Higher Learning Commission Passes the Buck on Ambow-CSU Deal

The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the regional accreditor for Colorado State University (CSU), has refused to comment on whether it is investigating or overseeing any partnership between CSU and Ambow Education, a Chinese-American education technology company with a record of volatility, opacity, and questionable business practices.

In an email to the Higher Education Inquirer on July 28, HLC Public Information Officer Laura Janota wrote, “You would need to check with the institution regarding any specifics about its agreement with Ambow Education.” While acknowledging that HLC evaluates an institution’s offerings and operations as part of its ongoing accreditation relationship, Janota pointed to generic contractual guidance on the HLC website rather than offering any assurance that the accreditor is scrutinizing a deal involving Ambow—a company that has raised alarms due to its foray into the U.S. higher ed sector via its HybriU platform.

This type of response is not unusual for HLC, which has come under criticism for its lack of accountability and its longstanding pattern of accrediting both elite universities and subprime colleges.

As previously reported by the Higher Education Inquirer:

"Institutional accreditation is no sign of quality. Worse yet, accreditation by organizations such as the Middle States Association, Western Association of Schools and Colleges, and the Higher Learning Commission is used by subprime colleges to lend legitimacy to their predatory, low-standard operations."

According to the U.S. Department of Education, HLC currently accredits 946 Title IV-eligible institutions, opening the doors for them to collectively receive nearly $40 billion in federal student aid annually—along with billions more from the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs.

HLC accredits prestigious institutions such as the University of Chicago, University of Michigan, and Notre Dame. But it also accredits notorious subprime schools including Colorado Technical University, DeVry University, University of Phoenix, Walden University, National American University, and Purdue University Global. On the three pillars of regional accreditation—compliance, quality assurance, and quality improvement—HLC has consistently failed when it comes to oversight of predatory institutions.

Even as far back as 2000, critics within academia called out the ethical rot. The American Association of University Professors protested HLC’s support of for-profit schools. That same year, then-AAUP General Secretary Mary A. Burgan remarked:

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

HLC’s financial structure reinforces this compromised position: it is funded by the institutions it accredits. Over the last 30 years, HLC has collected millions of dollars in dues from some of the nation’s most predatory schools. This funding model mirrors the conflicts of interest that plagued credit rating agencies during the 2008 financial crisis—a comparison made explicitly by economists David Deming and David Figlio in a 2016 report:

“Accreditors—who are paid by the institutions themselves—appear to be ineffectual at best, much like the role of credit rating agencies during the recent financial crisis.”

Despite public attention, federal oversight of accreditors remains weak. Under the Trump-DeVos administration, regulatory protections were rolled back significantly. A 2023 internal investigation revealed that the U.S. Department of Education was not adequately monitoring accreditors, confirming what many higher education watchdogs already knew: that no one is truly watching the accreditors.

The Ambow-CSU situation underscores this systemic failure. Rather than acting as an independent reviewer, HLC has chosen to defer responsibility to the very institution it is tasked with overseeing. This is not just a case of passing the buck; it's another example of accreditors shielding themselves from accountability while public institutions are left to make private deals with for-profit entities—unchecked, unregulated, and largely unreported.

Sources:

• Email correspondence from Laura Janota, Higher Learning Commission, July 28, 2025

• https://www.hlcommission.org/institution/1046/

• Higher Education Inquirer, September 24, 2018: Higher Learning Commission: Accreditation Is No Sign of Quality

• David Deming and David Figlio, Accountability in US Education: Applying Lessons from K–12 Experience to Higher Education (2016)

• U.S. Department of Education accreditation database

• Public statements from AAUP and archived remarks by Mary A. Burgan

Growth, Politics, and Power: What Q2 GDP Means for Trump and the Fed

The US economy expanded at a 3.0 percent annualized rate in the second quarter of 2025, a figure that surprised many analysts following a weak first quarter. But the surface-level recovery masks deeper economic fragility. Much of the Q2 growth was driven by a sharp drop in imports following tariff-related stockpiling earlier in the year. The statistical boost from this reversal, along with modest consumer spending, was enough to produce a positive headline number. Business investment, meanwhile, declined sharply, and real final sales to domestic purchasers rose only 1.2 percent—a better measure of underlying demand.

Donald Trump has wasted little time framing the growth figure as a sign that his policies, particularly tariffs and threats of deregulation, are strengthening the economy. In speeches and media appearances, Trump and his advisors have pointed to the 3 percent growth rate as a vindication of “America First” economic nationalism. But the disconnect between the apparent strength of the economy and its internal weaknesses presents challenges for the Federal Reserve and risks a new phase of politicization of monetary policy.

