February 13, 2025 | WASHINGTON, D.C. — Following today’s Senate HELP Committee’s confirmation hearing to consider Linda McMahon to serve as Secretary of Education, the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) issued the following statement:
Statement from Aissa Canchola Bañez, Policy Director of SBPC:
“Linda McMahon’s testimony was nothing more than two hours worth of gaslighting. McMahon had the opportunity to state clearly and unequivocally that she will protect students, borrowers, and working families across the nation from the chaos that has already ensued as a result of President Trump and Elon Musk’s work to make their Project 2025 agenda the law of the land. She did not.
“When asked whether she would abide by a directive by President Trump that breaks a law, her nonanswer spoke volumes. It is clear that Linda McMahon’s blind loyalty to President Trump will guide her decision-making should she be confirmed to serve as the nation’s highest education official—and our students and communities will pay the price.
“Now more than ever, students, borrowers, and working families need an Education Secretary who will protect their interests, not the interests of private entities seeking to line their pockets off of our public education system. It is clear that Linda McMahon will not be that Education Secretary. We call on Senators to stand with students, educators, and working families across the nation and reject her nomination.”
Since the announcement of Linda McMahon’s nomination, the SBPC has consistently sounded the alarm that McMahon’s longtime loyalty to President Trump would make her a “rubber stamp” on the most harmful aspects of the Project 2025 agenda. SBPC also submitted a letter of opposition to Linda McMahon’s nomination, which was submitted into the Congressional record during the hearing.
Further Reading
SBPC letter to the Senate HELP Committee opposing Linda McMahon’s nomination: See Here
SBPC blog listing out 20 questions for HELP to ask Linda McMahon in her nomination hearing: 20 Questions for Linda McMahon After the Trump White House Blocks All Federal Agency Grants and Loans
SBPC blog outlining concerns with critical Trump cabinet nominees: Critical Trump Administration Nominees Should Raise Major Red Flags for Working Families with Student Debt
SBPC, Data for Progress, Groundwork Collaborative polling showing wide opposition to gutting student borrower protections: NEW POLL: Overwhelming, Bipartisan Majority Reject Cuts to the Student Loan Safety Net and Financial Aid Students and Families Rely On
Initial release of poll results showing voters oppose abolishing the U.S. Department of Education: New Poll Confirms: Trump’s Plan to Abolish Department of Education is Extremely Unpopular Among Voters
About Student Borrower Protection Center
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) is a nonprofit organization focused on eliminating the burden of student debt for millions of Americans. We engage in advocacy, policymaking, and litigation strategy to rein in industry abuses, protect borrowers’ rights, and advance racial and economic justice.
Learn more at protectborrowers.org or follow SBPC on Twitter @theSBPC.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query mcmahon. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query mcmahon. Sort by date Show all posts
Friday, February 14, 2025
Monday, July 21, 2025
Linda McMahon’s Holocaust-Denial Response Sets Off Alarm Bells
In a tense moment during a recent House Education and Workforce Committee hearing, Education Secretary Linda McMahon faced sharp criticism for comments that some argue could lend legitimacy to Holocaust denial. When asked by Rep. Mark Takano whether refusing to hire a Holocaust denier at a university like Harvard would constitute an impermissible ideological litmus test, McMahon deflected by stating that “there should be diversity of viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campuses.”
McMahon’s answer was met with disbelief from lawmakers, educators, and journalists, who see her framing as a troubling signal of how far the rhetoric of “viewpoint diversity” can be stretched. Critics argue that her remarks echo the language used by far-right groups to justify pseudohistory, hate speech, and conspiracy theories under the guise of academic freedom.
The exchange quickly drew national attention. On CNN, host Abby Phillip challenged panelists over whether McMahon’s statement meant that institutions must accept Holocaust denial as a legitimate perspective. The conversation became heated, exposing deep divisions over how educational institutions should manage historically discredited views, especially in an era of increasing political polarization.
