For-Profit College Corporation Perdoceo Gave Your Tax Dollars to Trump Inaugural Committee (David Halperin)

A new report filed with the Federal Election Commission shows that the troubled for-profit college operation Perdoceo Education Corp. donated $50,000 to the 2025 Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee. Almost all of Perdoceo’s revenue comes from U.S. taxpayers.

The report filed this week by the Trump committee lists, among hundreds of other gifts from corporations and individuals, a $50,000 donation from “CEC Educational Services,” which is the name of a Perdoceo subsidiary, and gives the donor address as the Schaumberg, Illinois, location of Perdoceo’s corporate offices.

The Trump inaugural committee raised $239 million, more than doubling the record-breaking amount raised by the Trump committee for the 2017 inauguration.

As the New York Times noted, presidential inaugurations, even with all the glitzy balls and other events, “have never cost anything near roughly a quarter-billion dollars, and the amount raised by the committee will resurface questions about where any leftover funds might go.” Trump associates have suggested it could be spent on other Trump projects, including a presidential library.

The Times speculated that the high volume of gifts was “driven by corporate America’s eagerness to win the president’s favor.”

Perdoceo, whose stock is publicly traded, is one corporation that would be motivated to win the transactional Trump’s favor. It is almost entirely dependent on federal government largesse. The two mostly online colleges it operates — American Intercontinental University and Colorado Technical University — have at times received as much as 97 percent of their revenue from taxpayer dollars in the form of federal student grants and loans; in the most recent reported year 83 percent came from the U.S. Department of Education alone, plus more from the departments of defense and veterans affairs.

That means, effectively, that almost all of the gift that Perdoceo made to curry favor with Trump was paid for by American taxpayers.

The donation is also consistent with Perdoceo CEO Todd Nelson’s past support for Republican politicians. More importantly, it reflects Perdoceo’s continuing need to have the federal government keep the money flowing and look the other way while the company’s schools, which have repeatedly faced law enforcement actions, offer low-quality, high-priced programs that leave many students deep in debt and without the career advancement they sought.

As Republic Report has chronicled for over a decade, Perdoceo has been one of the worst actors in all of for-profit higher education, taking in billions of dollars from taxpayers for student grants and loans while repeatedly engaging in predatory abuses.

Like Donald Trump’s own fraudulent Trump University, Perdoceo has faced multiple law enforcement investigations for predatory conduct.

In 2019, the company entered into a $494 million settlement with 48 state attorneys general, plus the District of Columbia, over allegations that it engaged in widespread deceptive practices against students.

Later that same year, Perdoceo agreed to pay $30 million to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission that its schools have recruited students through deceptive third-party lead generation operations. In each case, the company did not admit guilt.

More recently, Perdoceo employees told media outlets USA Today and Capitol Forum, as well as Republic Report, that company recruiters continued to feel pressure to make misleading sales pitches and to enroll low-income people into programs that aren’t strong enough to help them succeed. Some of those former employees also spoke with federal investigators.

USA Today reported in 2022 that the U.S. Department of Education, in December 2021, requested information from Perdoceo; the Department also asked Perdoceo to retain records regarding student recruiting, marketing, financial aid practices, and more. Perdoceo confirmed the probe, while seeming to minimize its significance, in a February 2022 SEC filing. Perdoceo also acknowledged in May 2022 that it received a request for documents and information from the U.S. Justice Department.

The Department of Education provided AIU and CTU with more than $551 million in student grants and loans in the 2022-23 school year, the most recent year that was reported. A bachelor’s degree from CTU is priced at about $66,000.

But data released by the Department in 2023 show that Perdoceo’s two schools, AIU and CTU, deliver poor results for students, with low graduation rates and graduate incomes and high levels of student debt.

Before joining Perdoceo, company CEO Todd Nelson ran two of the other biggest for-profit colleges operations: the University of Phoenix and now-demised Education Management Corp. Both of those chains, like Perdoceo, ran into major law enforcement issues because of deceptive recruiting practices and other abuses that occurred on Nelson’s watch.

The Biden Department of Education never proceeded with an enforcement action to penalize Perdoceo or take away its federal aid. But it did issue a series of regulations that would make it more difficult for that company and others to engage in predatory practices going forward. The Trump administration, whose previous incarnation coddled predatory schools, and whose current incarnation has gutted the Department of Education and its accountability efforts, is likely to do nothing while Nelson’s schools keeping enrolling students, with taxpayer dollars, in substandard education programs.

$50,000 may not be a lot of money to Perdoceo or its CEO, but it’s a lot of money to each of the thousands of students across the country who are in debt to Perdoceo for multiples of that amount. Perdoceo’s donation to Trump’s inauguration, using your money, can only reinforce the company’s entitlement and impunity.

It’s wrong when a company can take money from students and taxpayers and use it curry favor with a president whose team is shutting down higher education enforcement efforts and aggressively seeking student loan repayments, even from borrowers who were deceived and abused by that company’s schools.

The donation from a supposed “education” company also sends a bad message to America’s students, because it celebrates the return to power of a twice-impeached, four-times-indicted, convicted felon and adjudged sexual assaulter who incited a murderous Capitol riot aimed at overthrowing a democratic election. Not a good civics lesson.

Perdoceo did not respond to a request for comment.

[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.]

Trump’s War on Public Knowledge: The Dismantling of ERIC and the Erosion of Educational Access

When teachers search for help with lesson plans, parents look for answers on school policies, or researchers dig into the roots of America’s education system, many unknowingly rely on a public treasure: ERIC, the Education Resources Information Center. Behind nearly every meaningful Google result about U.S. education lies this carefully curated public database, an open-access archive of more than 2.1 million education documents funded by the U.S. Department of Education.

