education, are increasingly turning away from American universities. Recent visa revocations, national security allegations, and rising U.S.-China tensions have severely impacted perceptions. A Reuters report highlights that many Chinese students now prefer pursuing studies in the United Kingdom, Italy, or remaining within China's expanding higher education system.

United Kingdom: An Opportunistic Shift

British universities are actively courting students and researchers who might otherwise have chosen the U.S. In response to Trump's policies, institutions like Oxford and Cambridge are emphasizing their commitment to academic freedom, diversity, and international collaboration. The UK government has also streamlined visa processes to attract displaced academic talent.

Norway: Academic Haven Building

Norway has launched a new program aimed at luring top researchers away from American institutions. Framed as a defense of academic freedom and critical scientific research, this initiative offers generous funding packages, stable working environments, and a clear commitment to maintaining the autonomy of scholarship. Norwegian universities view this moment as an opportunity to boost their global standing.

European Union (General): Retreat and Redirection

Across the broader European Union, there is a sense of retreat from American partnerships. Universities in Germany, France, and the Netherlands are seeing increased interest from international students previously targeting the U.S. Meanwhile, collaborative research initiatives are pivoting towards intra-European or Asia-Europe partnerships, avoiding U.S.-centric agreements.

Latin America: Disillusionment and Regional Investment

Students and academics in Latin American nations such as Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia are increasingly disillusioned with the U.S. as an educational destination. Instead, there is growing investment in regional university systems and partnerships with European institutions. For many, the perception of an unwelcoming and politically unstable United States has made alternatives more attractive.

Australia and Canada: Beneficiaries of American Decline

Australia and Canada continue to benefit from the shifting landscape. Both countries are marketing themselves as safe, progressive, and welcoming alternatives to the U.S. for higher education. Universities in Melbourne, Toronto, Vancouver, and Sydney report record numbers of applications from international students.

Middle East: Caution and Cultural Shifts

In Gulf nations like the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, caution dominates discussions around sending students to the U.S. Political tensions and concerns about racial profiling have led to a pivot toward local branch campuses of Western universities and institutions in Europe and Asia.

Conclusion

The "Trump 2.0" era has fundamentally altered the international image of American higher education. While elite institutions may weather the storm to some extent, the broader sector faces declining international enrollments, shrinking influence in global research, and a steady erosion of the "American Dream" narrative. In this moment of geopolitical and educational reconfiguration, U.S. higher education's dominance is no longer taken for granted.

---

Sources:

• Keystone Education Group Survey, 2025

• Reuters, April 2025: "Trump Visa Cuts and Tariff Hikes Turn Chinese Students Away"

• The Guardian, April 2025: "Norway Launches Scheme to Lure Top Researchers Away from US Universities"

• Washington Post, April 2025: "Trump's Crackdown on Foreign Students is a Gift to China"

• Times of India, April 2025: "42% of International Students Unlikely to Consider US"

"America, América": Greg Grandin on Latin American History, from Colonization to CECOT to Pope Francis (Democracy Now!)

We spend the hour with acclaimed historian Greg Grandin discussing his new book, America, América: A New History of the New World, which spans five centuries of North and South American history since the Spanish conquest, including the fight against fascism in the 1930s. He examines the U.S.-Latin American relationship under Trump, with a focus on El Salvador, Panama, Ecuador and Cuba. Grandin also has a new piece for The Intercept that draws on the book, headlined "The Long History of Lawlessness in U.S. Policy Toward Latin America." "If the United States really has given up its role as superintending a global liberal order and the world is reverting back to these kind of spheres of power competitions, then Latin America becomes, essentially, much more important," says Grandin. We also continue to examine the legacy of the late Pope Francis, the son of Italian immigrants to Argentina and the first pope from Latin America. Grandin shares how the Catholic Church's involvement in the conquest and colonization of the continent impacted the pope's beliefs. 

Democracy Now! is an independent global news hour that airs on over 1,500 TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream at democracynow.org Mondays to Fridays 8-9 a.m. ET.

Trump is gutting what made American science great (Fareed Zakaria, CNN)

A New Era of Accountability: The Case for Taxing Universities with Legacy Admissions.

As debates around the fairness of college admissions continue to dominate headlines, a growing number of voices are calling for a fundamental change in how universities operate—especially when it comes to legacy admissions. Legacy admissions, a practice where children of alumni are given preferential treatment in the admissions process, have long been a controversial issue. Critics argue that these policies disproportionately benefit wealthy, predominantly white families, perpetuating cycles of privilege and inequality in higher education.