This controversy isn’t occurring in a vacuum. The Trump administration has taken an aggressive stance against perceived ideological bias in higher education, using terms like “viewpoint diversity” to criticize hiring practices, curriculum content, and campus speech policies. The result has been a chilling effect on institutions that wish to enforce rigorous academic standards while navigating political pressure from federal and state governments.
For institutions like Harvard—and for the broader higher education community—the implications of McMahon’s statement are stark. Academic freedom is not a license for falsehood. Holocaust denial is not a matter of interpretation or opinion; it is a deliberate distortion of documented genocide. By refusing to categorically reject it, McMahon undermines the integrity of scholarly inquiry and opens the door to broader normalization of anti-intellectualism.
Higher education institutions face a dilemma: how to defend academic freedom while protecting the truth. Universities must clarify that “diversity of viewpoints” cannot extend to historically debunked and morally abhorrent falsehoods. Faculty and administrators need clear guidelines that distinguish between open inquiry and misinformation masquerading as intellectual dissent. Curricula must reflect historical consensus, not propaganda.
McMahon’s response reflects a larger political movement that seeks to erode trust in institutions and blur the line between truth and ideology. The Higher Education Inquirer has long warned about the rise of pseudoscience and revisionist history within the credential economy. What happened in the hearing room last week is a symptom of that broader rot. If the idea of "viewpoint diversity" is weaponized to protect Holocaust denial, then the American educational system is not merely in decline—it is being actively dismantled.
For those committed to education grounded in truth, McMahon's comments should not be dismissed as a gaffe. They should be seen as a warning.
Sources
The Hill: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-linda-mcmahon-s-answer-on-holocaust-denialism-should-scare-us/ar-AA1J16hH
The Daily Beast: https://www.thedailybeast.com/abby-phillip-clashes-with-cnn-co-star-over-trump-education-secretary-linda-mcmahon
CNN coverage archived on July 18, 2025
Friday, July 18, 2025
Interest charges will restart for borrowers in SAVE forbearance (Student Borrower Protection Center)
|
Thursday, July 31, 2025
Linda McMahon and the College Meltdown
July 2025 was not simply a busy month for the U.S. Department of Education—it was a deliberate and coordinated effort to reshape higher education in line with the political goals of the Trump administration. Under the leadership of Education Secretary Linda McMahon, the Department issued a torrent of investigations, policy changes, and legal maneuvers aimed at asserting control over universities and redefining the role of postsecondary education in American life.
What emerged was not the repair of a broken system, but the acceleration of a political project: to narrow the mission of higher education, undermine its independence, and punish institutions that resist the administration’s agenda.
A Month of Directives
The month began with the Department entering a resolution agreement with the University of Pennsylvania over Title IX violations (July 1). By July 2, the administration had concluded a negotiated rulemaking session focused on reshaping the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program—signaling that student aid reforms would now be filtered through political priorities rather than bipartisan consensus.
On July 4, the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law. This sweeping legislation gave the administration a mandate to implement provisions on accreditation, federal aid restrictions, civil rights compliance, and so-called “viewpoint neutrality.” Within two weeks, McMahon’s team was already implementing key parts of the bill, using it to alter the rules that govern financial aid eligibility and institutional recognition.
"Civil Rights" Enforcement as a Political Strategy
Throughout the month, the Department launched a wave of investigations under Title VI and Title IX. But the choice of targets raised concerns. Rather than focus on systemic discrimination or long-standing legal violations, the Department directed its attention toward cases that aligned with conservative cultural concerns.
-
On July 8, an investigation was opened into the Connetquot Central School District after it banned a Native American logo.
-
On July 10, George Mason University became the subject of a Title VI probe.
-
On July 23, five universities were flagged for offering scholarships that allegedly favored foreign-born students.
-
By July 25, five Northern Virginia school districts were found in violation of Title IX.
Harvard, Columbia, Duke, the University of Michigan, and Brown University were all pulled into scrutiny, with Columbia agreeing to pay $200 million and submit to new data-reporting requirements. These actions may appear to be standard enforcement but taken together they reflect a pattern of choosing high-profile or politically charged institutions as symbolic examples.