The Federal Reserve, led by Chair Jerome Powell, is unlikely to change course immediately. Inflation remains above target, and the core of the economy continues to show signs of stagnation. The central bank's dual mandate—price stability and maximum employment—does not support an immediate rate cut, especially with housing costs and services inflation still elevated.

Trump has been openly hostile toward Powell and the Fed's recent decisions to keep interest rates high. He has repeatedly claimed that the central bank is working against his administration and hinted that he would seek significant changes if re-elected. That threat has gained traction among his political allies, some of whom have revived calls to limit the Fed’s independence or reform its structure.

One of the most talked-about possibilities is that Trump could move to replace Powell before his term ends in 2028. While removing a sitting Fed chair is unprecedented and legally questionable, Trump has previously floated this idea and sought alternative paths to reshape the institution. A leading candidate to replace Powell in a second Trump administration is Judy Shelton, a longtime critic of the Federal Reserve and an advocate for a return to a gold standard or a quasi-fixed currency system.

Shelton’s nomination to the Fed board failed in the Senate during Trump’s first term, largely due to concerns about her unorthodox views and perceived lack of commitment to central bank independence. Her statements questioning the Fed’s role as lender of last resort and her support for aligning monetary policy more closely with White House priorities have drawn sharp criticism from economists across the political spectrum. Nonetheless, she has remained a visible figure in conservative monetary policy circles, and her views align with Trump’s desire to exert greater influence over interest rates and financial markets.

Replacing Powell with someone like Shelton would represent a fundamental shift in the Fed’s orientation. It would signal that monetary policy could become more directly shaped by political pressures, particularly during election cycles. Financial markets, already sensitive to signs of instability, would likely respond with volatility. International confidence in the Federal Reserve’s autonomy could weaken, with long-term consequences for the dollar and global capital flows.

The Q2 GDP report, in this context, is less a sign of sustained recovery than it is a flashpoint in an ongoing political struggle over economic governance. The apparent growth has given Trump a short-term rhetorical victory, but the underlying economic challenges remain unresolved. The Fed, for now, continues to operate independently. 

Sources
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Associated Press, July 30, 2025
Barron’s, July 30, 2025
Bloomberg, June 27, 2025
Washington Post, July 30, 2025
Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED)
Congressional testimony archives on Judy Shelton, 2020–2021

Judge Bove, the Rule of Law, and the Reactionary Turn of the Courts

Judge Richard Bove has been publicly critical of judicial institutions, warning that American courts have strayed from their intended function of upholding justice and truth. In particular, Bove has voiced concern about how whistleblowers are treated—targeted for retaliation, marginalized by institutions, and left without recourse in a system designed to shield the powerful. But Bove’s own record and affiliations cast doubt on the consistency of his legal philosophy. As a Trump-aligned appointee, Bove is more likely to deepen the court’s ideological entrenchment than to reverse it. His selective critiques of the judiciary seem less about strengthening the rule of law than about steering it toward reactionary ends.

Bove has written extensively about whistleblower suppression, documenting how statutes like the Whistleblower Protection Act and False Claims Act are gutted by procedural roadblocks and judicial indifference. He has pointed to a pattern in which federal courts quietly dismiss cases before any public accountability can emerge. These arguments have real merit. In education, defense, public health, and finance, those who speak out against corruption are often destroyed professionally—and the courts typically do little to protect them.

Yet Bove’s credibility as a reformer is undermined by his political proximity to Trumpism, a movement that has actively eroded public trust in legal and democratic institutions while consolidating judicial power through appointments, loyalty tests, and legal reinterpretations designed to roll back rights. While Bove criticizes certain elements of the judiciary, he appears to support—and potentially enable—the broader project of reactionary capture.

His recent elevation comes at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court has already lurched to the right, and trust in the institution is near historic lows. The Roberts Court has gutted voting rights, weakened environmental protections, and removed federal abortion protections. These are not isolated rulings; they reflect a larger pattern of judicial rollback. Adding judges like Bove to the lower federal courts—and possibly grooming them for higher positions—is a strategy to entrench that agenda for decades.

The idea that the Supreme Court is now “broken” assumes it was once apolitical. But history suggests otherwise. From Dred Scott and Plessy to Lochner and Buck v. Bell, the Court has long used its authority to uphold racial hierarchies, corporate dominance, and the suppression of dissent. In this sense, Bove does not represent a break with tradition but rather a continuation of it—albeit with a different rhetorical emphasis.

In his writings, Bove laments the loss of public trust in courts. But trust is earned through fair and consistent application of the law, not through ideological fidelity or performative dissent. His own views suggest a selective application of justice: one that claims to protect whistleblowers while aligning with a political movement that regularly vilifies them; one that criticizes judicial corruption while serving those who have actively undermined judicial independence.

