The Educated Underclass Without Borders

Gary Roth’s The Educated Underclass describes a growing population of college-educated people who, despite credentials and effort, are increasingly locked out of stable, dignified work. While Roth’s analysis focuses primarily on the United States, the framework extends naturally—and urgently—to international students educated in the U.S. and to the global labor markets they enter after graduation. When immigration regimes, artificial intelligence, and comparative higher education systems are considered together, the educated underclass emerges not as a national failure, but as a transnational condition produced by modern higher education itself.

U.S. colleges and universities aggressively recruit international students, presenting the American degree as a global passport to opportunity. These students pay higher tuition, subsidize institutional budgets, and enhance global prestige. What is far less visible is that access to the U.S. labor market after graduation is narrow, temporary, and increasingly unstable. Programs such as Optional Practical Training and the H-1B visa tie legal status to continuous employment, transforming graduates into a compliant workforce with little leverage. Job loss does not merely mean unemployment; it can mean removal from the country.

Indian students in STEM fields illustrate this dynamic clearly. Drawn by promises of innovation and demand, they enter graduate programs in computer science, engineering, and data analytics, only to find themselves funneled into a lottery-based visa system dominated by outsourcing firms and consulting intermediaries. Visa dependency suppresses wages, discourages job mobility, and creates a workforce that is educated but structurally insecure. Roth’s educated underclass is visible here, but intensified by deportability.

Artificial intelligence compounds this precarity. Entry-level technical and analytical roles—software testing, junior programming, data cleaning, research assistance—are increasingly automated or augmented. These were precisely the jobs that once absorbed international graduates. AI-driven labor contraction now collides with rigid visa timelines, turning technological displacement into enforced exit. Immigration policy quietly performs the work of labor market triage.

Chinese students in business, economics, and the social sciences encounter a different version of the same trap. U.S. employers are often reluctant to sponsor visas outside STEM, while Chinese labor markets are saturated with domestically educated elites. Meanwhile, geopolitical tensions—intensified during the Trump administration—have normalized suspicion toward Chinese students and scholars, particularly in research-adjacent fields. The American degree, once a clear marker of distinction, increasingly yields managerial precarity, contract work, or prolonged dependence on family support.

China’s own higher education system complicates this picture. Massive state investment has expanded elite universities and research capacity, producing millions of highly credentialed graduates each year. Yet employment growth has not kept pace. Underemployment among Chinese graduates has become routine, and returnees from U.S. programs often find that their foreign credentials no longer guarantee elite status. In both systems, education expands faster than secure work, producing surplus aspiration and managed disappointment.

Canada is often presented as a counterexample to U.S. hostility toward international students, but its outcomes reveal similar structural dynamics. Canadian universities rely heavily on international tuition, while immigration pathways—though more predictable—still channel graduates into precarious labor markets. Many international students end up in low-wage service or contract work unrelated to their degrees while awaiting permanent residency. At the same time, domestic Canadian graduates face rising competition for limited professional roles, particularly in urban centers. The result is not inclusion, but stratified precarity distributed across citizenship lines.

These global dynamics have domestic consequences that are rarely acknowledged honestly. International students and foreign graduates are increasingly perceived as occupying educational and professional positions that might otherwise go to people whose families have lived in the United States for generations. In elite universities, graduate programs, and competitive labor pipelines, institutions often prefer international applicants who pay full tuition, arrive pre-trained by global inequality, and are more willing to accept insecure work.

For historically rooted communities—Black Americans, Indigenous peoples, and long-established working-class families—the resentment is especially acute. After centuries of exclusion from education and professional employment, they are told that opportunity is scarce and must now be globally competitive. The contradiction is profound: a nation that never fully delivered educational justice at home markets opportunity abroad while declaring it unattainable domestically.