But this essential public good—free, accessible, nonpartisan—is now on the chopping block.

Unless something changes in the coming days, ERIC will stop being updated after April 23, marking the end of a 60-year-old institution that has helped educators, researchers, and policymakers base decisions on evidence, not ideology. The shutdown is not the result of budget shortfalls or Congressional gridlock. It’s a deliberate act of sabotage by the Trump administration, hiding behind the bland bureaucratic label of “efficiency.”

Dismantling by Design

ERIC has been a mainstay of U.S. education since the 1960s, originally distributed on microfiche and now operating as a seamless, open-access website used by 14 million people each year. Think of it as the education world’s PubMed—a foundational, publicly funded resource that supports millions of decisions in classrooms and boardrooms alike.

The platform is funded through a five-year contract set to run through 2028. But that contract is now functionally dead thanks to DOGE, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, a newly created unit within the Trump Department of Education. Though Congress authorized the money, DOGE has refused to release it, effectively forcing ERIC into paralysis.

“After 60 years of gathering hard-to-find education literature and sharing it broadly, the website could stop being updated,” said Erin Pollard Young, the longtime Education Department staffer who oversaw ERIC until she was terminated in a mass layoff of more than 1,300 federal education employees in March.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t just about saving a database. This is about obliterating public access to knowledge—especially knowledge that challenges right-wing narratives about education in America.

The Anti-Intellectual Playbook

This is not an isolated incident. The Trump administration’s hostility toward public institutions, academic research, and intellectual labor has been a central feature of its governance. From banning diversity training to rewriting U.S. history standards, this White House has repeatedly attacked education systems that promote nuance, evidence, or inclusion.

ERIC is now the latest victim in a broader war on independent knowledge. It doesn’t just house peer-reviewed journal articles. It archives what’s known as gray literature—unpublished reports, independent studies, and school district evaluations that are often the only public record of how education really works in practice. These materials often tell inconvenient truths: about inequality, segregation, charter school corruption, and failed policies pushed by corporate reformers.

“Big, important RCTs [randomized controlled trials] are in white papers,” said Pollard Young. “Google and AI can’t replicate what ERIC does.”

But gray literature doesn’t fit neatly into Trumpworld’s political project. It can’t be weaponized into culture war talking points. And perhaps that’s why it’s being buried.

Defunding the Backbone of Evidence

Before being fired, Pollard Young was ordered by DOGE to cut ERIC’s budget nearly in half—from $5.5 million to $2.25 million—a demand she tried to meet, despite knowing the consequences. Forty-five percent of journals would have been removed from the indexing pipeline. The help desk would vanish. Pollard Young herself agreed to take over publisher outreach from contractors to keep the program alive.

Her plan was rejected with a single email in all caps: “THIS IS NOT APPROVED.” Then, silence.

“Without constant curation and updating, so much information will be lost,” she warned. And with her termination, ERIC has no federal steward left.

Make no mistake—ERIC is being suffocated, not because it failed, but because it succeeded too well. It made knowledge available to anyone with an internet connection. And for an administration that thrives on disinformation and division, that’s a threat.

Who Pays the Price?

Educators, researchers, and school leaders will lose the most. But the real tragedy is what this means for public education as a democratic institution. When vital information disappears or becomes inaccessible, it opens the door to policy based on myth and ideology, not reality.

“Defunding ERIC would limit public access to critical education research, hindering evidence-based practices and informed policy decisions,” said Gladys Cruz, past president of the AASA, The School Superintendents Association.

The Department of Education responded not with a defense of ERIC, but with a political attack on its parent agency, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). A spokesperson claimed IES has “failed to effectively fulfill its mandate,” echoing the administration’s now-familiar strategy: discredit the institution, defund it, then destroy it.

An Urgent Call to Action

Pollard Young, who is still technically on administrative leave, has chosen to speak out, risking retaliation from a vindictive administration to warn the public.

“To me, it is important for the field to know that I am doing everything in my power to save ERIC,” she said. “And also for the country to understand what is happening.”

We should listen.

ERIC is more than a database—it’s a record of our educational history, a safeguard against ignorance, and a tool for building a more equitable future. Killing it isn’t just reckless. It’s ideological.

This is what authoritarianism looks like in the 21st century. Not just book bans and curriculum gag orders, but the slow, quiet erasure of public knowledge—done in the name of “efficiency,” while the lights go out on truth.

The Haves and Have Nots of Higher Education and Student Loan Debt

In a move that has raised eyebrows across Washington and beyond, President Donald Trump recently announced a plan to transfer the U.S. Department of Education’s vast student loan portfolio—totaling a staggering $1.8 trillion—to the Small Business Administration (SBA). This bold step is ostensibly designed to streamline the management of federal student loans, but it is also seen by many as the first move in a larger effort to dismantle the Department of Education entirely, reduce federal oversight, and privatize key aspects of the student loan system. Alongside this plan, there are growing discussions about eliminating essential borrower protections, including programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), Pay As You Earn (PAYE), Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR), and the Borrower Defense to Repayment program, all of which have offered critical relief to millions of students. Additionally, the rollback of Gainful Employment regulations—which were designed to protect students from predatory for-profit institutions—further signals a shift toward private sector control, which has historically benefited lenders over borrowers.

---

The Alleged 'Rescue' of the Loan Portfolio

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

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

---

The SBA’s Inexperience with Student Loans

The SBA, traditionally tasked with managing small business loans, lacks the expertise to effectively manage the complex structure of federal student loans, which include income-driven repayment plans, loan forgiveness programs, and various protections for struggling borrowers. With the agency also facing significant staffing cuts, it’s highly unlikely that the SBA will be able to competently handle such a vast and complicated portfolio—especially when 40% of these loans are already in default or behind on payments.