However, a new idea has emerged: what if universities that maintain legacy admissions policies were taxed? This radical proposal seeks to directly address the social and economic disparities that legacy admissions exacerbate. Let’s break down how this concept could work and why it may be an essential step toward greater fairness in higher education.

Legacy Admissions and Their Impact

Legacy admissions are widely seen as a way for universities to maintain strong alumni relations and secure large financial donations. While this may have practical advantages for universities, the social consequences are more troubling. Studies have shown that legacy students tend to come from wealthier backgrounds and are often already overrepresented in the student body of elite institutions.

For example, at Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale, legacy students make up a disproportionately high percentage of the accepted class, despite often having lower academic performance metrics compared to their non-legacy peers. The practice has sparked outrage from students, parents, and activists who argue that it locks out deserving candidates from underrepresented communities, particularly students of color and first-generation college applicants.

The Taxation Proposal

The core of the proposed policy is simple: universities that admit a significant number of legacy students—say, 20% or more of the incoming class—would be required to pay a tax based on the proportion of legacy students admitted. This tax could be structured progressively, with higher taxes imposed on universities with a greater percentage of legacy admits. The funds raised could be earmarked for initiatives aimed at increasing diversity, providing scholarships for underrepresented students, or supporting public universities that offer accessible, low-cost education.

The argument for this approach is rooted in the idea that universities benefiting from preferential admissions policies should be held financially accountable for the social inequality they perpetuate. By taxing legacy admissions, we create an economic incentive for universities to reconsider these outdated practices and move toward a more equitable admissions process.

Economic and Social Benefits

1. Encouraging Diversity: Universities that rely on legacy admissions often argue that they are fostering long-term relationships with alumni and maintaining their traditions. However, the proposed tax would encourage schools to focus more on diversity and accessibility. With the additional tax burden, institutions would likely seek alternative ways to boost their endowments or attract alumni donations, potentially pushing them toward more inclusive, merit-based admissions policies.

2. Supporting Public Institutions: The revenue generated from taxing legacy admissions could be reinvested into public universities, which often face funding shortages and higher tuition rates. These schools serve a larger proportion of low-income and first-generation students, and additional funding could help close the equity gap between public and private universities.

3. Public Accountability: The tax system would provide an additional layer of public accountability for how universities operate, ensuring that schools with large endowments and large alumni bases do not perpetuate systems of privilege at the expense of broader societal equality.

Addressing Concerns

Opponents of this idea will likely argue that taxing universities could have unintended consequences, such as limiting the resources available for financial aid or academic programs. Some may also claim that legacy admissions serve a legitimate purpose in fostering strong alumni networks and ensuring continued donations.

However, these concerns fail to address the larger moral issue at stake: the perpetuation of privilege in higher education. Universities, especially those with large endowments, can afford to innovate and adapt. Many already provide substantial financial aid packages, and the taxes levied on legacy admissions would provide a direct opportunity to reinvest those resources into a more equitable future.

The Path Forward

In many ways, taxing legacy admissions is just one piece of the puzzle. A comprehensive reform agenda would also include revisiting standardized testing practices, increasing transparency in the admissions process, and offering more substantial financial aid packages to students from underrepresented backgrounds. However, the idea of using tax policy to address the inequities embedded in legacy admissions provides a concrete, measurable step forward.

It’s time for universities to evolve and embrace a future where access to higher education is based on merit, not on family connections or wealth. By taxing schools that perpetuate legacy admissions, we can push institutions to confront their role in social inequality and work toward a more inclusive and accessible system for all students.

Trump Versus Academia, April 25, 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

Here's my latest Trump and academia vlog report. If you’re new to this series, these videos are where I summarize what the Trump administration has been doing to higher education, and how colleges and universities have responded. Here are the latest developments since the last video, as of today, April 25, 2025. 

Previous episodes here:

  • Trump and higher education: report fr... 1 The Federal level 

Executive orders: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet...
https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-r...

EEOC texts: 

https://theintercept.com/2025/04/23/t...

National Science Foundation canceled grants: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/sc...

NSF’s director resigned: https://www.science.org/content/artic...

National Institutes of Health canceled The Women’s Health Initiative: https://www.science.org/content/artic...

Deportations and visa revocations of international students: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/g...

XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/3081/

Democratic members of Congress visiting Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/04/2...