Trump-era immigration policies exploited this tension by framing foreign students and workers as threats rather than as participants in a system designed by elites. Travel bans, visa restrictions, attacks on OPT, and open hostility toward immigrants transformed structural failure into cultural conflict. Yet the animosity did not originate with Trump. It reflects decades of policy choices that expanded higher education without expanding secure employment, substituted global labor arbitrage for domestic investment, and left working- and middle-class Americans to absorb the losses.

Universities play a central role in sustaining this arrangement. They function as global sorting machines, extracting tuition from abroad, conferring credentials with declining labor-market value, and disclaiming responsibility for outcomes shaped by immigration law and AI-driven contraction. Career services rarely confront these realities directly. Transparency would threaten enrollment pipelines, so silence prevails.

In Roth’s terms, this enlarges the educated underclass while fracturing it internally. Domestic and foreign graduates are pitted against one another for shrinking footholds, even as both experience debt, insecurity, and diminishing returns on education. The conflict is horizontal, while power remains vertical.

The educated underclass is no longer emerging. It is already global, credentialed, indebted, and increasingly unnecessary to the systems that trained it. Until institutions, employers, and governments in the U.S., Canada, China, and beyond are held accountable for the scarcity they engineer, higher education will continue to function not as a ladder to mobility, but as a mechanism for managing inequality across borders.

---

Sources

Gary Roth, The Educated Underclass
Harriet A. Washington, Medical Apartheid
Elisabeth Rosenthal, An American Sickness
OECD, Education at a Glance
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, OPT and H-1B program materials
National Foundation for American Policy, reports on H-1B labor markets
Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, credential inflation studies
International Labour Organization, global youth and graduate employment reports
China Ministry of Education, graduate employment statistics
Statistics Canada, international students and labor market outcomes
David Graeber, Bullshit Jobs
Richard Wolff, writings on global labor surplus and credentialism

Between Empire and Enterprise: Harvard, Trump, and the Exploitation of International Students

As the Trump administration again targets immigrants and global institutions with punitive policies, international students at Harvard University—one of the world’s most prestigious academic brands—are experiencing what one student leader called “pure panic.” At the center of the storm: a now-halted move by the White House to revoke Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, threatening the legal status of thousands of students from nearly every country in the world.

Harvard responded with swift legal action, accusing the federal government of ideological retaliation. But while the Trump administration deserves criticism for its xenophobic and authoritarian maneuvers, it is equally important to interrogate Harvard’s own role in creating a system where international students are treated as both intellectual capital and financial assets.

Nearly 27% of Harvard’s student body—close to 7,000 individuals—comes from abroad. For decades, Harvard has positioned itself as a global institution, a magnet for the so-called "best and brightest" regardless of national origin. It has used this cosmopolitan image to bolster its prestige, attract philanthropic donations, and justify sky-high tuition rates. In reality, Harvard is not just a university—it is a flagship enterprise in the global neoliberal order.

This model—recruiting international students as both symbols of diversity and sources of income—reflects the logic of global capitalism more than the ideals of education. Harvard’s operations increasingly mirror those of a multinational corporation: high-end branding, worldwide recruitment, aggressive legal defense, and political lobbying. The foreign students it attracts are often among the global elite, or, in many cases, indebted strivers betting their futures on the supposed merits of a Harvard degree. When the political winds shift, as they have under Trump, these students are left exposed.

This is precisely what’s happening now.

Abdullah Shahid Sial, co-president of Harvard’s student body and a Pakistani national, told CNN that students are “very clearly, extremely afraid” about their legal status and whether they can return to campus. Some are stuck abroad, unsure if they’ll be allowed back. Others face suspended research projects or financial uncertainty. Sial praised Harvard officials for trying to help but also acknowledged the limitations. The window to transfer to other schools is closed for many. Aid packages, crucial to international students, don’t travel with them.

This crisis reveals the tension at the heart of elite higher education’s global ambitions. Harvard, like other elite U.S. universities, thrives on internationalism—so long as it serves its institutional goals. But when international students are treated not as community members but as liabilities or bargaining chips in political disputes, the myth of benevolent globalization unravels.