This raises an obvious question: is the SBA being set up to fail? Some insiders suggest that the failure of the SBA to properly manage the student loan portfolio could be deliberate—creating a crisis that would justify selling off the portfolio to private companies, thus privatizing the entire system.

---

The Planned Failure: A Strategy for Privatization?

According to several former senior officials within the Department of Education, the transfer of the student loan portfolio to the SBA could be a calculated move to destabilize the federal loan system. The apparent failure of the SBA to manage the loans would then serve as a justification for transferring the loans to the private sector. This mirrors tactics used in other sectors where privatization was pursued under the guise of government inefficiency. The fear is that this move could ultimately lead to for-profit companies taking over the loan system, with borrowers facing higher interest rates, stricter repayment terms, and the loss of essential protections.

---

Who Stands to Gain from Privatizing Student Loans?

The shift toward privatizing student loans stands to benefit several key players in the financial and educational sectors, particularly for-profit companies and private lenders who have long pushed for deregulation and profit-driven management of student debt. The primary beneficiaries would include:

1. Private Lenders and Financial Institutions: Banks, investment firms, and loan servicing companies are the most obvious winners in a privatized student loan system. With the federal government stepping back, these entities would gain control over the $1.8 trillion portfolio, allowing them to set higher interest rates, stricter repayment terms, and impose fees on borrowers. This would turn student loans into even more lucrative financial products for the private sector.

2. For-Profit Educational Institutions: For-profit colleges, which often rely on student loans to fund their operations, could also stand to gain. These institutions—many of which have faced significant scrutiny for high tuition costs and poor student outcomes—would benefit from a less regulated environment. Without the Gainful Employment regulations, which were designed to hold these institutions accountable for their job placement and earnings data, they would face fewer restrictions on their recruitment practices and financial dealings, potentially allowing them to continue enrolling students in expensive, low-quality programs.

3. Servicers and Debt Collection Agencies: Loan servicers and debt collection agencies that would likely take over the management of student loans in a privatized system stand to profit greatly. By controlling the servicing of student loans, these companies can increase their fees and aggressively pursue defaulting borrowers, further exacerbating the financial hardship for many students. These entities would benefit from a less regulated environment where the focus would shift toward profitability, often at the expense of borrowers.

4. Political Donors and Lobbyists: Financial institutions and for-profit education providers have historically been major political donors and lobbyists, particularly to policymakers who have pushed for deregulation of student loan systems. Privatization could provide these stakeholders with the opportunity to consolidate their power over the student loan industry, influencing policy decisions in their favor and ensuring continued access to profits from the student loan market.

---

A History of Struggles: Lack of Oversight and Privatization Since the 1980s

The idea of privatizing student loans and dismantling federal oversight is not entirely new. In fact, the U.S. student loan system has been struggling for decades due to a lack of oversight and a trend toward privatization dating back to the 1980s. The federal government’s role as a guarantor of student loans—starting with the creation of the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) program in the 1960s—was eventually scaled back, leading to a rise in private student loans. As private lenders entered the student loan market, particularly during the 1990s and 2000s, the system became increasingly unregulated, leading to rising debt levels and predatory lending practices.

By the 1980s, the federal government’s reliance on private institutions to handle student loans led to a lack of transparency, accountability, and consumer protections. In particular, private lenders began to offer loans with fewer safeguards, contributing to the explosion of student loan debt and the proliferation of for-profit colleges that preyed on vulnerable students. The government, despite its involvement, increasingly stepped back from actively managing the loan system, leaving students with limited options for relief when they fell into financial distress.

---

The Consequences of Deregulation: Elite Colleges and the Growing Educated Underclass

One of the most significant byproducts of the shift toward privatization and deregulation in U.S. higher education has been the growth of a growing educated underclass. While elite colleges have continued to thrive, expanding their endowments and increasing their tuition fees, a large segment of the population is left with a degree and overwhelming debt that fails to deliver on its promise. Over the past several decades, prestigious universities have only gotten wealthier, with many now sitting on endowments of billions of dollars. These institutions benefit from the student loan system, which allows students to take on more debt to afford high tuition costs, all while their wealthy alumni networks and expansive endowments only grow larger.

At the same time, a growing number of students from lower-income backgrounds—many of whom attend for-profit or underfunded public colleges—are graduating with significant debt and few prospects for stable, high-paying careers. This has created a growing “educated underclass,” where graduates with degrees struggle to find employment that pays enough to manage their loan repayment, further exacerbating wealth inequality.

---

The Dangers of Future Issues: AI, Automation, and the Loss of Good Jobs

Looking to the future, the privatization of student loans and the increasing burden of student debt could be exacerbated by emerging technological shifts, particularly in the fields of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation. As industries evolve and more jobs become automated, many middle-class careers traditionally accessible to graduates may disappear or evolve into low-wage, low-security positions. This could lead to an even larger divide between the "haves" and "have-nots" in society, where only those with connections or elite educational backgrounds can secure stable, high-paying employment.

For students entering the workforce with massive student loan debt, this would present a troubling scenario where their ability to repay their loans becomes even more difficult as fewer well-paying jobs are available. This, in turn, would increase the financial strain on future generations of students who are already navigating a rapidly changing job market. For many, student loans could become an insurmountable barrier, keeping them trapped in cycles of debt that are impossible to escape.

Moreover, the increasing reliance on private companies to manage student loans, with their focus on profitability, could exacerbate these issues by offering fewer opportunities for income-driven repayment plans or relief options that account for the economic realities of an AI-powered, automation-driven economy. As the job market continues to shrink and evolve, the need for federal programs to support borrowers through tough economic times will only grow.