The whistleblowers Bove claims to defend are often the same people targeted by the very forces that empowered his rise. Those who exposed abuses at ICE detention centers, in the Trump Organization’s finances, in the handling of COVID-19 data, or in for-profit education scams tied to political donors—many found no champion in the courts. And they are unlikely to find one in Bove.

Bove’s appointment must be understood not just in terms of individual qualifications, but in terms of broader institutional transformation. Courts are being packed not just with conservatives, but with ideologues who share a narrow vision of rights—especially corporate and religious ones—while constraining public protections, reproductive freedoms, and worker rights.

In the long term, this strategy may succeed in shifting the legal consensus even further. The Court, already unmoored from popular legitimacy, could continue to reverse decades of legal precedent. While Bove raises important points about how the system fails truth-tellers, his participation in a wider political project of rollback should not be ignored. His version of the rule of law is unlikely to serve the public—it is more likely to reinforce a system that protects power from accountability.

Sources
Richard Bove, “The System Punishes Whistleblowers While Enabling Crime,” Financial Regulation Newsletter, 2023
Richard Bove, “Why the Courts Are Losing Public Trust,” Independent Legal Review, 2024
National Whistleblower Center, “Judicial Retaliation Against Whistleblowers,” 2023
The Brookings Institution, “The Supreme Court and Public Legitimacy,” 2023
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905)
Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022)
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)

Triumphalism in Decline: A Critique of “They Attack Because We’re Strong”

In his recent Inside Higher Ed opinion piece, “They Attack Because We’re Strong,” Frank Fernandez argues that American higher education is under fire not because it is failing, but because it is too powerful and influential. He calls for a long-view perspective that celebrates the accomplishments of U.S. colleges and universities over the past century. But his essay—well-intentioned as it may be—reads less as a sober reflection and more as institutional nostalgia, untethered from the brutal realities of the present.

Fernandez’s triumphalism overlooks or distorts several truths. It is true that U.S. universities have had moments of undeniable achievement: scientific breakthroughs, professional training, and expansion of access. But to say “higher education won” is to ignore the hollowing out of public trust, the corporatization of academia, and the structural harm inflicted on millions of students and contingent workers. If this is victory, it has come at a staggering cost.

“Higher Education Won”? Who Lost?

One of the glaring absences in Fernandez’s narrative is any sustained acknowledgment of the student debt crisis—more than $1.7 trillion in outstanding loans that have left borrowers in financial limbo for decades. The author does not address how rising tuition, stagnating wages, and declining public investment have turned the promise of higher education into a burden for the working class and communities of color.

Nor does he wrestle with the implications of an adjunct majority workforce. Most college instructors today work under precarious contracts with little pay, no benefits, and no job security. This is not a sign of institutional strength. It is a labor crisis.

The rhetorical move to compare today’s struggles with the early 20th century glosses over the fact that the institutions that once expanded access are now increasingly exclusionary. Public flagships and elite privates alike are doubling down on selectivity, building billion-dollar endowments, and investing in luxury amenities while cutting humanities departments and hiking student fees.

If the past 100 years have brought expansion, the past 20 have brought erosion.

Legitimacy Cannot Be Willed into Being

Fernandez concedes that “our challenge in this new era is primarily one of legitimacy.” But he frames this as a problem of perception, not performance. He cites faculty critiques over gendered language in a voter turnout study as a distraction, implying that the real work of the academy is hindered by too much internal debate. But that line of thinking presumes that legitimacy can be restored by tone and unity, not by systemic reform.

Legitimacy is not gained by declaring relevance—it is earned through material impact. That means resisting extractive tuition models, ending the abuse of contingent labor, and seriously confronting how the industry has facilitated racial and economic stratification.

It also means acknowledging that some of the conservative critiques—about administrative bloat, about ideological insularity, about weak accountability mechanisms—are not entirely without merit. These issues are not the inventions of “Trump acolytes,” but of decades of elite capture and mission drift.

A House Divided

Perhaps most troubling is Fernandez’s call for national solidarity among faculty and institutional leaders, modeled after the early AAUP. But today’s higher education system is profoundly stratified. Community colleges face declining enrollments and funding cliffs. HBCUs and regional publics have long been underresourced. For-profit colleges exploit the most vulnerable. And elite institutions continue to hoard wealth and status.

There is no shared struggle here. There is no unified front. The idea that faculty from a state university in Texas or an adjunct at a California community college share the same institutional mission as leadership at Princeton or Stanford is a comforting illusion. Solidarity will not emerge without reckoning with this inequality.

Conclusion

Fernandez asks us to see the attacks on higher ed as a signal of strength. But what if these attacks are, in part, the result of decades of institutional failure? What if irrelevance is not imposed from the outside but cultivated from within—through inaccessibility, arrogance, and systemic exploitation?