Yes, the Trump administration’s policies are driven by xenophobia and an open hostility to intellectual exchange. But they also expose the fragility and hypocrisy of the global education marketplace. International students are recruited into a system that offers opportunity but no guarantees, prestige but little protection.

Harvard cannot simply claim the moral high ground by suing the federal government. It must also reckon with its deep entanglement in the very structures that commodify students and expose them to geopolitical risk. For all its rhetoric about global citizenship, Harvard’s model remains fundamentally extractive—built to serve elite interests, not global equity.

If the United States is to remain a serious destination for global education, and if Harvard is to be more than a luxury brand in academic robes, the model must change. International students deserve more than branding and brochures. They deserve stability, legal protection, and a voice in the institutions that profit from their presence.

Until then, they remain trapped—between the nationalist paranoia of Washington and the neoliberal empire of Cambridge.

US-China Trade War Escalates: What It Means for Chinese Students in America

The ongoing US-China trade war has intensified tensions between the two global superpowers, and higher education is feeling the impact. As President Donald Trump’s administration enforces harsher policies on China, international students—particularly those from China—are now caught in the crossfire of this economic and diplomatic battle. The implications for Chinese students hoping to study in the United States, as well as for American universities that have long relied on them, are becoming increasingly significant.

Visa Restrictions and Increased Scrutiny

One of the most immediate effects of the trade war has been on the student visa process. The Trump administration has imposed new restrictions on Chinese students, especially those studying in fields deemed sensitive to national security interests. This includes graduate students in areas like artificial intelligence, robotics, and quantum computing. The new visa policies make it more difficult for these students to enter the US, with extended waiting times and heightened scrutiny of visa applications.

While the US has historically been a top destination for Chinese students—who are not only drawn by world-class educational institutions but also the promise of future career opportunities—the tightening of visa regulations has caused many to reconsider. The fear of being caught in political crosswinds, combined with the uncertainty surrounding the trade war, has led to a growing number of Chinese students looking to study in countries with more stable diplomatic relations and less restrictive policies, such as Canada, Australia, or the UK.

Impact on US Universities and Research

US universities are feeling the ripple effects of this trade war, as Chinese students make up the largest group of international students in the country. According to the Institute of International Education, Chinese students contribute more than $14 billion annually to the US economy through tuition and living expenses. Universities that once welcomed these students with open arms are now grappling with declining enrollment numbers and the prospect of losing a significant revenue stream.

Research partnerships are also suffering. Chinese students, many of whom are pursuing graduate degrees in STEM fields, have been vital contributors to cutting-edge research at American universities. With restrictions tightening, universities may struggle to maintain their leadership in global innovation. Furthermore, many research projects that rely on international collaboration face delays or cancellations due to political tensions and fears of intellectual property theft.

Which Universities Will Be Hurt the Most?

Some of the most prestigious US universities stand to be disproportionately affected by the tightening of Chinese student visas and the broader trade conflict. Institutions that rely heavily on Chinese students both for their enrollment numbers and financial contributions may face significant challenges.

1. Top Ivy League Schools
   Ivy League schools, such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, have long been magnets for Chinese students. Harvard alone enrolled nearly 5,000 international students from China in recent years, and the closure of this recruitment pipeline could lead to steep declines in overall student numbers and financial stability for these schools. These universities also rely on international students to contribute to academic diversity and global research partnerships.

2. STEM-focused Universities
   Universities with strong STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) programs, such as the University of California, Berkeley, MIT, and Stanford, are among those most vulnerable. Chinese students make up a significant portion of graduate students in these fields, and many of them are involved in high-level research that contributes to American leadership in technology and innovation. The loss of Chinese graduate students could hinder research capabilities and potentially delay technological advancements.

3. Public Research Universities
   Public institutions like the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) also stand to lose large numbers of Chinese students. Many of these universities have established robust partnerships with Chinese institutions, facilitating exchange programs and joint research initiatives. With stricter visa policies and increased scrutiny, these collaborations could be jeopardized, weakening their global research standing.