---

The Impact of Eliminating Borrower Protections

The elimination of borrower protections—such as PSLF, PAYE, ICR, and Borrower Defense to Repayment—would significantly worsen the student loan crisis. Public Service Loan Forgiveness, for example, allows individuals working in essential public service careers to receive loan forgiveness after ten years of qualifying payments. Without this program, many public servants would face a lifetime of insurmountable debt. Similarly, income-driven repayment programs allow borrowers to repay loans based on their income, making it easier for those in low-paying fields to manage their debt.

The Borrower Defense to Repayment program provides vital relief to students who were defrauded by their institutions. Without strong enforcement of this program, students may have no recourse to seek relief from predatory schools. The rollback of Gainful Employment regulations could further expose students to the risks of attending for-profit institutions that fail to deliver on their promises.

---

The Long-Term Fallout: A Dangerous Precedent

The long-term consequences of privatizing student loans could include exacerbating wealth inequality, widening the racial wealth gap, and creating an economic landscape where education debt is a permanent burden on a generation of students. If privatization moves forward, the financial burden of education will likely become a far more persistent and overwhelming problem, especially for those who can least afford it.

What’s particularly concerning is that in past crises, it’s the elites—wealthy colleges, financial institutions, and large corporations—that have consistently received the bulk of government bailouts. The same institutions that contribute the least to solving the country’s educational inequities continue to benefit from taxpayer-funded relief. If privatization moves forward, we cannot allow the same pattern to repeat itself. The majority of relief should go to those most burdened by student debt, not those who already have the means to navigate the system with ease.

---

The Future of Higher Education Debt: A Call to Protect Federal Loan Programs

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we stand in full support of federal student loan forgiveness and repayment programs, including PSLF, PAYE, and ICR, as they offer essential pathways for borrowers, especially public service workers and low-income individuals. These programs provide vital relief to borrowers, allowing them to focus on their careers without the burden of overwhelming debt. We urge policymakers to protect, enhance, and expand these vital initiatives to ensure that education remains accessible and equitable for all.

As we continue to face challenges in higher education financing, it is crucial to learn from past mistakes and advocate for systems that prioritize the well-being of students, not profit. The proposed privatization of the student loan system threatens to undo decades of progress and burden future generations with lifelong debt. It is essential that we protect these programs and work toward a solution that prioritizes education and fairness over corporate interests.

The Failure of DOD Tuition Assistance

In a world where military service members are promised educational opportunities as part of their service, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) operates a Tuition Assistance (TA) program that offers financial support to active duty and reserve servicemembers seeking to further their education. The program, overseen by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Education and Training (ODASD FE&T), offers veterans a pathway to enhance their skills and prepare for life beyond the military. However, findings from the DoD Voluntary Education (VolEd) program show that the very institutions that are meant to support servicemembers may be failing them instead.

As part of their oversight, the DoD requires educational institutions to sign a Voluntary Education Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to participate in the Tuition Assistance program. By signing this agreement, institutions commit to adhering to strict guidelines designed to protect service members from deceptive practices. These guidelines cover a wide range of areas, including avoiding aggressive recruitment, ensuring transparent pricing information, and providing access to essential services such as academic counseling and job search support. However, compliance with these policies has been under scrutiny, as the Department of Defense’s compliance monitoring team reveals troubling trends.

The Problem with Accreditation Misrepresentation

One of the most alarming trends identified by the DoD VolEd MOU Partnership Institutional Compliance Program (ICP) was the misrepresentation of institutional accreditation. Institutions often displayed accreditation information, but a significant number had accreditation agencies listed that were no longer recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). In some cases, institutions completely omitted this important information from their websites, a serious oversight that can mislead prospective students into spending valuable time and money on degrees that fail to meet industry standards or qualify for employment in their chosen fields. This failure to provide accurate or transparent accreditation information can have long-lasting consequences for military students, who may unknowingly invest years of their life in programs that ultimately leave them unprepared for the workforce.

Lack of Support for Military Students

Another concerning finding involved a lack of support for service members once they entered educational institutions. According to the ICP’s compliance checks, many institutions failed to comply with the MOU requirement to provide a knowledgeable point of contact (POC) for students seeking assistance with military Tuition Assistance, federal Title IV funding, and VA education benefits. In some cases, the institutions provided no POC information at all. In others, they only offered a name or a hyperlink to a page that lacked substance—no qualifications or training information for the individual listed.

This oversight reflects a deeper systemic issue: military students are not receiving the necessary academic, financial, or job search counseling they need to succeed. Without proper support, these students may struggle to navigate the complexities of education benefits and find themselves lost in a sea of bureaucratic inefficiencies. In turn, this increases the risk that they may drop out, accumulate unnecessary debt, or be left with an education that does not help them transition smoothly to civilian life.

The Numbers Behind the Failures

The findings are staggering. Over a five-year period from 2017 to 2022, the DoD’s compliance program uncovered a total of 10,560 compliance-related issues across 1,414 assessments of institutions participating in the TA program. This indicates systemic problems in the delivery of education to military members and points to an alarming trend of disregard for the agreements made between the institutions and the DoD. Despite efforts to monitor compliance, these violations continue to undermine the integrity of the TA program and threaten to harm servicemembers seeking educational opportunities.

Each year, the ICP team provides feedback to the institutions involved, offering corrective action plans (CAPs) to improve their compliance. Institutions are expected to address these issues to align with the MOU and provide the necessary improvements to better serve military students. However, even with this support, the issues persist, leading to questions about the effectiveness of the DoD’s compliance program and whether enough is being done to hold institutions accountable.