The use of federal compliance tools to pressure institutions seen as ideological opponents is not unprecedented—but under McMahon, it has become routine.
Policy Realignment and Workforce Redirection
On July 10, the Department announced the termination of federal aid for undocumented students, marking a sharp reversal from past practices. Just five days later, the Department entered into a new partnership with the Department of Labor to promote workforce training, part of a longer-term effort to reorient higher education toward narrow economic outcomes rather than liberal arts or civic development.
While such initiatives are framed as “efficiency” or “innovation,” the underlying message is clear: colleges that do not align themselves with federal job-training goals or cultural expectations may find their access to funding, recognition, and legal protections limited.
Restructuring the System
The Supreme Court’s decision on July 14 to permit a reduction in federal staffing has further empowered the Department to cut or replace internal personnel. By July 24, two new negotiated rulemaking committees were established, tasked with translating the One, Big, Beautiful Bill into enforceable rules. These committees will likely define the next phase of McMahon’s agenda—on issues like accreditation, financial eligibility, foreign influence, and institutional autonomy.
At the state level, the Department approved Missouri’s new pilot assessment program on July 31, continuing a pattern of promoting alternatives to standardized federal oversight. Meanwhile, state education officials were encouraged (July 29) to request waivers from burdensome federal requirements—an invitation to bypass regulations established under previous administrations.
What This Means for Higher Education
The July timeline reflects not just a burst of administrative activity, but a broader strategy to centralize decision-making power and reshape the ideological landscape of U.S. higher education. The Department has moved away from serving as a neutral enforcer of civil rights and federal law, and toward acting as a gatekeeper for cultural and political conformity.
Colleges that emphasize diversity, global engagement, or progressive research are increasingly viewed with suspicion. Those that fail to meet the administration’s evolving definition of compliance may face costly investigations, public shaming, or the loss of federal support.
The term “College Meltdown” once referred to financial instability, enrollment declines, and the erosion of public trust. Under Linda McMahon, it now also refers to a deliberate restructuring of the postsecondary system—where ideological alignment may determine institutional survival as much as financial solvency.
Sources:
-
U.S. Department of Education, July 2025 public statements and press releases
-
One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025
-
Columbia University settlement, July 23, 2025
-
Supreme Court ruling on federal workforce reductions, July 14, 2025
-
Negotiated Rulemaking updates from the Office of Postsecondary Education
-
Brown University agreement with the Department of Education, July 30, 2025
Friday, February 21, 2025
Linda McMahon Poised to Be Next Secretary of Education (Forbes)
The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has advanced Linda McMahon's nomination for Secretary of the US Department of Education (ED). The HELP panel voted 12-11 to approve McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment and co-founder of the America First Policy Institute. According to the Hill, McMahon is almost certain to be confirmed by the Senate. President Trump has directed McMahon to dismantle ED, which includes funding for poor school districts and children with disabilities, in addition to holding a student loan portfolio estimated to be worth $1.6 Trillion. A number of civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, oppose the nomination. DOGE already fired dozens of workers from the small agency.
Thursday, March 13, 2025
States, Suing Trump Over Gutting of Education Dept., Cite Threat of Predatory College Abuses (David Halperin)
Twenty-one Democratic state attorneys general sued President Trump and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon today, 48 hours after the Department of Education announced it was firing more than 1,300 employees, which, combined with previously Trump-Musk efforts to cull the staff, reduced the employee roster to less than half of the 4000+ person team that was working as of January.
The 53-page complaint, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, alleges that the staff reductions are illegal and unconstitutional, because they are “equivalent to incapacitating key, statutorily-mandated functions of the Department.” The AGs say that although McMahon has authority from Congress to restructure the Department, she is “not permitted to eliminate or disrupt functions required by statute, nor can she transfer the department’s responsibilities to another agency outside of its statutory authorization.”
Among the federal statutes that the state AGs contend will be undermined by this week’s staff cuts are those covering higher education, including the Department’s obligations to ensure that federal student grants and loans may be used only at colleges and universities that provide quality educations and comply with the law. The complaint notes that the Department is charged with ensuring that colleges receiving federal aid are financially responsible, that they submit to financial audits, and that they provide adequate counseling to students concerning debt management.