4. Private Universities in Major Urban Centers
   Private universities, particularly those in major metropolitan areas like New York University (NYU), Columbia University, and University of Southern California (USC), which have long attracted a significant number of international students, may face financial strain as enrollment drops. These schools have benefited from the influx of full-paying international students, and their financial health could be seriously impacted if Chinese students—who often pay full tuition—choose to study elsewhere.

The Decline of Confucius Institutes: Another Impact of US-China Tensions

Adding another layer of complexity to the current situation is the steady decline of Confucius Institutes in the United States since 2018. These centers for Chinese language and cultural education were established with the goal of promoting Chinese culture, language, and knowledge of China’s social and political history. However, under the Trump administration, a growing number of universities have shut down or severed ties with their Confucius Institutes due to concerns over academic freedom and potential Chinese government influence.

The closure of Confucius Institutes is a direct result of the broader geopolitical tensions between the two nations. Critics argue that these centers, funded by the Chinese government, acted as a soft-power tool for Beijing, with the potential to influence curricula and suppress criticism of China’s policies. In 2020, the US State Department designated several Confucius Institutes as "foreign missions," further heightening scrutiny and prompting additional closures.

For US universities, the decline of Confucius Institutes has meant the loss of a long-established funding source, along with a reduction in cultural exchange programs that could have helped to mitigate the loss of students from China. Additionally, universities that hosted these centers are now grappling with how to reshape their Chinese language and cultural studies programs, often without the same level of institutional support.  In 2025, only five Confucius Institutes remain:

• Alfred University; Alfred, New York.
• Pacific Lutheran University; Tacoma, Washington.
• San Diego Global Knowledge University; San Diego, California.
• Troy University; Troy, Alabama.
• Webster University; St. Louis, Missouri.
• Wesleyan College; Macon, Georgia.

Increasing Tensions on US Campuses

As US-China relations continue to sour, tensions are also rising on US university campuses. A report from Radio Free Asia in August 2023 highlighted growing concerns about Chinese influence on US college campuses, particularly through initiatives like Confucius Institutes and Chinese student organizations. These groups, some of which have been accused of suppressing free speech and monitoring dissent, have faced increasing scrutiny from both US authorities and university administrations. In some cases, these organizations have been linked to the Chinese government’s broader propaganda efforts.

Students and faculty who advocate for human rights or criticize Chinese policies—especially regarding issues like Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang—have reported facing pressure or surveillance from Chinese-backed student groups. This growing sense of insecurity has led to a polarized environment, where Chinese students, in particular, are caught between their loyalty to their home country and the need to navigate a politically charged academic space.

Moreover, the US government’s push to restrict Chinese students in certain fields has further stoked fears of academic suppression and retaliation. The situation has created an atmosphere of uncertainty, making it difficult for both US and Chinese students to pursue their academic goals without being caught in the middle of geopolitical tensions.

The Broader Educational Landscape

In response to these challenges, some US universities are beginning to adjust their strategies to attract a more diverse range of international students. As the US-China relationship continues to sour, universities are looking to other countries—particularly those in Asia, Europe, and Latin America—to build new partnerships and recruitment channels.

While some US institutions are already shifting their focus to regions outside of China, others are doubling down on their internationalization efforts, exploring new ways to make studying in the US more attractive to foreign students. This includes offering scholarships and financial incentives for students from non-traditional countries, as well as expanding online learning opportunities for international students who may feel uneasy about traveling to the US under the current political climate.

Trade War as a Catalyst for Change

Though the US-China trade war presents significant challenges for both Chinese students and American universities, it also serves as a catalyst for change in higher education. This ongoing trade dispute underscores the importance of diversifying international student bodies and fostering collaborations beyond traditional powerhouses like China.