A Call for Transparency and Accountability

The Department of Defense’s efforts to hold institutions accountable through the VolEd program and the MOU agreement are commendable, but the findings clearly show that much more needs to be done. The onus should be on these educational institutions to provide servicemembers with the highest standards of transparency, support, and educational quality. After all, these men and women risk their lives for the nation, and in return, they deserve to receive the best education possible, with all the necessary tools to succeed in their civilian careers.

As DoD works to refine its compliance programs, it is imperative that it pushes for stronger accountability mechanisms and greater transparency from institutions. With new initiatives, clearer regulations, and a culture of compliance, DoD can ensure that all service members are equipped with the education they were promised—and avoid leaving them vulnerable to misleading and deceptive practices from educational institutions.

Looking Ahead

While the ICP has made significant strides in assessing institutional compliance, the overall effectiveness of these efforts will ultimately depend on whether the institutions take responsibility for making the necessary changes. DoD's mission of protecting and supporting military students remains a vital one, and it is crucial that all educational institutions participating in the TA program take their commitments seriously. Only through true compliance and a dedication to military students’ success can we ensure that those who serve this country are treated with the respect and care they deserve.

If educational institutions fail to hold up their end of the bargain, it is time for the DoD to take stronger actions to protect military members from being deceived. It’s time to demand that these schools do better—for the sake of the brave men and women who serve.

HEI's Public Comment to ED Regarding Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Pay As You Earn, Income Contingent Repayment, Gainful Employment, Borrower Defense to Repayment and Other Rules and Regulations

[Editor's note: We are asking Higher Education Inquirer readers to submit their public comments regarding the Department of Education's plan to eliminate student loan forgiveness and income-based repayment programs. You can submit your comments here.]

As a publication committed to covering critical issues in the higher education landscape, we at the Higher Education Inquirer wish to express our full support for federal student loan forgiveness and repayment programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), Pay As You Earn (PAYE), and Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) programs. These programs play an essential role in ensuring equitable access to higher education, supporting public servants, and empowering graduates to contribute meaningfully to their communities and the economy.

With the rising cost of higher education, many students are burdened with overwhelming debt that limits their financial freedom and career choices. PSLF, PAYE, and ICR offer vital pathways for loan repayment and forgiveness, particularly for individuals working in essential public service fields or pursuing careers with modest salaries. By providing these programs, the federal government ensures that public servants, teachers, social workers, healthcare professionals, and other essential workers can focus on their vocations without the paralyzing weight of unmanageable student loan debt.

Public Service Loan Forgiveness, for example, offers a critical incentive to individuals who dedicate themselves to public service careers, enabling them to receive loan forgiveness after ten years of qualifying payments. This program not only supports individuals but also ensures that important sectors such as education, healthcare, and nonprofit organizations continue to attract passionate and committed professionals. It is a win-win for both the workers and the communities they serve.

Furthermore, income-driven repayment programs like PAYE and ICR allow borrowers to repay their loans based on their income and family size, providing a more sustainable and manageable path to loan repayment. These programs have proven particularly effective in reducing defaults, helping borrowers stay current on their payments without compromising their quality of life.

In addition to supporting these repayment and forgiveness programs, we also urge stronger regulatory protections for students to ensure that they are not misled by predatory institutions that prey on their aspirations. The enforcement of stronger Gainful Employment regulations is necessary to ensure that educational programs lead to viable career opportunities with reasonable earnings potential. This is especially important for students who enroll in for-profit institutions that often promise high-paying jobs but fail to deliver adequate outcomes. Without such protections, students may find themselves saddled with debt and little to no ability to repay it.

Equally important is the Borrower Defense to Repayment program, which offers a critical safeguard for borrowers who have been misled or defrauded by institutions. Strengthening this program and ensuring its accessibility is essential for protecting students from predatory practices that exploit their financial futures. The government must continue to offer these borrowers a clear and fair path to debt relief, allowing them to move forward without the burden of loans incurred due to false or misleading claims made by their schools.

We believe that these initiatives, in tandem with loan forgiveness programs, are essential for the continued prosperity of our nation. By alleviating the financial burden of student loans, promoting stronger accountability in higher education, and supporting those who dedicate themselves to public service, we can ensure that more graduates have the opportunity to thrive in their careers and make meaningful contributions to society.

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we encourage policymakers to protect, enhance, and expand these vital programs to support a diverse range of students and professionals. We look forward to working alongside others in the higher education community to ensure that students are not held back by the weight of insurmountable student loan debt, but are empowered to pursue their dreams and make a positive impact on society.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Dahn Shaulis
Senior Editor
Higher Education Inquirer

Trump’s Education Department is Closing. And Also Starting A Long Rulemaking Process. (David Halperin)

Although President Donald J. Trump last month signed an executive order directing Secretary of Education Linda McMahon “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education,” and although DOGE efforts and layoffs have cut the Department staff by half, the Department announced today that it will embark on an extensive round of meetings to draft new regulations governing student financial aid.

Unlike most federal agencies, the Department is generally required to engage in an elaborate process called negotiated rulemaking before it can issue or cancel regulations. This has meant — on issues from campus sexual assault to performance standards guarding against predatory college abuses — years of public hearings, formal convenings of rulemaking panels, written public comments and meetings on draft regulations, and more. It also has produced a decades-long ping pong match of final regulations made by one party and overwritten by the other, from the Obama to Trump I to Biden, followed by years of court challenges.

The first Trump administration staffed its higher education jobs with former executives of predatory for-profit colleges, and they eliminated both regulations and enforcement efforts aimed at protecting students and holding predatory schools accountable.