The AGs also note that the Department is required to review and approve private college accrediting agencies, because under the law only schools approved by Department-recognized accreditors are eligible for federal student aid. Without that process, the AGs warn, “institutions of higher education may engage in profit-seeking behaviors without relating any educational benefits to students.”
The AGs might have added that the cuts will undermine the capacity of the Department to directly investigate colleges that engage in predatory and deceptive behavior. Data released by the Department shows the largest number of layoffs — 326 people — were at the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), which oversees student lending and school compliance with legal obligations not to mislead and abuse students.
The Department of Education’s higher education accountability efforts over decades have often been half-hearted and ineffectual; despite the scores of staff assigned to overseeing colleges, many students, and hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars, have been directed to deceptive, poor-quality schools that have left many students worse off than when they started. But gutting these efforts to the degree suggested by this week’s staff reductions would make matters much worse. And the first-term higher education record of President Trump, guided by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her aide Diane Auer Jones, was heavily skewed in favor of slashing accountability rules and enforcement, providing no reason to be optimistic that an aim of slashing the staff this year is to improve accountability.
The cuts would also undermine core Department responsibilities in K-12 education, civil rights, disability rights, privacy rights, campus safety, and the student loan portfolio.
Secretary McMahon is publicly insisting that everything will be fine and more efficient with the reduced and reorganized staff. But, as the new lawsuit from the attorneys general notes, McMahon said on Tuesday that the firing are the “first step” on the road to a “total shutdown” of the Department.
The attorneys general who filed the complaint are from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont and the District of Columbia.
Former Department officials and education advocates plan to rally Friday morning at 8 am outside Department of Education headquarters in Washington to protest the mass firings and plans to shut down the agency.
The 53-page complaint, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, alleges that the staff reductions are illegal and unconstitutional, because they are “equivalent to incapacitating key, statutorily-mandated functions of the Department.” The AGs say that although McMahon has authority from Congress to restructure the Department, she is “not permitted to eliminate or disrupt functions required by statute, nor can she transfer the department’s responsibilities to another agency outside of its statutory authorization.”
Among the federal statutes that the state AGs contend will be undermined by this week’s staff cuts are those covering higher education, including the Department’s obligations to ensure that federal student grants and loans may be used only at colleges and universities that provide quality educations and comply with the law. The complaint notes that the Department is charged with ensuring that colleges receiving federal aid are financially responsible, that they submit to financial audits, and that they provide adequate counseling to students concerning debt management.
The AGs also note that the Department is required to review and approve private college accrediting agencies, because under the law only schools approved by Department-recognized accreditors are eligible for federal student aid. Without that process, the AGs warn, “institutions of higher education may engage in profit-seeking behaviors without relating any educational benefits to students.”
The AGs might have added that the cuts will undermine the capacity of the Department to directly investigate colleges that engage in predatory and deceptive behavior. Data released by the Department shows the largest number of layoffs — 326 people — were at the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), which oversees student lending and school compliance with legal obligations not to mislead and abuse students.
The Department of Education’s higher education accountability efforts over decades have often been half-hearted and ineffectual; despite the scores of staff assigned to overseeing colleges, many students, and hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars, have been directed to deceptive, poor-quality schools that have left many students worse off than when they started. But gutting these efforts to the degree suggested by this week’s staff reductions would make matters much worse. And the first-term higher education record of President Trump, guided by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her aide Diane Auer Jones, was heavily skewed in favor of slashing accountability rules and enforcement, providing no reason to be optimistic that an aim of slashing the staff this year is to improve accountability.
The cuts would also undermine core Department responsibilities in K-12 education, civil rights, disability rights, privacy rights, campus safety, and the student loan portfolio.
Secretary McMahon is publicly insisting that everything will be fine and more efficient with the reduced and reorganized staff. But, as the new lawsuit from the attorneys general notes, McMahon said on Tuesday that the firing are the “first step” on the road to a “total shutdown” of the Department.