Legal challenges: 

https://apnews.com/article/internatio...
https://abc7chicago.com/post/us-stude...
https://katu.com/news/local/federal-j...
https://wgme.com/news/local/aclu-file...

In previous videos I’ve paused to read the names of academics seized or threatened with deportation by these offices, the names of people like Rasha Alawieh. Yunseo Chung. Alireza Doroudi. Doğukan Günaydın. Mahmoud Khalil. Leqaa Kordia. Rumeysa Ozturk. Kseniia Petrova. Ranjani Srinivasan. Badar Khan Suri. Momodou Taal. 2 Academic reactions Trump on Harvard and one lawyer on Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTr...

Boycotting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L...

Research Council of Norway: https://www.theguardian.com/education...

I hope this video summary has been of use to you. Please share your thoughts, additions, and other reactions in the comment box below. If you don’t feel you can comment publicly, please reach out to me directly through the contact link at the end of today’s show notes. Given the pace of events, I’ll try to post these videos more frequently. This is a rough, dark time for those of us in higher education. It seems likely to get worse. I hope we can help each other out - and fight. Please take care, everyone. https://bryanalexander.org/contact-br...

Intro and outro sound: https://freesound.org/people/envirOma...

DOD continues to shield bad actor schools that prey upon military servicemembers

For more than seven years, we have been waiting to obtain information from the US Department of Defense (DOD) about schools that prey upon servicemembers using DOD Tuition Assistance to further their college aspirations. And we have done it at our peril, repeatedly taking flak from people in DC.  

As the Higher Education Inquirer reported earlier, DOD and these schools have had questionable relationships with these schools going back to the 1980s, with the for-profit college takeover of CCME, the Council of College and Military Educators.  

Those who follow the higher education business know the names of the bad actors, some that are still in business (like the University of Phoenix and Colorado Tech) and some that have closed (like ITT Tech and the Art Institutes). Others have morphed into arms of state universities (Kaplan University becoming Purdue University Global and Ashford University becoming University of Arizona Global). 

Accountability was supposed to happen during the Obama administration (with Executive Order 13607) but those rules were not fully implemented. Under the first Trump administration, these safeguards were largely ignored, and bad actor schools faced no penalties.  

Some of these scandals were reported in the media, and have been forgotten.

On April 1, 2025 we were again supposed to receive information about these bad actor schools, and the DOD officials who were complicit.  It didn't happen. That FOIA (22-1203) which was initiated in July 2022 is now scheduled for a reply on July 3, 2025, three years from the original submission. 

Previous FOIAs from 2019 also came up with no information.  And requests for information in 2017 from DOD officials were met with harassment from other parties. 

The only thing we can be grateful for is that DOD continues to communicate with us. 

 

Related links:

Trump's DOD Failed to Protect Servicemembers from Bad Actor Colleges, But We Demand More Evidence 

DoD review: 0% of schools following TA rules (Military Times, 2018)

Schools are struggling to meet TA rules, but DoD isn’t punishing them. Here’s why. (Military Times, 2019)

Trump Admin announces it will throw borrowers into mandatory collections. (Student Borrower Protection Center)

The Trump Administration unleashed several attacks on students, student loan borrowers, and their families this week. On Wednesday, President Trump signed a flurry of executive orders impacting students, families, and higher education. Meanwhile, at the start of this week, the Trump Administration also announced plans to start subjecting millions of struggling borrowers in default to mandatory collections. Read our statement:

Advocates Slam Trump Administration for Throwing Millions of Americans With Student Debt Into the Jaws of Government Collections Machine Move Comes as Millions of Americans Are Struggling to Navigate Unprecedented Economic Uncertainty and Record Number of Americans With Student Loan Debt Are Behind on Student Loan Bills April 21, 2025 | WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Trump Administration announced plans to begin subjecting millions of Americans in default to mandatory collections, including wage garnishment, tax refund, and Social Security benefit offsets. According to the Administration’s announcement, starting on May 5, 2025, borrowers will begin receiving collection notices through the U.S. Treasury Offset Program with administrative wage garnishment expected to resume later in the summer. The decision to resume the government’s collections machine marks the first time in five years that the federal government will penalize Americans who fall behind on their student loan payments. The announcement also comes as Americans are navigating unprecedented economic uncertainty—struggling to cover the rising costs of everyday goods, dealing with the economic fallout of mass firings of more than 24,000 federal workers all while being unable to access the full suite of affordable repayment options to help better manage their student loans. Today’s announcement referenced a future “robust communication campaign” to assist borrowers, but did not provide any information about what, if any, steps the administration is taking to ensure the student loan system will meet borrowers’ needs and fulfill their statutory and contractual rights. In response, Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) Executive Director Mike Pierce released the following statement: “For 5 million people in default, federal law gives borrowers a way out of default and the right to make loan payments they can afford. Since February, Donald Trump and Linda McMahon have blocked these borrowers’ path out of default and are now feeding them into the maw of the government debt collection machine. This is cruel, unnecessary, and will further fan the flames of economic chaos for working families across this country.”