Today’s notice, signed by James P. Bergeron, Acting Under Secretary of Education, says the first round of Trump II negotiated rulemaking will likely include consideration of Public Service Loan Forgiveness and other loan repayment programs “or other topics that would streamline current federal student financial assistance programs.”

Other language in the notice suggests the Department may go deep, perhaps working to cancel the Biden rules creating performance standards for for-profit and career college programs (the gainful employment rule) and providing debt relief for students scammed by their colleges and government recoupment of funds from dishonest schools (the borrower defense rule). The notice opines that current regulations “may be inhibiting innovation and contributing to rising college costs” and that it wants to “streamline” the rules “while maintaining or improving program integrity and institutional quality.” “Innovation,” while a great thing for education when it can really happen, has been a buzzword used by the for-profit college industry to fight against rules aimed at protecting against predatory programs. Gutting the Biden rules would increase the vulnerability of both students and taxpayers to billions in waste, fraud, and abuse from deceptive, poor quality schools — even though the stated purpose of DOGE is to halt government excess.

When pro-student Democratic members of the House of Representatives  held a press conference outside the Department headquarters yesterday after they met with McMahon to discuss such concerns, she followed them. But she quickly fled when Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) asked her when she would shut down the building.

The Department’s rulemaking process begins with public hearings on April 29 and May 1, the first in-person at Department headquarters and the second online. Advocates for students and taxpayers should register to speak and show up to make their voices heard.

[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.]

 

Higher Education Inquirer continues to follow IPO/sale of University of Phoenix

On March 6, 2025, Apollo and Vistria publicly announced a possible IPO or sale of the University of Phoenix.  These companies have been trying to sell the University of Phoenix since 2021, but there have been no takers. The owners claim the school is worth $1.5B to $1.7B, but we (and experts we know) are skeptical, given the financials we have seen so far. The University of Phoenix was previously on sale for about $500M-$700M but the University of Arkansas System, the State of Idaho, and apparently other colleges declined the offers. 

The University of Phoenix offers subprime education to folks, historically targeting servicemembers, veterans, and people of color. While some students may profit from these robocollege credentials, one wonders what these workers actually learn. The current student-teacher ratio at the University of Phoenix, according to the US Department of Education, is 132 to 1.   

The University of Phoenix has faced a number of scandals, sometimes getting away with no penalty, and other times paying large fines.  

In 2023 we made a Freedom of Action (FOIA) request to the US Department of Education (ED) to get Phoenix's most recent audited financials. In March 2025, more than 20 months later, we were provided with a 35-page report, audited by Deloitte, with numbers from 2021 and 2022. 

HEI has filed a number of FOIAs with ED and discovered that almost 1 million former University of Phoenix students owe approximately $21.6 Billion in student loan debt. In addition, about 19,000 borrowers have had their student loans forgiven as a result of the Sweet v Cardona Borrower Defense to Repayment case.  According to ED FOIA 23-02373-F, more than 73,000 have filed fraud claims against the school. 

This month the Higher Education Inquirer followed up with a Freedom of Information request with the ED to obtain more up-to-date financial numbers for the University of Phoenix. We hope they will be responsive and timely enough to get the word out to the public.   

Borrower Defense Case Goes to US Supreme Court. How will it decide?

On January 10, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Department of Education’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Career Colleges and Schools of Texas v. Department of Education. The Fifth Circuit had preliminarily enjoined the 2022 Borrower Defense to Repayment (BDR) final rule on a nationwide basis. This rule, published on November 1, 2022 (87 Fed. Reg. 65,904), is a key component of the Biden administration’s broader student loan forgiveness efforts.

The Supreme Court’s review will focus on one pivotal question: whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Higher Education Act does not permit the assessment of borrower defenses to repayment before default, in administrative proceedings, or on a group basis. Notably, the Court will not address the second question posed by the Department: whether the appeals court erred in ordering the district court to grant preliminary relief on a universal basis.

Background and Legal Battle

The lawsuit originated on February 28, 2023, when the Career Colleges and Schools of Texas (CCST) filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. CCST sought to enjoin and vacate the 2022 BDR rule, arguing that it creates unlawful processes, serves no legitimate purpose under the Higher Education Act, and constitutes executive overreach by the Biden administration, violating the Department’s statutory authority and the Constitution’s separation of powers.

After the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the preliminary injunction, CCST pursued an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On April 4, 2024, the Fifth Circuit overturned the lower court’s decision and, despite the Department’s objections, postponed the effective date of the 2022 BDR rule pending final judgment. The Department’s petition for rehearing was denied, prompting its appeal to the Supreme Court.

What’s at Stake

The Supreme Court’s decision will likely have significant consequences for both borrowers and institutions. If the Court rules against the Department of Education, it could severely limit the scope of borrower defense claims, especially on a group basis, making it harder for defrauded students to receive relief. For-profit colleges and other institutions might feel emboldened to challenge similar regulations and forgiveness measures.

A ruling in favor of the Department, while seemingly less likely given the Court’s conservative majority, would affirm the Biden administration’s approach to processing borrower defenses and may secure loan forgiveness for thousands of borrowers who attended predatory institutions.

The Political Dimension

The timing of this case is crucial. Just days before the Supreme Court granted certiorari, the Biden administration announced the cancellation of loans for 150,000 borrowers—most of which were through the borrower defense process. Shortly afterward, additional forgiveness for income-based repayment plan borrowers and individual borrower defense approvals was announced. However, the future of these forgiveness efforts remains uncertain, as the second Trump administration has signaled intentions to rollback or revise Biden’s loan forgiveness policies.