However, the situation raises larger questions about the future of global education. As more students choose to study elsewhere in the wake of tightened restrictions, the US risks losing its position as the world's leading destination for higher education. This would have lasting economic and cultural consequences, not only for the universities that rely on international students but also for the broader American public, which benefits from the ideas and innovation that foreign students bring to the country.

Looking Ahead

As the US-China trade war continues to unfold, the long-term impact on the international student landscape remains uncertain. While the trade war may ultimately result in stronger policies aimed at protecting US interests, it also threatens to undermine the very foundation of higher education in America—the free exchange of ideas and the global collaboration that drives innovation.

For US universities, the challenge now is to balance national security concerns with the need to remain open to international talent. The key will be maintaining a welcoming environment for students from all over the world while navigating the complexities of global politics. After all, the future of American higher education—and its ability to lead on the world stage—depends on the continued exchange of ideas, research, and cultural experiences, regardless of geopolitical conflicts.

Indian Students getting Swept Up in Donald Trump's Deportation Drive? (Palki Sharma, Vantage)

From FirstPost:

Reports say that Indian Students in the US are becoming collateral damage amidst President Donald Trump's Mass Deportation Drive. The Indian students entered the US legally, on valid visas. But they say they are now being subjected to more frequent questioning from US immigration officials. They say uniformed officers have been questioning them more frequently, and demanding to see their student IDs and documents. Is Trump's deportation drive becoming an all out purge of migrants, irrespective of whether they're in the US legally or not?

U.S. Department of Education's Trump Appointees and America First Agenda

The U.S. Department of Education has announced a team of senior-level political appointees who will support the implementation of President Trump’s America First agenda.  

The Trump Administration, by Executive Order, has already required colleges and universities to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion measures and schools are scrambling to be compliant with this new federal policy. New policies may also affect grants from the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.

Notable actions the Department of Education has already taken include: 

• Dissolution of the Department’s Diversity & Inclusion Council, effective immediately;
  • Background:The Diversity & Inclusion Council was established following Executive Order 13583 under then - President Obama. President Trump has rescinded the Executive Orders that guide the Council and issued a new Executive Order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” that terminates groups like the Diversity & Inclusion Council. DEI documents issued and related actions taken by the Council have been withdrawn.
• Dissolution of the Employee Engagement Diversity Equity Inclusion Accessibility Council (EEDIAC) within the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), effective immediately and pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”;
• Cancellation of ongoing DEI training and service contracts which total over $2.6 million;
• Withdrawal of the Department’s Equity Action Plan;
• Placement of career Department staff tasked with implementing the previous administration’s DEI initiatives on paid administrative leave; and
• Identification for removal of over 200 web pages from the Department’s website that housed DEI resources and encouraged schools and institutions of higher education to promote or endorse harmful ideological programs.

At least four appointees to the Department of Education, as well as including incoming Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, have worked at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI). AFPI's higher education proposals are posted here and noted at the bottom of this article. AFPI has been accused of using dark money to prevent student loan forgiveness and its rhetoric clearly advances this agenda.

Rachel Oglesby – Chief of Staff

Rachel Oglesby most recently served as America First Policy Institute's Chief State Action Officer & Director, Center for the American Worker. In this role, she worked to advance policies that promote worker freedom, create opportunities outside of a four-year college degree, and provide workers with the necessary skills to succeed in the modern economy, as well as leading all of AFPI’s state policy development and advocacy work. She previously worked as Chief of Policy and Deputy Chief of Staff for Governor Kristi Noem in South Dakota, overseeing the implementation of the Governor’s pro-freedom agenda across all policy areas and state government agencies. Oglesby holds a master’s degree in public policy from George Mason University and earned her bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Wake Forest University. 

Jonathan Pidluzny – Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs 

Jonathan Pidluzny most recently served as Director of the Higher Education Reform Initiative at the America First Policy Institute. Prior to that, he was Vice President of Academic Affairs at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, where his work focused on academic freedom and general education. Jonathan began his career in higher education teaching political science at Morehead State University, where he was an associate professor, program coordinator, and faculty regent from 2017-2019. He received his Ph.D from Boston College and holds a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from the University of Alberta. 