Read the Full Statement

Trump Backs Down on Threats to International Students, But Students Should Still Be Wary

In a stunning and unexplained reversal, the Trump administration has reinstated the legal statuses of hundreds of international students whose records were recently terminated—an aggressive move many immigration attorneys, advocates, and higher education leaders saw as a politically motivated purge.

Elizabeth D. Kurlan, a Justice Department attorney, announced during a federal hearing on Friday that the administration is restoring the SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) records of affected students while Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) crafts a new framework for future terminations.

But for many in the higher education community, this about-face raises more concerns than it resolves.

“Like Somebody Flipped a Light Switch”

International students across the country were stunned Thursday afternoon when their status records were quietly reactivated, often without explanation or notice. “It’s like somebody flipped a light switch on,” said Cleveland-based immigration attorney Jath Shao, whose clients were among those reinstated.

Universities from UC Berkeley to the Rochester Institute of Technology reported sudden, uneven restorations—some students were reinstated, others left in limbo. The randomness of it all has underscored what critics call the administration’s disregard for due process and the human cost of erratic immigration enforcement.

At UC Berkeley, only about half of the impacted students saw their records restored. In Minnesota, immigration attorney David Wilson said that while some of his clients had their statuses reinstated, others remain legally adrift. And even for those reinstated, the problems don’t end there.

Not Fully “Made Whole”

Despite the government’s public pivot, immigration experts warn that the long-term consequences of the status terminations may still follow these students. The terminated statuses, even if reversed, remain part of the official record—and could jeopardize future visa renewals, green card applications, or even employment opportunities.

“The time that they had their SEVIS status terminated could still have harmful effects,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic. “It’s not enough for the federal government to simply restore service records. The government would need to somehow make the students whole.”

What’s more, many students remain trapped inside the United States. Their reinstated statuses do not automatically mean reinstated visas—many of which were revoked in the same sweep. Without valid visas, these students risk being barred from reentry if they leave the country.

A Campaign of Retaliation

Attorneys and student advocates point to what appears to be a pattern of targeted enforcement by ICE. Many of the students who lost their status were flagged for political activism, minor infractions like DUIs, or simply for being out of status during bureaucratic transitions.

“There’s little doubt that this was about sending a message,” said Shao. “By now it’s obvious that the Trump administration spent the four years of Biden plotting their revenge on the immigration system. But once some brave students and lawyers went to the courts — the administration’s defenders were unable or unwilling to explain the rationale.”

The legal pushback may have forced the administration’s hand—for now. But ICE’s authority to terminate SEVIS records remains intact, and a new policy is reportedly in development. Without transparency or oversight, advocates fear a more durable system of punitive enforcement is on the horizon.

Higher Education at the Crossroads

The Trump administration’s crackdown on international students is not happening in a vacuum. It reflects a broader shift toward nationalist, authoritarian governance—one that sees immigrants, universities, and dissent itself as threats to be neutralized.

For U.S. colleges and universities, international students are more than just tuition revenue—they are integral members of the academic and social fabric. Their vulnerability, however, is increasingly evident. And unless institutions begin to use their political and legal capital to protect these students, they risk becoming complicit in a system of silent expulsions and bureaucratic cruelty.

Madness on Campus: The Unseen Struggles of College Students

College campuses are often portrayed as vibrant places of learning, personal growth, and social exploration. For many, these years are full of excitement, new experiences, and the thrill of shaping one’s future. However, beneath the surface of campus life, a darker reality lurks—a reality that is rarely discussed but increasingly hard to ignore. The mental health struggles of college students have reached a crisis point, and the pressure to succeed academically, socially, and professionally is often pushing students to their breaking point. The “madness” on campus isn’t just about late-night study sessions or the intensity of competitive sports—it’s about the unseen battles many students are facing every day.