If higher education is to have a future worth defending, it will require more than collective nostalgia and appeals to tradition. It will require a commitment to equity, transparency, and accountability—not just to the ideals of the past, but to the people failed by the system today.

Sources:

• U.S. Department of Education. “Student Loan Portfolio Summary.” Federal Student Aid.

• AAUP. “Data Snapshot: Contingent Faculty in US Higher Ed.”

• Center for American Progress. “The Cost of Cuts: A Look at the Ongoing Crisis in Public Higher Education.”

• Georgetown University CEW. “The College Payoff.”

• The Century Foundation. “How Public Colleges Have Been Undermined.”

• National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

HELU's Wall-to-Wall and Coast-to-Coast Report – July 2025

July 2025 HELU Chair’s Message From Levin Kim, HELU Chair and member of UAW 4121, student workers, researchers and postdocs at the University of Washington Over the first six months in office, the Trump Administration attempted to gut funding for crucial research, attack immigrant and non-citizen workers, curtail academic freedom and freedom of speech, and more. These attacks on higher ed workers and institutions have been the centerpiece of the right wing's political agenda to expand control and power over public-serving institutions in service of the interests of the ultra-wealthy few.  Read more. Read HELU's July 2025 Chair's Message HELU's July 2025 newsletter contains items about movements in large systems. Some are national (the EWOC conference, the NEA organizing grants, May Day Strong, the DSA Convention). Others are state-level (Michigan and New York). Some are system-level (Arizona and California university systems). Some are about collaborations (the LA Federation of Labor, the SUNY/CUNY MADCs). This movement reflects the reality of where the higher ed labor movement is going.  – Helena Worthen, Co-Chair, HELU Media & Communications Committee   From the HELU Blog: EWOC and Higher Ed: First Conference at Labor@Wayne EWOC, the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee, held its first conference at Wayne State University with co-hosts Labor@Wayne on June 28 and 29. Read more.   The University of California System: Labor Actions Loom in 2025-2026 The longer the UC system maintains a hard line against unions at the bargaining table, the more likely it is that a majority of UC’s unionized workforce will be out of contract by the end of the 2025-26 school year. Read more.   NEA Offers Grants to Help Local Affiliates Pay HELU Solidarity Pledges The National Education Association (NEA) has offered grants to local affiliates to enable them to join HELU by paying half of their solidarity pledge for one year. Read more. Contingent Labor at the University of Arizona: One Damn Thing After Another If it weren’t so devastating, it would be comic timing. Every year, contingent faculty, specifically lecturers with academic year appointments, at the University of Arizona are laid off in May. Then, in the fall, some are hired back in even more precarious positions as adjunct instructor. Read more.   Joint Union-Senate Mutual Academic Defense Compacts in SUNY and CUNY Systems Hours before the signing of the federal budget reconciliation megabill, ten current and former leaders of SUNY’s and CUNY’s governance bodies issued a July 4 declaration. Candice Vacin, President of the SUNY Faculty Council of Community Colleges (FCCC), described it as “a solemn call to defend foundational principles of American higher education" ... Read more.   Michigan HELU Coalition: Organizing and Action HELU activists in Michigan have banded together to form a state coalition to take on several existential threats to our students, universities and colleges, and our jobs. So far, the coalition has hosted several online and in-person events, actions, and meetings, each bigger than the previous one. Read more.   What is HELU Doing at the DSA Convention in August? On August 9th, representatives from Higher Education Labor United will be attending the Democratic Socialists of American biennial convention in Chicago to take part in their first ever Cross-Organizational Political Exchange. Read more.   HELU at May Day Strong in Chicago On July 17 and 18, Levin Kim and Executive Director Ian Gavigan traveled to Chicago for the second national May Day Strong convening hosted by the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU). Read more.   Mass Non-Violent Resistance Trainings in Los Angeles: Labor Leads with Power and Discipline On July 10, 2025, 1,443 people gathered at the Los Angeles Convention Center for the largest nonviolence training in the history of the city, and perhaps the country. Read more.   Upcoming Events:  Building Campus Solidarity Across Job Categories: Lessons from Recent Strikes & Adjunct Struggles Weds., July 30 at 6pm ET/5pm CT/4pm MT/3pm PT Join the Contingency Taskforce (CTF) of Higher Ed Labor United (HELU) for an urgent strategy discussion of how we can build campus solidarity among faculty and other higher ed workers, across job ranks, in light of the severe threats we now face. How can we organize broadly to defend the most vulnerable members of our communities? How can we help people overcome isolation and fear, discovering new courage and power by connecting with others? How can we raise up the voices and needs of historically marginalized workers and students within the broader fight to defend higher ed? Register here. International Campus Worker & Student Organizing Meeting Monday, August 4 at 2pm ET/1pm CT/12pm MT/11am PT Attacks from the Trump administration are putting international students and workers in our campuses at risk. Mass SEVIS terminations, cancellations of Visa appointments, targeted attacks against Chinese nationals, ICE detentions and threats of raids in our campuses are making our jobs, our livelihoods, and the mission of our institutions unsafe. These actions follow the same pattern: attacking those who are in the most vulnerable positions to create a chilling effect on the rest of us. We demand action from colleges and universities now! Join us on Zoom August 4th at 2pm ET/1pm CT/12pm MT/11am PT to plan next steps and organizing strategies. Register here.   HELU Open House  Thursday, August 14 at 6 pm ET/5 pm CT/4 pm MT/3 pm PT HELU has been organizing since 2021 and is growing. On Thursday, August 14, at 6pm ET/5pm CT/4pm MT/3pm PT we will be hosting another HELU Open House, designed to welcome folks into the national higher ed organizing space and help everyone find a way to plug in. Join HELU on Thursday, August 14th, at 6pm ET/5pm CT/4pm MT/3pm PT. Register here.    Library Workers Organizing Meeting & Strategy Session Weds., August 20 at 7pm ET/6pm CT/5pm MT/4pm PT On August 20, 2025, HELU is bringing together higher ed library workers across the country to strategize against threats to our livelihoods and profession. We will come together to meet and set our agenda, then we will break into small groups to discuss crises in academic freedom, disparities between library staff categorizations, labor organizing, austerity, and more. Our goal is to develop a platform for library worker protections to advocate for and implement across the country. Register here.  Higher Ed Labor in the News College students and staff at universities across Minnesota are organizing new unions – The Minnesota Star Tribune UMN union workers announce vote to authorize strike – MN Daily Duke Graduate Students Union scores historic tentative contract – Duke Chronicle Faculty Unions & New York City Electeds Say ‘Hands Off Higher Ed! Hands Off CUNY!’ – WNY Labor Today In AAUP Trial, State Dept. Official Says Criticizing Israel Could Be Grounds for Visa Revocation – Harvard Crimson Labor union says California university professor was taken during Camarillo immigration raid protest – KTLA5 News Penn Postdocs and Research Associates Win Their Union – UAW ‘Without us, there is no UMass’: Unions representing staff decry bargaining tactics by administration at campus rally – Athol Daily News The link to Scott Douglas’ presentation on the California community college load cap, included in HELU's June 2025 newsletter, has changed. You can now access it here. Want to support our work? Make a contribution. We invite you to support HELU's work by making a direct financial contribution. While HELU's main source of income is solidarity pledges from member organizations, these funds from individuals help us to grow capacity as we work to align the higher ed labor movement. Contribute to HELU