A Conservative Court’s Approach to Executive Power

Given the Supreme Court’s current composition and its recent track record in cases like West Virginia v. EPA, it seems likely that the justices will scrutinize the executive authority wielded in crafting the BDR rule. The conservative majority may favor a narrow interpretation of the Higher Education Act, signaling that large-scale forgiveness should come from Congress rather than executive agencies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the 2022 BDR rule will set a precedent that could define the future of student debt relief and the Department of Education’s authority. For borrowers hoping for widespread relief, the outcome could mean the difference between long-awaited forgiveness and a protracted legal battle. For institutions, particularly for-profits, a ruling against the Department could bolster their resistance to accountability measures.

Trump vs. Public Schools: Executive Order Aims to Dismantle Department of Education (Democracy Now!)

 

 

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday instructing Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to start dismantling her agency, although it cannot be formally shut down without congressional approval. Since returning to office in January, Trump has already slashed the Education Department’s workforce in half and cut $600 million in grants. Education journalist Jennifer Berkshire says despite Trump’s claims that he is merely returning power and resources to the states, his moves were previewed in Project 2025. “The goal is not to continue to spend the same amount of money but just in a different way; it’s ultimately to phase out spending … and make it more difficult and more expensive for kids to go to college,” Berkshire says. She is co-author of the book The Education Wars: A Citizen’s Guide and Defense Manual and host of the education podcast Have You Heard.

Judge William Alsup Orders Trump to Reinstate Probationary Workers

Ninth Circuit Judge William Alsup has ordered the Trump Administration to reinstate tens of thousands of fired probationary workers.  In 2022, Judge Alsup presided over a $6 Billion settlement between 200,000 student loan debtors and the Department of Education in a landmark Borrower Defense to Repayment case (Sweet v Cardona). In 2023, the US Supreme Court declined to take the appeal by three schools.  

For-Profit College Barons Backed Trump, But Now May Be Scared (David Halperin)

Many top for-profit college industry owners supported Donald Trump’s bid to return to the White House. They had benefitted when, during Trump’s first term, his education secretary, Betsy DeVos, largely ended federal regulatory and enforcement efforts to hold for-profit schools accountable for deceiving students and ripping off taxpayers. But some industry barons, having contributed to the Trump 2024 campaign, now may be scared by efforts of the new Trump administration, including Elon Musk’s DOGE team, to disrupt operations of the U.S. Department of Education. Both Trump and his new Secretary of Education Linda McMahon publicly suggested last week that the Department will be abolished.

Although the for-profit college industry endlessly complained that the Biden and Obama education departments were unfairly targeting the industry with regulations and enforcement actions, they now seem concerned about the possibility that the Trump administration will shutter the Department entirely, abandon the federal role in higher education oversight, and leave regulation to the states. They likely are even more frightened that the proposed gutting of the Department will interfere with the flow of billions in federal taxpayer dollars to their schools.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that Jason Altmire, the former congressman who is now the CEO of the largest lobbying group of for-profit colleges, Career Education Colleges and Universities (CECU), says that his schools are worried about the potential disruption of funding for federal student grants and loans. Altmire apparently also expressed concern that turning regulation over to the states could create problems for online schools that operate in multiple states, especially because some states have relatively strong accountability rules.

Many for-profit colleges receive most of their revenue — as much as the 90 percent maximum allowed by U.S. law — from federal taxpayer-supported student grants and loans. For-profit schools have received literally hundreds of billions in these taxpayer dollars over the past two decades, as much as $32 billion at the industry’s peak around 2010, and around $20 billion annually n0w.

But many for-profit schools have used deceptive advertising and recruiting to sell high-priced low quality college and career training programs that leave many students worse off than when they started, deep in debt and without the career advancement they sought. Dozens of for-profit schools have faced federal and state law enforcement actions over their abuses.

CECU (previously called APSCU and before that CCA) has included in its membership over the years many of the most abusive, deceptive school operations, including Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, Education Management Corp., Perdoceo, Center for Excellence in Higher Education, DeVry, Kaplan (now called Purdue University Global), and Ashford University (now called University of Arizona Global Campus). (Republic Report highlighted the bad actors on CECU’s membership list for many years; CECU removed the list from its website about four years ago.)

Florida couple Arthur and Belinda Keiser are among those who have benefited the most from CECU lobbying and taxpayer funding. The Keisers run for-profit Southeastern College and non-profit Keiser University, which collectively have received hundreds of million in federal education dollars over the years. They also are among the most politically active owners in the career college industry.

While Belinda Keiser has run, unsuccessfully, for the state legislature, Arthur Keiser has been one of the most aggressive lobbyists for the career college industry in Washington. He has been a dominant figure on the board of CECU, and he hired expensive lawyers to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in a failed effort to block a settlement that provides debt relief to students who attended deceptive colleges, including Keiser University. During Trump’s first term, Arthur Keiser chaired NACIQI, the Department of Education’s advisory committee reviewing the performance of college accreditors.

The Keisers created controversy and were eventually penalized by the IRS for a shady 2011 conversion of Keiser University from for-profit to non-profit, in a deal that allowed the couple to continue making big money off the school. Keiser University has also settled cases with the Justice Department and the Florida attorney general over deceptive practices.

In the two years leading up to the November 2024 election, according to Federal Election Committee records, Belinda Keiser donated more than $250,000 to various Republican candidates and political committees, including $35,000 to the Trump 47 Committee, $10,300 to the Trump-affiliated Save America PAC, $3300 to the Trump Save America Joint Fundraising Committee, and $33,400 to the Republican National Committee.