The Pressure Cooker of College Life

For today’s college students, the pressure to succeed is more intense than ever. In addition to excelling academically, students are expected to balance internships, extracurriculars, social lives, and the looming uncertainty of their futures. The fear of not measuring up, of failing to secure a job after graduation, or of not living up to parental expectations can be overwhelming. These pressures are compounded by financial burdens, the weight of student loans, and in many cases, the struggle to make ends meet while navigating the high cost of living.

While the modern college experience has evolved to include more support systems than in past generations, the demands placed on students have also grown exponentially. Many students find themselves caught in a cycle of stress and exhaustion, trying to juggle the high expectations placed upon them. Unfortunately, these expectations can be detrimental to their mental health, leading to feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, and depression.

The Silent Epidemic: Mental Health on Campus

According to recent surveys, mental health issues among college students have skyrocketed in the past decade. Anxiety, depression, and stress are at all-time highs, with more students reporting feeling overwhelmed and mentally exhausted. A 2023 study from the American College Health Association found that 60% of students felt “overwhelming” anxiety at some point during the previous year, and 40% reported feeling so depressed that it was difficult to function. Despite this, only a small percentage of students are receiving the mental health support they need.

The stigma surrounding mental health remains one of the biggest obstacles to seeking help. Students often feel they must appear “perfect” in order to meet academic and social expectations, and admitting to mental health struggles can feel like an admission of failure. As a result, many students suffer in silence, exacerbating their problems and making it harder to find a way out.

Campus resources, while they exist, are often overwhelmed. Counselors and therapists on many campuses are stretched thin, with waitlists sometimes extending for weeks. This leaves many students without the help they so desperately need. Additionally, the counseling services offered on many campuses are often seen as temporary fixes—band-aid solutions to much deeper, systemic issues that go unaddressed.

The Tragic Consequences of Ignored Struggles

The mental health crisis among college students is not just a matter of academic performance or emotional distress—it has life-and-death consequences. A growing number of tragic stories are emerging from campuses across the nation, with young people taking their own lives in response to their struggles. Suicide is now one of the leading causes of death among college-aged individuals, with an alarming number of students feeling they have no other option.

One heartbreaking example is Riley O’Neill, a talented swimmer at the University of Texas, whose death in 2020 shocked the college community. O’Neill, who had been struggling with depression and the overwhelming pressures of college life, took his own life after feeling isolated and unable to cope with his struggles. His death, like many others, brought attention to the unseen mental health crises occurring on campuses and underscored the urgent need for better mental health resources and support systems for students.

Stories like O’Neill’s are tragic reminders of the real, human toll of mental health struggles on campus. They should serve as a wake-up call for universities to reevaluate how they support their students and to prioritize mental health just as much as academic performance or career success.

Sexual Assault on Campus: An Overlooked Crisis

Another critical issue that often goes unaddressed is sexual assault on college campuses. According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), 1 in 5 women and 1 in 16 men experience sexual assault while in college. This staggering statistic highlights the reality that sexual violence is an endemic problem on many campuses across the country. Yet, many victims of assault feel isolated, shamed, or even responsible for the violence they’ve experienced. The trauma of sexual assault can have severe, long-lasting effects on mental health, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidal thoughts.

Part of the reason sexual assault continues to be a pervasive issue on campuses is the culture of silence that surrounds it. Victims often feel afraid to come forward, either due to the fear of not being believed, the social stigma, or the complicated legal and institutional processes that often seem to favor the accused rather than the survivor. This fear can lead to underreporting, with many victims choosing to keep their trauma hidden. Additionally, some students may feel the pressure to remain silent due to concerns about their academic and social standing on campus.

It’s crucial that campuses provide safe, supportive environments for students who have experienced sexual assault. Universities must have clear policies and resources in place to support survivors—ranging from accessible counseling services to campus security that is trained to handle these cases with sensitivity and professionalism. Survivors of sexual violence deserve to feel heard, validated, and safe while navigating the aftermath of their experiences.

The Role of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Campus Struggles

In addition to mental health challenges and sexual assault, substance abuse is another issue that is deeply intertwined with the campus experience. Alcohol and drug use are unfortunately common among college students, and for many, partying or experimenting with substances is viewed as an integral part of social life. However, for some, these substances become a coping mechanism for the stress, anxiety, and depression that they are grappling with.

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) reports that about 60% of full-time college students between the ages of 18 and 22 drink alcohol, with 40% engaging in binge drinking. Excessive alcohol consumption is often linked to risky behaviors, including unsafe sexual activity, physical injuries, and academic struggles. For students already dealing with mental health issues, alcohol can exacerbate feelings of depression and anxiety, creating a dangerous cycle of dependence and emotional turmoil.