The Council for National Policy and the Quiet War on Higher Education

The Council for National Policy (CNP), a secretive coalition of right-wing activists, donors, and religious leaders, has long operated behind closed doors to reshape American politics. Less visible—but no less consequential—is the CNP’s influence on U.S. higher education. Rather than building a parallel university system, the Council and its affiliates have sought to infiltrate, defund, and redirect existing institutions—while funding their own ideological outposts to train future political operatives and culture warriors.

From its founding in 1981, the CNP has cultivated a network of allies committed to a vision of America rooted in Christian nationalism, economic libertarianism, and anti-communism. Higher education, particularly public and research universities, has been a frequent target of its disdain. These institutions are framed as dens of secularism, moral relativism, and Marxist indoctrination. The strategy has been clear: weaken the credibility and funding of traditional universities while supporting alternative pipelines that reinforce conservative ideology.

Organizations like Turning Point USA, Young America’s Foundation, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have received support from CNP-connected donors and board members. These groups are active on campuses across the country, often attacking faculty and student activists who advocate for racial justice, labor rights, climate action, or LGBTQ+ inclusion. Turning Point’s “Professor Watchlist” is emblematic of this effort, identifying and shaming educators deemed “radical” or “anti-American.” Behind the student-centered branding are well-financed political interests looking to re-engineer campus discourse and manufacture consent for a reactionary worldview.

While public institutions struggle with budget cuts and political interference, private colleges like Hillsdale College and Liberty University flourish with donor support from CNP-affiliated foundations. These schools market themselves as bastions of classical learning and Christian values, but they also function as training grounds for conservative media, law, and politics. Hillsdale in particular, with its rejection of federal funding and its alignment with Trump-era governance, has produced graduates who have moved seamlessly into roles in think tanks, policy shops, and Republican administrations.