Chase Forrester – Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 

Virginia “Chase” Forrester most recently served as the Chief Events Officer at America First Policy Institute, where she oversaw the planning and execution of 80+ high-profile events annually for AFPI’s 22 policy centers, featuring former Cabinet Officials and other distinguished speakers. Chase previously served as Operations Manager on the Trump-Pence 2020 presidential campaign, where she spearheaded all event operations for the Vice President of the United States and the Second Family. Chase worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee during the Senate run-off races in Georgia and as a fundraiser for Members of Congress. Chase graduated from Clemson University with a bachelor’s degree in political science and a double-minor in Spanish and legal studies.

Steve Warzoha – White House Liaison

Steve Warzoha joins the U.S. Department of Education after most recently serving on the Trump-Vance Transition Team. A native of Greenwich, CT, he is a former local legislator who served on the Education Committee and as Vice Chairman of both the Budget Overview and Transportation Committees. He is also an elected leader of the Greenwich Republican Town Committee. Steve has run and served in senior positions on numerous local, state, and federal campaigns. Steve comes from a family of educators and public servants and is a proud product of Greenwich Public Schools and an Eagle Scout. 

Tom Wheeler – Principal Deputy General Counsel 

Tom Wheeler’s prior federal service includes as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, a Senior Advisor to the White House Federal Commission on School Safety, and as a Senior Advisor/Counsel to the Secretary of Education. He has also been asked to serve on many Boards and Commissions, including as Chair of the Hate Crimes Sub-Committee for the Federal Violent Crime Reduction Task Force, a member of the Department of Justice’s Regulatory Reform Task Force, and as an advisor to the White House Coronavirus Task Force, where he worked with the CDC and HHS to develop guidelines for the safe reopening of schools and guidelines for law enforcement and jails/prisons. Prior to rejoining the U.S. Department of Education, Tom was a partner at an AM-100 law firm, where he represented federal, state, and local public entities including educational institutions and law enforcement agencies in regulatory, administrative, trial, and appellate matters in local, state and federal venues. He is a frequent author and speaker in the areas of civil rights, free speech, and Constitutional issues, improving law enforcement, and school safety. 

Craig Trainor – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights 

Craig Trainor most recently served as Senior Special Counsel with the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary under Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), where Mr. Trainor investigated and conducted oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice, including its Civil Rights Division, the FBI, the Biden-Harris White House, and the Intelligence Community for civil rights and liberties abuses. He also worked as primary counsel on the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government’s investigation into the suppression of free speech and antisemitic harassment on college and university campuses, resulting in the House passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. Previously, he served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the America First Policy Institute under former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Of Counsel with the Fairness Center, and had his own civil rights and criminal defense law practice in New York City for over a decade. Upon graduating from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, he clerked for Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Trainor is admitted to practice law in the state of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Madi Biedermann – Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach 

Madi Biedermann is an experienced education policy and communications professional with experience spanning both federal and state government and policy advocacy organizations. She most recently worked as the Chief Operating Officer at P2 Public Affairs. Prior to that, she served as an Assistant Secretary of Education for Governor Glenn Youngkin and worked as a Special Assistant and Presidential Management Fellow at the Office of Management and Budget in the first Trump Administration. Madi received her bachelor’s degree and master of public administration from the University of Southern California. 

Candice Jackson – Deputy General Counsel 

Candice Jackson returns to the U.S. Department of Education to serve as Deputy General Counsel. Candice served in the first Trump Administration as Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and Deputy General Counsel, from 2017-2021. For the last few years, Candice has practiced law in Washington State and California and consulted with groups and individuals challenging the harmful effects of the concept of "gender identity" in laws and policies in schools, employment, and public accommodations. Candice is mom to girl-boy twins Madelyn and Zachary, age 11. 