Drugs, including prescription medication misuse, marijuana, and party drugs, are also prevalent on campuses. These substances may be used to self-medicate for anxiety or depression, or they may be part of a social trend. The consequences of substance abuse are severe, ranging from academic failure and legal issues to addiction and overdose. For students in crisis, turning to drugs and alcohol may feel like an escape, but it ultimately only deepens their problems.

Campuses need to take substance abuse seriously by offering programs that promote responsible drinking, early intervention for at-risk students, and support for those struggling with addiction. Universities must also be proactive in educating students about the dangers of alcohol and drug abuse, providing resources for students who may need help overcoming addiction, and ensuring that they have a clear path to recovery.

The Months After Graduation: A New Set of Pressures

For many students, the madness doesn’t end when they graduate. In fact, some may argue that it intensifies. The months following graduation bring a new set of challenges and anxieties. While some students quickly find jobs, others face the harsh reality of a competitive job market, uncertainty, and the pressure to establish themselves as successful adults.

Recent graduates often struggle with the transition from the structured environment of college to the ambiguity of the professional world. Many face the disappointment of job rejections or the discouragement of landing positions that don’t align with their degree or career aspirations. The search for meaningful work, combined with the financial strain of student loans, can lead to feelings of failure, depression, and isolation.

This period is especially challenging for students who may have expected to step into a job immediately after graduation or who lack a clear career path. The societal pressure to “have it all figured out” within the first few months of post-graduation life can exacerbate anxiety and self-doubt. Graduates are expected to succeed quickly, to climb the career ladder, and to live independently—yet many are struggling with the emotional fallout from the relentless pressure of college life and the overwhelming uncertainty of the future.

Moreover, the feeling of isolation can be particularly pronounced during this time. Students leave behind the community of friends and professors that supported them through college, and in the midst of job applications, networking, and interviews, they often find themselves feeling disconnected. The support systems that existed in college become harder to access, and many graduates feel like they’re navigating their post-college life alone.

A Call for Compassion and Understanding

The madness on campus isn’t just about the chaos of late-night cramming sessions or the excitement of sports games. It’s about the unseen mental health struggles that affect so many students every day. It’s about creating a system that values students as whole individuals, not just as future professionals or academic performers.

In the face of this crisis, it is imperative that colleges and universities act now. By prioritizing mental health, fostering a culture of compassion, and offering the resources and support that students need, we can ensure that the madness on campus transforms from a chaotic burden to an environment of healing, growth, and well-being. The future of higher education must be one where students are supported in every sense—academically, socially, and emotionally. Only then will we be able to protect our students from the madness that too often consumes them.

Resources for Students Struggling with Mental Health, Sexual Assault, and Substance Abuse:

If you or someone you know is struggling with any of the following issues, here are some resources to reach out to:

• National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-TALK (1-800-273-8255) – Available 24/7 for confidential support.

• Crisis Text Line: Text HOME to 741741 – Free, 24/7 text support for those in crisis.

• National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC): www.nsvrc.org – Offers resources and support for sexual assault survivors.

• RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network): 1-800-656-HOPE (4673) – National sexual assault hotline offering confidential support and resources.

• Alcoholics Anonymous (AA): www.aa.org – Provides support for individuals struggling with alcohol addiction.

• National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): www.drugabuse.gov – Provides resources for students dealing with substance abuse issues.

These resources are here to help students navigate the challenges of mental health, sexual violence, and substance abuse during and after their college years. Don’t be afraid to ask for help—it’s a critical step in finding support and healing.

China mocks Trump’s tariffs with AI video of US sweatshop workers (Trending Clips)

Department of Education No Longer Posting Freedom of Information Requests

The US Department of Education (ED) has stopped posting up-to-date Freedom of Information (FOIA) logs. These logs had been posted and updated from 2011 to September 2024 to improve transparency and accountability to the agency.  We have reached out ED for a statement. We are also awaiting for a number of information requests, some of which have taken more than 18 months for substantive replies. 

 

 

Student Loan Debt: The Panic Starts May 5th

In a move poised to send millions of Americans into financial distress, the U.S. Department of Education announced this week that its Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) will resume collections on defaulted federal student loans starting Monday, May 5, 2025. This marks the official end of a pandemic-era pause in collections that has been in place since March 2020.