The CNP’s influence extends beyond campuses into legislative agendas. Through connected organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the network has promoted laws that aim to ban the teaching of critical race theory, eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, and impose state-mandated curriculum standards favoring patriotism over critical inquiry. Many of these efforts are packaged as promoting intellectual diversity, but in practice they represent a concerted attack on academic freedom.

Higher education is not simply collateral damage in the culture war. It is a primary battlefield. The push to defund public universities, restrict tenure, and surveil classroom speech is not accidental—it is part of a long-term project to discredit institutions that might challenge the political status quo. The goal is not just to influence what is taught, but to control who gets to teach and who gets to learn.

In the CNP’s vision, universities are not places for open debate or exploration, but potential threats to moral order and market orthodoxy. Knowledge becomes dangerous when it questions power. And so the Council works quietly, diligently, to ensure that the next generation of Americans is shaped not by democratic ideals but by theological certainty, corporate loyalty, and partisan allegiance.

While the names and tactics may evolve, the endgame remains the same: a higher education landscape where critical thinking is subordinated to dogma, and where the pursuit of truth yields to the demands of political conformity. Whether the broader public recognizes this campaign in time remains to be seen.

---

Sources
Anne Nelson, Shadow Network: Media, Money, and the Secret Hub of the Radical Right
Southern Poverty Law Center: “Council for National Policy” profile
Excerpts from leaked CNP membership directories and agendas (SourceWatch, The Guardian, Washington Post)
Isaac Arnsdorf, “Inside the CNP’s Shadowy Strategy Meetings” (Politico)
Hillsdale College Curriculum and Federal Funding Statements
Turning Point USA Professor Watchlist and donor records
Public records from ALEC, Heritage Foundation, and affiliated legislation

Liberty University: A Billion-Dollar Edu-Religious Powerhouse Under the Lens

Liberty University, a self-described bastion of Christian values and conservative education, is today one of the richest and most politically entangled institutions of higher learning in the United States. With nearly $1.6 billion in annual revenue and almost $4.2 billion in assets, the university has grown from a modest Bible college into a vast nonprofit empire. But behind its polished image lies a history marked by ideological extremism, financial opacity, political manipulation, and a disturbing legacy of abuse and betrayal.

Liberty University's tax return is here. 

The institution’s roots reach back to televangelist Jerry Falwell Sr., who founded Liberty University in 1971 as Lynchburg Baptist College, with a vision of creating a “West Point of the Christian Right.” Falwell’s project was never merely educational—it was explicitly political. He intended Liberty to serve as a training ground for young evangelicals to take control of the culture and the government.

Falwell’s ambitions were not only spiritual; they were geopolitical. During the 1980s, Falwell Sr. emerged as a vocal supporter of Ronald Reagan’s Cold War foreign policy, especially in Central America. He used his media platform and church networks to defend U.S. military and CIA-backed interventions in Nicaragua and El Salvador, where right-wing authoritarian regimes and paramilitary groups were engaged in brutal counterinsurgency operations. Falwell denounced leftist movements like the Sandinistas as Marxist threats to Christianity and Western civilization. At the height of Reagan's Contra war in Nicaragua, Falwell called on American Christians to “stand with freedom fighters” and backed White House efforts to funnel money and arms to the Contras—despite their involvement in civilian massacres, drug trafficking, and terror campaigns. In this Cold War theater, Liberty University wasn’t just a college; it was a pulpit for Reagan-era militarism cloaked in religious moralism.

Just as controversial was Falwell Sr.’s willingness to partner with the Unification Church of Rev. Sun Myung Moon—a religious sect many evangelicals labeled a cult. Despite deep theological differences, Falwell accepted at least $2.5 million in the 1980s from Moon-affiliated organizations to help keep Liberty University solvent. The money reportedly helped the school avoid bankruptcy during a critical period of expansion. In return, Falwell softened his criticism of Moon and collaborated on conservative media projects such as The Washington Times. The alliance revealed a core truth about Liberty’s founding ethos: that power, not purity, was its guiding principle.

The compromises didn’t end with Falwell Sr. His son, Jerry Falwell Jr., took the university’s politicization to new heights. In 2016, he broke ranks with traditional evangelicals to endorse Donald Trump—then a thrice-married reality television mogul known more for casino deals than church attendance. Falwell Jr.'s early support helped legitimize Trump among conservative Christians. In exchange, Liberty received access to the Trump administration, and Falwell was appointed to a federal education task force. Trump gave a commencement speech at Liberty in 2017 and repeatedly praised the school’s commitment to “America First” values.

During Falwell Jr.’s tenure, the university became deeply enmeshed in right-wing politics. Leaked emails revealed how administrators suppressed dissent on campus, promoted partisan messaging, and used institutional resources for political purposes. Meanwhile, Falwell and his allies engaged in shady real estate deals and personal enrichment schemes. His fall from grace in 2020, following revelations of sexual misconduct, alcohol abuse, and financial irregularities, did little to slow the machine. Liberty continues to function much as it did before—flush with cash, shielded by nonprofit status, and politically aligned with the far right.