Joshua Kleinfeld – Deputy General Counsel 

Joshua Kleinfeld is the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Professor of Law and Director of the Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law. He writes and teaches about constitutional law, criminal law, and statutory interpretation, focusing in all fields on whether democratic ideals are realized in governmental practice. As a scholar and public intellectual, he has published work in the Harvard, Stanford, and University of Chicago Law Reviews, among other venues. As a practicing lawyer, he has clerked on the D.C. Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Supreme Court of Israel, represented major corporations accused of billion-dollar wrongdoing, and, on a pro bono basis, represented children accused of homicide. As an academic, he was a tenured full professor at Northwestern Law School before lateraling to Scalia Law School. He holds a J.D. in law from Yale Law School, a Ph.D. in philosophy from the Goethe University of Frankfurt, and a B.A. in philosophy from Yale College. 

Hannah Ruth Earl – Director, Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Hannah Ruth Earl is the former executive director of America’s Future, where she cultivated communities of freedom-minded young professionals and local leaders. She previously co-produced award-winning feature films as director of talent and creative development at the Moving Picture Institute. A native of Tennessee, she holds a master of arts in religion from Yale Divinity School.

AFPI Reform Priorities

AFPI's higher education priorities are to:

• Reform America’s Dysfunctional Higher Education Accreditation System

• Rethink Public Financing of Postsecondary Study to Encourage Competition and Accountability

• Open New Pathways to Family-Sustaining Careers

• Combat the Politicization of Higher Education and Encourage Viewpoint Diversity on U.S. Campuses

• Protect Students’ and Professors’ First Amendment Rights

 Related links:

Trump's Education Department dismantles DEI measures, suspends staff (USA Today) 

California State University changes 'illegal' program that excluded White men (Fox News)

America First Policy Institute Team

America First Policy Initiatives

Colleges advise some international students to return to U.S. before Trump takes office (PBS News Hour)

 

How much will global economic and political forces affect international enrollment in 2025?

Elite and brand name universities serve the world's elite. But how much will global economic and political forces affect US higher education in 2025? More than one million foreign students attend higher education institutions in the US, but those numbers could change. 

There are several ongoing developments that could affect the influx of international students in 2025. This includes problems with the political economy in Asia (China, South Korea) and in Europe (the UK, Germany, and France). 

Trade wars, which incoming President Trump has threatened, could also affect enrollment. And deportations of Muslim students, including those who have protested the war in the Middle East, could create a chilling effect on student in-migration. 

Indian students are already the largest group coming into the US and they serve as a major pipeline for the tech industry and medicine, and that is unlikely to change in the near future. 

 

(KTLA Video) International students at the University of Southern California are being urged to return to the US before the Trump Administration gains power. 

HEI Welcomes International Viewers

The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has a significant international viewership, despite its primary focus on US higher education. Here's why:

1. Global Impact of US Higher Education: The US higher education system is influential worldwide. Many international students choose to study in the US, and universities often have international partnerships and collaborations. This means that developments and trends in US higher education have significant global implications.
2. International Students and Faculty: HEI's audience includes international students and faculty members who are interested in staying updated on the US higher education landscape. These individuals may be seeking information on admissions, funding opportunities, or research collaborations.
3. Global Interest in Higher Education: There is a growing global interest in higher education as a pathway to social mobility and economic opportunity. Even individuals who may not be directly involved in US higher education may find HEI's coverage of trends and issues relevant to their own experiences or interests.
4. Digital Reach and Accessibility: In today's digital age, information can be accessed from anywhere in the world with an internet connection. HEI's online presence and accessibility make it easy for people from all over the globe to discover and consume its content.
5. Reputation and Credibility: HEI's reputation as a trusted source of information on US higher education may attract readers from around the world who are seeking reliable and accurate information.

Overall, while HEI's primary focus is on US higher education, its content has broader implications and relevance for a global audience. This, combined with the digital nature of its publication, likely contributes to its significant international viewership.