The timing of the announcement is already sparking anxiety—but it's just the beginning. While collections begin next month, experts warn that by September, we could see a full-scale panic as a surge of borrowers hit the 270-day threshold for loan delinquency, legally tipping them into default status. The clock is ticking for millions who have missed or deferred payments during the chaotic restart of loan servicing.

According to the Department, 42.7 million Americans now owe more than $1.6 trillion in student loan debt. Shockingly, only 38 percent are current on their payments, and nearly 10 million borrowers are already in default or serious delinquency. These numbers are expected to climb sharply as repayment systems falter and financial strain deepens.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon, in announcing the decision, framed the return to collections as a victory for taxpayers. “American taxpayers will no longer be forced to serve as collateral for irresponsible student loan policies,” she said, taking aim at the previous administration’s debt relief efforts, which she labeled “illegal loan forgiveness schemes.”

But for millions of borrowers—especially those from working-class backgrounds and communities of color—this policy marks the end of hope. Many had placed their faith in long-promised reforms and debt relief that never fully materialized.

Hope, however, is not entirely dead. The forthcoming book The Student Debt Crisis: America’s Moral Urgency by Dr. Jamal Watson—journalist, professor, and associate dean at Trinity Washington University—lays bare the human cost of the crisis. Scheduled for release in September 2025, the book is expected to coincide with the fallout from a wave of new defaults. Watson calls the debt system “a modern form of indentured servitude,” and his work amplifies the voices of those crushed under its weight.

Beginning next week, the Department will restart the Treasury Offset Program, which allows the federal government to seize tax refunds and federal benefits to collect on unpaid loans. Administrative wage garnishment is also scheduled to resume later this summer. Borrowers in default will receive email instructions in the coming weeks, urging them to contact the Default Resolution Group to avoid harsher penalties.

In an attempt to soften the blow, the Department has announced an enhanced Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) process, promising to streamline enrollment and eliminate annual income verification. Additionally, roughly 1.9 million stalled borrower applications, held up since August 2024, are slated for processing beginning in May.

Still, these administrative changes are unlikely to ease the broader economic pain. The reactivation of collections amid economic uncertainty and servicing confusion is expected to deepen the divide between those who can navigate the system—and those who cannot.

The Higher Education Inquirer has long tracked the rise of the “educated underclass”—graduates and dropouts alike, burdened with debt but lacking economic mobility. For them, May 5 is only the beginning. The real crisis looms in September, when an avalanche of defaults could further destabilize lives, families, and entire communities.

We will be here to report it.

If you’re facing default, garnishment, or administrative hurdles, the Higher Education Inquirer wants to hear your story. Email us confidentially to be part of our ongoing investigation.

Trump’s Higher Education Crackdown: Culture War in a Cap and Gown

In a recent flurry of executive orders, former President Donald Trump has escalated his administration’s long-running war on American higher education, targeting college accreditation processes, foreign donations to universities, and elite institutions like Harvard and Columbia. Framed as a campaign for accountability and meritocracy, these actions are in reality part of a broader effort to weaponize public distrust, reinforce ideological purity tests, and strong-arm colleges into political obedience.

But even if Trump's crusade were rooted in good faith—which it clearly is not—his chosen mechanism for “fixing” higher education, the accreditation system, is already deeply flawed. It’s not just that Trump is using a broken tool for political ends—it's that the tool itself has long been part of the problem.

Accreditation: Already a Low Bar

Accreditation in U.S. higher education is often mistaken by the public as a sign of quality. In reality, it’s often a rubber stamp—granted by private agencies funded by the very schools they evaluate. “Yet in practice,” write economists David Deming and David Figlio, “accreditors—who are paid by the institutions themselves—appear to be ineffectual at best, much like the role of credit rating agencies during the recent financial crisis.”

As a watchdog of America’s subprime colleges and a monitor of the ongoing College Meltdown, the Higher Education Inquirer has long reported that institutional accreditation is no sign of academic quality. Worse, it is frequently used by subprime colleges as a veneer of legitimacy to mask predatory practices, inflated tuition, and low academic standards.

The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the nation’s largest accreditor, monitors nearly a thousand institutions—ranging from prestigious schools like the University of Chicago and University of Michigan to for-profit, scandal-plagued operations such as Colorado Technical University, DeVry University, University of Phoenix, and Walden University. These subprime colleges receive billions annually in federal student aid—money that flows through an accreditation pipeline that’s barely regulated and heavily compromised.

On the three pillars of accreditation—compliance, quality assurance, and quality improvement—the Higher Learning Commission often fails spectacularly when it comes to subprime institutions. That’s not just a bug in the system; it’s the system working as designed.