Equally disturbing is the university’s systemic mishandling of sexual violence. In 2021 and 2022, ProPublica and other outlets revealed a pattern of institutional cover-up. At least 22 women filed a federal lawsuit accusing Liberty of punishing survivors instead of abusers. Under the school’s strict moral code—“The Liberty Way”—students who reported sexual assault were often blamed for violating university policies on sex, alcohol, or being alone with members of the opposite sex. Some were threatened with expulsion. These cases were not aberrations—they revealed a culture of control and fear designed to protect the university’s brand at all costs.

In the most recent financial filings from 2023, Liberty reported nearly $343 million in grants paid, over $1 million in lobbying expenses, and a $5 million NASCAR sponsorship. Football coach Hugh Freeze received nearly $3.8 million in total compensation, while basketball coach Ritchie McKay earned over $1.4 million. These figures are more typical of a major corporate entity than a religious nonprofit. And yet Liberty continues to benefit from tax exemptions, federal grants, and student loan funds—money that flows into a university that openly mixes religion, nationalism, and political propaganda.

Liberty’s massive online education system has helped it reach students across the U.S. and beyond, bringing in billions in federal aid dollars. It is arguably the largest conduit of taxpayer-funded Christian education in the country. With that reach comes extraordinary power—and a growing obligation for public scrutiny.

Liberty University was built on contradictions. It preaches righteousness while taking money from cult leaders. It promotes purity while covering up abuse. It denounces government overreach while feeding off public funds. It claims to be apolitical while functioning as a partisan training ground.

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we see Liberty not as an outlier, but as a warning—a blueprint for how higher education can be weaponized in the service of power, dogma, and wealth. It is a university in name, but in practice, it is a deeply politicized enterprise built on Cold War propaganda, moral compromise, and an unholy alliance between religion, capitalism, and state violence.

The question remains: how many more Liberties are out there, hiding behind tax exemptions, and operating with near-total impunity?

Publishers Refuse to Print Ryan Walters’ Election & Religion‑Infused Curriculum

Oklahoma’s State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Ryan Walters, has drawn national scrutiny for issuing new social studies standards that embed Trump-aligned conspiracy theories and Christian nationalist narratives into K–12 curricula.

The standards, adopted in December 2024, direct teachers to question the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election using thoroughly debunked claims: late-night ballot drops, “illegal” mail-in votes, and suspiciously high turnout. Walters also inserted language suggesting COVID-19 was likely engineered in a Chinese laboratory and mandated that students learn the United States was founded explicitly as a Christian nation rooted in “Judeo-Christian principles.”

But when the Oklahoma Department of Education tried to find publishers willing to produce textbooks that match the new standards, they were met with silence—or polite refusals.

---

Textbook Publishers Say No

According to reporting by LGBTQ Nation, major educational publishers—including Houghton Mifflin Harcourt—declined to produce materials conforming to the new standards. Two smaller publishers also reportedly turned down the request, citing concerns about the accuracy, ideological slant, and commercial viability of such textbooks.

As one publisher put it, Oklahoma’s K–12 market is too small to justify rewriting and potentially damaging the integrity of their materials for national distribution. Another privately said they would not "print lies.”

This puts Oklahoma teachers in a bind: either use outdated materials, create their own lesson plans that conform to politicized standards, or face potential disciplinary action from Walters’ office.

---

The Bigger Agenda

The state’s new standards were developed behind closed doors by a group of far-right activists, including PragerU founder Dennis Prager, Project 2025 architect Kevin Roberts, and pseudo-historian David Barton. Their vision aligns with broader Christian nationalist efforts to reshape public education—and ultimately public life—by teaching a distorted version of U.S. history and civics.

In fact, the standards are so extreme that Walters’ own advisory group suggested adopting PragerU Kids videos and other ideologically driven content in classrooms, effectively privatizing parts of the curriculum with unaccredited, partisan material.

---

What It Means for Higher Education

These developments in Oklahoma are not isolated—they are part of a national movement to reshape public education from kindergarten through college. What’s happening now in K–12 has ripple effects in higher education, including:

• Erosion of Academic Standards: Students taught disinformation in high school may enter college ill-prepared for evidence-based inquiry.

• Politicization of Education: Public education is increasingly divided along ideological lines, with colleges caught in the crossfire.

• Chilling Effect on Educators: K–12 and higher ed instructors alike are facing new political pressures, including book bans, curriculum censorship, and loyalty tests to partisan ideas.