The attorneys general who filed the complaint are from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont and the District of Columbia.
Former Department officials and education advocates plan to rally Friday morning at 8 am outside Department of Education headquarters in Washington to protest the mass firings and plans to shut down the agency.
Thursday, April 3, 2025
US K-12 Education: Still the "Shame of the Nation"
In 2005, Jonathan Kozol’s The Shame of the Nation powerfully critiqued the deeply entrenched educational inequalities that have disproportionately harmed Black, Latino, and low-income students. Kozol exposed the systemic racial and economic segregation that has continued to plague American schools, and his analysis remains deeply relevant today. However, the future of U.S. public education is at risk of becoming even bleaker under the Trump administration, especially as the federal government's role in education continues to be weakened.
The K-12 Pipeline: A Growing Divide
The K-12 pipeline to higher education—the path students follow from early childhood through to high school—is increasingly segmented, with disparities in the quality of education between wealthy and low-income districts widening. Kozol’s focus on how underfunded urban schools limit students' opportunities remains central today. A new Trump administration, with Linda McMahon potentially leading the Department of Education, threatens to exacerbate these existing divides.
McMahon, with little background in public education, will champion policies that reduce federal oversight, resulting in less accountability for schools, particularly those in marginalized communities. The federal funding that historically helped level the playing field, particularly through programs like Title I, could be slashed, further undermining schools in low-income neighborhoods. As a result, these schools would continue to fall behind, denying their students the resources and opportunities needed to succeed in higher education.
The Impact of Charter Schools and Privatization
The Trump administration's push to expand charter schools is another major policy shift that could further fragment the education system. Charter schools, while often touted as innovative solutions for struggling students, have been criticized for contributing to the already entrenched inequality that Kozol highlighted. Although some charter schools provide high-quality education, many are selective, serving predominantly higher-income students. By draining resources away from traditional public schools, charter schools perpetuate the educational divide, leaving students in underfunded public schools without the same opportunities.
The rise in charter schools often leads to an increase in school segregation, as wealthier families gain access to better-funded charter schools while lower-income students remain trapped in poorly funded public schools. This trend is especially harmful to Black, Latino, and low-income students, whose educational outcomes are already significantly worse than those of their wealthier peers. The expansion of charter schools under the Trump administration, combined with a decrease in public school funding, could result in further neglect for students in the most vulnerable communities.
Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education
Under Linda McMahon, the federal government’s role in ensuring educational equity will diminish drastically. The department has long played a critical role in enforcing civil rights protections and promoting equal access to education for all students, especially those from historically marginalized communities. Under McMahon’s leadership, however, the department may reduce its oversight, weakening protections for disadvantaged students and further deregulating education standards.
Dismantling the Department of Education will severely impact
funding for some of the most vital programs for disadvantaged students,
particularly those from low-income families and students with
disabilities. Title I, which provides essential funding to help poor
schools close achievement gaps, could be gutted or eliminated, leaving
millions of students without the resources they need to succeed. Schools
in high-poverty areas rely on Title I funds to provide tutoring,
after-school programs, and other support services that directly address
educational inequality. Similarly, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), which mandates funding for special education
programs, could face significant cuts or be poorly managed if oversight
is moved to less equipped agencies. Students with disabilities, who rely
on specialized services and accommodations to succeed in school, would
be at greatest risk of losing access to the tailored support they need.
Without these protections, both vulnerable children and their schools
could face a future where educational opportunities are increasingly
limited, further entrenching inequality and leaving these children
behind.
With fewer safeguards in place, the privatization of education could become the norm, as more school services, including special education and after-school programs, are outsourced to private companies. This would leave the most vulnerable students without the necessary support to succeed, particularly in crucial areas like literacy and numeracy.
The Growing Literacy Crisis: Math and Reading Inequality
The persistent gaps in math and reading literacy are among the most pressing challenges in American education. Despite efforts to improve educational outcomes, a significant disparity remains in the proficiency levels of students based on race and socioeconomic status. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only about 35% of Black and Latino 4th-graders are proficient in reading, compared to 50% of White students. Similarly, in math, only 25% of Black and Latino 8th-graders reach proficiency, compared to nearly 45% of White students.