Who Watches the Watchers?

Accreditors like the HLC receive dues from member institutions, giving them a vested interest in keeping their customers viable, no matter how exploitative their practices may be. Despite objections from the American Association of University Professors, the HLC has accredited for-profit colleges since 1977 and ethically questionable operations for nearly two decades.

As Mary A. Burgan, then General Secretary of the AAUP, put it bluntly in 2000:

"I really worry about the intrusion of the profit motive in the accreditation system. Some of them, as I have said, will accredit a ham sandwich..."

[Image: From CHEA: Higher Learning Commission dues for member colleges. Over the last 30 years, HLC has received millions of dollars from subprime schools like the University of Phoenix.]

The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), which oversees accreditors, acts more like a trade association than a watchdog. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Education—the only federal entity with oversight responsibility—has done little to ensure quality or accountability. Under the Trump-DeVos regime, the Department actively dismantled what little regulatory framework existed, rolling back Obama-era protections that aimed to curb predatory schools and improve transparency.

In 2023, an internal investigation revealed that the Department of Education was failing to properly monitor accreditors—yet Trump’s solution is to hand even more power to this broken apparatus while demanding it serve political ends.

Harvard: Not a Victim, But a Gatekeeper of the Elite

While Trump's attacks on Harvard are rooted in personal and political animus, it's important not to portray the university as a defenseless bastion of the common good. Harvard is already deeply entrenched in elite power structures—economically, socially, and politically.

The university’s admissions policies have long favored legacy applicants, children of donors, and the ultra-wealthy. It has one of the largest endowments in the world—over $50 billion—yet its efforts to serve working-class and marginalized students remain modest in proportion to its vast resources.

Harvard has produced more Wall Street bankers, U.S. presidents, and Supreme Court justices than any other institution. Its graduates populate the upper echelons of the corporate, political, and media elite. In many ways, Harvard is the establishment Trump claims to rail against—even if his own policies often reinforce that very establishment.

Harvard is not leading a revolution in equity or access. Rather, it polishes the credentials of those already destined to lead, reinforcing a hierarchy that leaves most Americans—including working-class and first-generation students—on the outside looking in.

The Silence on Legacy Admissions

While Trump rails against elite universities in the name of “meritocracy,” there is a glaring omission in the conversation: the entrenched unfairness of legacy admissions. These policies—where applicants with familial ties to alumni receive preferential treatment—are among the most blatant violations of meritocratic ideals. Yet neither Trump’s executive orders nor the broader political discourse dare to address them.

Legacy admissions are a quiet but powerful engine of privilege, disproportionately benefiting white, wealthy students and preserving generational inequality. At institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, legacy applicants are admitted at significantly higher rates than the general pool, even when controlling for academic credentials. This practice rewards lineage over talent and undermines the very idea of equal opportunity that higher education claims to uphold.

Despite bipartisan rhetoric about fairness and access, few politicians—Democratic or Republican—have challenged the legitimacy of legacy preferences. It’s a testament to how deeply intertwined elite institutions are with the political and economic establishment. And it’s a reminder that the war on higher education is not about fixing inequalities—it’s about reshaping the system to serve different masters.

A Hypocritical Power Grab

Trump’s newfound concern with educational “results” is laced with hypocrisy. The former president’s own venture into higher education—Trump University—was a grift that ended in legal disgrace and financial restitution to defrauded students. Now, Trump is posing as the savior of academic merit, while promoting an ideologically-driven overhaul of the very system that allowed scams like his to thrive.

By focusing on elite universities, Trump exploits populist resentment while ignoring the real scandal: that billions in public funds are siphoned off by institutions with poor student outcomes and high loan default rates—many of them protected by the very accrediting agencies he now claims to reform.

Conclusion: Political Theater, Not Policy

Trump's latest actions are not reforms—they're retribution. His executive orders target symbolic elites, not systemic rot. They turn accreditation into a partisan tool while leaving the worst actors untouched—or even empowered.

Meanwhile, elite institutions like Harvard remain complicit in maintaining a class hierarchy that benefits the powerful, even as they protest their innocence in today’s political battles.

Real accountability in higher education would mean cracking down on predatory schools, reforming or replacing failed accreditors, and restoring rigorous federal oversight. But this administration isn't interested in cleaning up the swamp—it’s repurposing the muck for its own ends.

The Higher Education Inquirer remains committed to pulling back the curtain on these abuses—no matter where they come from or how well they are disguised.