Ultra-wealthy college owner Carl Barney was another big Trump 2024 donor. Barney operated the Center for Excellence in Higher Education, another troubling conversion from for-profit to non-profit that kept taxpayer money flowing into his bank accounts, for schools including CollegeAmerica and Independence University. Barney’s schools lost their accreditation, and then their federal aid, after the Colorado attorney general in 2020 won a lawsuit accusing CollegeAmerica of deceptive practices. (The case is still pending after an appeal.)

Amid a torrent of donations to Republican committees last fall totaling over $1.6 million, Barney donated $924,600 to the Trump 47 Committee, $74,500 to the Trump-supporting Make America Great Again PAC, and $247,800 to the Republican National Committee, according to federal records.

In a September post on his personal website, Barney explained that he liked that Trump “wants to work with Elon Musk to reduce spending, regulations, waste, and fraud in the federal government.”

What exactly waste, fraud, and abuse seems to mean in the context of the Trump/Musk effort is troubling. There is little evidence that what DOGE has found and shut down relates to actual fraud, abuse, or corruption.

Instead it appears that much of what Musk and DOGE have focused on is weakening or eliminating either (1) federal agencies that have been investigating Musk businesses, or businesses of other top Trump donors; or (2) agencies that work on priorities — such as equal opportunity for Americans or alleviation of poverty or disease overseas — that Trump or Musk dislike.

And the Trump team has been firing, across multiple federal agencies, the inspectors general, ethics watchdogs, and other top officials actually charged with rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse — further undermining the claim that the Trump team is trying to bring about more honest and efficient government.

It’s doubtful that even the heaviest sledgehammer DOGE attack would eliminate the federal student grants and loans that Congress has mandated to give low and moderate income Americans of all backgrounds a better chance to improve their lives through higher education. Assuming such financial aid will continue, then if Trump, Musk, and DOGE truly wanted to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and save big money for taxpayers, one thing they could do is strengthen, rather than abolish, the Department of Education — not to keep the money flowing to all for-profit colleges, as CECU seems to want, but to advance efforts to ensure that taxpayer dollars go only to those colleges that are creating real benefits for students and for our economy.

That would mean enforcing and building on, not destroying, the Department of Education rules put in place by the Biden administration, including: the gainful employment rule, which creates performance standards to cut off aid to for-profit and career programs that consistently leave graduates with insurmountable debt; the borrower defense rule, which cancels the debts of students scammed by their schools and empowers the Department to go after those predatory schools to recoup the taxpayer money; and the 90-10 rule, which helps keep low-quality programs out of the federal aid program and reduces the risk that poor quality schools will target U.S. veterans and service members.

It would also mean continuing the Biden administration’s efforts to more aggressively evaluate the performance of the private college accrediting agencies that oversee colleges and serve as gatekeepers for federal student grants and loans.

Fighting waste, fraud, and abuse would also mean strengthening, not gutting, efforts to investigate and fight predatory college abuses by enforcement teams at the Department of Education, Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Justice Department, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Defense. Many deceptive school operations remain in business today, recruiting veterans, single parents, and others into low-quality, over-priced college programs; they include Perdoceo’s American Intercontinental and Colorado Technical University, Purdue University Global, University of Arizona Global Campus, DeVry University, Walden University, the University of Phoenix, South University, Ultimate Medical Academy, and UEI College.

Fighting waste, fraud, and abuse also would likely require a different higher ed leader at the Department than Nicholas Kent, the Virginia state official whom Trump has nominated to serve as Under Secretary of Education. Kent previously worked at CECU as a lobbyist advancing the interests of for-profit schools. Prior to that, he worked at Education Affiliates, a for-profit college operation that faced civil and criminal investigation and actions by the Justice Department for deceptive practices.

Diane Auer Jones, who held the same job in the first Trump administration, had a career background similar to Kent’s, and she twisted Department policies and actions to benefit predatory colleges. That is presumably the world CECU and its for-profit college barons want to restore: All the money, none of the accountability rules.

In the end, the predatory college owners may get what they want. Given the brazen self-dealing, and fealty to corporate donors, of the Trump-Musk administration, and the sharp elbows of paid-for congressional backers of the for-profit college industry like Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), we will probably end up with the worst of all outcomes: the destruction of the Department of Education but a continued flow of taxpayer billions to for-profit schools, without meaningful accountability measures to ensure that everyday Americans are actually protected from waste, fraud, and abuse.

Americans should demand from Trump and Secretary McMahon a different course — one that provides educational opportunity for all and strengthens the U.S. economy by investing in higher education, while removing from the federal aid program the abusive colleges that rip off students and scam taxpayers.

[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.]  

The Council of College Military Educators: DOD's Complicity with Predatory Colleges Continues

Since the 1980's, the US Department of Defense has enabled bad actor colleges to prey upon servicemembers, veterans, and their families. Through a non-profit organization called the Council of College Military Educators, DOD and these questionable schools created a formal alliance.  

The Council of College Military Educators (CCME) formed in the 1970s with a noble goal, to provide free education to military personnel. But the organization was hijacked by the University of Phoenix and other predatory for-profit colleges who used a variety of questionable and sometimes illegal techniques to enroll students on military bases around the globe. Schools often hired veterans to act as shills for the school.  

In its heyday, CCME events were a prime place for predatory schools to lobby military educators. We were told that schools even paid for alcohol, to make the DOD personnel more receptive.  That's something you won't read in CCME's history. For nearly a decade we have tried to get justice for folks who have been preyed upon by those schools, and little has been done. Scandals have come and gone and been forgotten.  No one went to jail. But the ripple effects of folks who have been deceived by predatory schools have not receded. 

New scandals about those who serve being preyed upon by schools have not been revealed (except by us) and it's possible that they may never by full reported.  And so it goes.  

DODOIG-2019-000702 List of the 50 Worst Schools