These gaps are not merely statistical—they represent the unequal opportunities that students in underserved schools face. When underfunded schools struggle to attract and retain qualified teachers, or fail to provide students with essential learning resources, these disparities deepen. In a system where wealthy districts receive far more funding and resources, these gaps are perpetuated.
Under the Trump administration’s proposed policies, which prioritize charter schools and private sector involvement, students in public schools—especially those in impoverished areas—could see even fewer resources dedicated to addressing these literacy gaps. Charter schools, with their selective nature, may be able to provide higher-quality instruction in some cases, but this further isolates students who remain in traditional public schools with large class sizes and inadequate materials.
Making US Schools Less Accountable
Social Promotion: Masking the Problem Until It’s Too Late
One of the most damaging practices exacerbating the literacy crisis in American schools is social promotion—the practice of advancing students to the next grade level, despite their failure to meet basic academic standards. Social promotion is often used to avoid the stigma of holding students back, but in reality, it perpetuates the cycle of educational inequity by masking deep-rooted academic struggles.
For students in underfunded schools—particularly those in low-income neighborhoods—social promotion delays crucial interventions. Students who are promoted without mastering basic literacy and numeracy skills are allowed to move forward with significant gaps in their knowledge. By the time they reach high school, it is often too late to catch up, and many of these students find themselves unprepared for the rigors of higher education or the workforce.
Social promotion is particularly harmful for students of color, who are already more likely to attend schools with fewer resources and less experienced teachers. When these students are promoted despite not having the foundational skills needed for success, they are set up for failure. This delayed intervention further widens the achievement gap and reduces their chances of succeeding in higher education.
As the Trump administration’s policies could continue to reduce federal oversight and place more control in the hands of state and local governments, the problem of social promotion could go unchecked. Without a strong, federally mandated system of accountability, more students may be left behind, and the opportunity to fix the systemic issues before it’s too late will be missed.
The Danger of Increasing Segregation: School Discipline and the School-to-Prison Pipeline
In addition to the academic challenges, discipline policies in schools have long contributed to the inequities Kozol highlighted. The school-to-prison pipeline, which disproportionately impacts Black and Latino students, has resulted in higher rates of suspension, expulsion, and even criminal justice involvement for students of color. Under the Trump administration, this pipeline could be exacerbated by loosening federal regulations and reducing accountability for discriminatory disciplinary practices.
The expansion of charter schools could further isolate students of color, as these schools often have less stringent rules for discipline and may screen out students who are considered high-risk. This leaves public schools, especially in poorer neighborhoods, dealing with the fallout of disproportionate discipline practices, which can lead to higher dropout rates, decreased academic engagement, and fewer opportunities for college readiness.
The Path Forward: A Deepening Crisis or Hope for Reform?
While the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education and the increased push for charter schools under the Trump administration threaten to deepen the educational crisis, there is still hope. Advocacy for stronger public education, equitable funding, and systemic reform must continue to be at the forefront of the national conversation. Kozol’s work serves as a powerful reminder of the devastating consequences of neglecting America’s most vulnerable students. Without urgent action to address the disparities in educational resources, teacher quality, and funding, the gaps in math and reading literacy will only grow wider, and the K-12 pipeline to higher education will become more fragmented.
Efforts to combat these inequities could include increased investment in early childhood education, improved access to social-emotional learning programs, and a renewed commitment to ensuring that all students, regardless of race or background, have access to the same opportunities for success. However, this can only happen if the federal government plays a strong role in holding schools accountable and ensuring equitable access to resources.
Ultimately, as Kozol’s critique has shown, the educational divide in America will continue to grow unless systemic changes are made. If the focus shifts away from equity and toward privatization and deregulation, the cycle of educational inequality will continue to harm the students who need help the most, leaving them without the tools they need to succeed in higher education and beyond.
Tuesday, June 10, 2025
Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v Cardona) hearing will premiere on Thursday, June 26, 2025 at 2pm EST / 11am PST (r/BorrowerDefense)
The next episode of Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v. Cardona), "THE CLOCK IS TICKING," will premiere on Thursday, June 26, 2025.
Judge Alsup is BACK. He wants updates. He wants answers. And he’s asking one thing — will the deadlines be met? Join in for the next drama episode in this six-year battle for justice!
Deets Below:
Sweet v. McMahon: The Clock Is Ticking
Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025
Time: 2:00 PM ET / 11:00 AM PT
Zoom Courtroom – (https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1605814655...
) Passcode: 791667
Cue Law & Order Theme (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz4-aEGvqQM
).
Borrowers are still waiting. Judge Alsup wants answers. The DOE is back in court. Will justice finally be delivered? Tune in. Speak up. This hearing will be fire!
#SweetJustice #LoanDischarge #TheClockIsTicking
Report issues for class/post-class members to sweet@ed.gov and CC PPSL at info@ppsl.org
Tuesday, July 8, 2025
IMPORTANT INFO for Sweet v Cardona (now Sweet v McMahon) CLASS - DECISION GROUPS and POST-CLASS Folks (Posted on July 8, 2025) (r/Borrower Defense)
Edited To Add
Decisions Class are streamlined R and R submissions.
Post-class denials MUST ask the DOE for a reconsideration, which allows you to add additional evidence.
Orginial Post:
For REVISE and RESUBMITS (R and R) notices, the DOE is now saying that they WILL "disregard R and R*"* submissions if you EMAIL additional supporting documents or material. You CANNOT email the R and R back.
You MUST submit a NEW BDTR APPLICATION and INCLUDE your previous BDTR application number which can be fund on the Denial letter.
YOU HAVE 6 MONTHS TO RE-SUBMIT FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE R AND NOTICE (Here: https://studentaid.gov/borrower-defense**/
**)
The DOE states, "If you email supplemental information to the DOE or attempt to update your existing application, you will be treated as having failed to Revise and Resubmit".
ALSO, If you are still trying to add more evidence to your BDTR application this late in the game, you may want to wait for the decision letter to come out. We are reaching Group 5 Decision deadline, and Post-Class is 6 months after that. If you feel uneasy about your evidence, START collecting it now!
Follow all DIRECTIONS on anything you get from the DOE relating to BDTR (except demanding payment, they can pound sand LOL).
In Solidarity!!!
Thursday, March 13, 2025
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Scheduled for ASU+GSV Summit, April 8, 2025
On April 8, 2025, US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon will give a fireside chat at ASU+GSV, an edtech conference held in San Diego, California.
President Trump has tasked McMahon with dismantling the federal agency that oversees federally funded K-12 and higher education programs. In less than two weeks she has done just that.
Half of ED's staff have already been fired or taken a payout, and the $1.7T student loan portfolio is likely to be transferred to the US Treasury.
There is no word yet on whether there will be demonstrators at the conference, but we expect some form of vocal nonviolent resistance. AFT President Randi Weingarten is also scheduled to appear.
Wednesday, June 25, 2025
See the Sweet v McMahon Borrower Defense Case Tomorrow Live
The next episode of Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v. Cardona), "THE CLOCK IS TICKING," will premiere on Thursday, June 26, 2025.
Judge Alsup is BACK. He wants updates. He wants answers. And he’s asking one thing — will the deadlines be met? Join in for the next drama episode in this six-year battle for justice!
Deets Below:
Sweet v. McMahon: The Clock Is Ticking
Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025
Time: 2:00 PM ET / 11:00 AM PT
Zoom Courtroom – (https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1605814655...
) Passcode: 791667
Cue Law & Order Theme (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz4-aEGvqQM
).
Borrowers are still waiting. Judge Alsup wants answers. The DOE is back in court. Will justice finally be delivered? Tune in. Speak up. This hearing will be fire!
#SweetJustice #LoanDischarge #TheClockIsTicking
Report issues for class/post-class members to sweet@ed.gov and CC PPSL at info@ppsl.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)