• Curriculum Segregation: As some states embrace fact-based education while others embrace political indoctrination, a two-tier education system is emerging—deepening inequality and distrust.

---

Will Oklahoma be OK? 

Walters’ campaign to institutionalize misinformation in Oklahoma classrooms has hit a critical obstacle: publishers won’t print it. This quiet but firm resistance from the educational publishing industry stands in contrast to the state’s increasingly aggressive posture toward teachers, schools, and dissenters.

It also raises a critical question: if public institutions are compelled to teach lies, who will tell the truth?

---

Sources

• Owen, Greg. “Textbook Publishers Ignore Far-Right Education Chief’s Demands to Print Trumpian Lies.” LGBTQ Nation, July 25, 2025. https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/07/textbook-publishers-ignore-far-right-education-chiefs-demands-to-print-trumpian-lies/

• Walker, Chris. “New Oklahoma School Curriculum Requires Students to Learn the ‘Big Lie’.” Truthout, March 18, 2025. https://truthout.org/articles/new-oklahoma-school-curriculum-requires-students-to-learn-the-big-lie/

• Rivas, Yunior. “Oklahoma Set to Teach Trump’s Election Lies in Public Schools as Parents and Teachers Push Back.” Democracy Docket, June 28, 2025. https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/oklahoma-set-to-teach-trumps-election-lies-in-public-schools-as-parents-and-teachers-push-back/

 

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters

Fighting for my students’ right to read, I lost my teacher’s license. I’d risk it all again.

Summer Boismier, Chalkbeat

Jul 24, 2025 at 2:22pm EDT

“The Hate U Give.” “Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe.” “Challenger Deep.” “The Poet X.” These are just some of the titles my students researched and recommended as part of a 2018 project-based learning unit I had assigned. The goal: to diversify our high school’s required reading lists. “Why don’t we have these books?” the superintendent of the district where I was teaching English at the time asked me.

The following school year, these books were integrated into the English I curriculum as choice reads for our literature circles. I find it hard to fathom such a thing happening today.

Four years later, I was teaching in another school district, this one in Norman, Oklahoma. Just days before we were set to return for the 2022-23 academic year, teachers were advised during a faculty meeting to restrict or remove student access to classroom libraries.

Such a sprint toward soft censorship was a response to the Oklahoma State Board of Education’s enforcement of House Bill 1775 of 2021, which restricts conversations around race and sex in academic spaces. Concerned about a potential accreditation downgrade for violating this law, a school site administrator suggested I cover the 500-plus books in my classroom library with butcher paper, which I did. But that was far from the end of the story.

Without the classroom library that I had spent my career curating, some of my students walked into class that first day to find stories that reflected their lives had been reclassified as contraband. So I wrote on the butcher paper covering my shelves, “Books the state doesn’t want you to read.” A protest in pixels, I also added a QR code for students to scan for information about Books Unbanned, a nationwide initiative from Brooklyn Public Library, offering students ages 13-21 free eCard access to the library’s more than 500,000 digital items.

I’ve never taught a math class, but I knew that 500,000 books > 500 books. I also knew that this act of resistance could cost me my job or even my teacher’s license. But if state leadership was going to censor classrooms, I was going to make sure my students still had ample opportunities to read, think, and decide for themselves.

Oklahoma’s HB 1775, which is facing a challenge in federal court, and similar laws from Texas to Florida to Iowa, followed the first Trump administration’s 2020 Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping. These state mandates are often referred to as “divisive concepts” laws. But really, they are censorship by another name. And they don’t just silence ideas; they silence people. They resist the inclusion of historically marginalized voices, such as BIPOC and LGBTQ+ perspectives, because those voices challenge the comfort of the dominant narrative.

“Most characters/authors are straight white guys, and that kind of reflects how we treat literature,” one of my students reflected back in 2018, as they were working on the reading list project.

That student said they wanted to see more diversity in the assigned reading. Unfortunately, the progress made to integrate inclusive, relevant texts into curriculums and libraries is now at risk.

Friday, August 19, 2022, was my first day of year nine as a certified English teacher in Oklahoma public schools and my second year in the Norman district. By day’s end, however, I was placed on leave and told to report to district offices first thing Monday morning. Although the district expressed hope I would return to the classroom, I chose instead to resign so that I could continue to speak out for intellectual freedom and against HB 1775. Soon, my story was making headlines.

And while in 2023 an assistant state attorney general recommended against revoking my teaching license, the Oklahoma State Board of Education still took it away the next year. That has put my livelihood and my life on hold for the foreseeable future and taken an irrevocable toll on my mental health.

Recently, at my eldest nibling’s kindergarten graduation, I was ambushed somewhere around the second chorus of Imagine Dragons’ “Believer” by a panic attack. To an outside observer, I was there in that small-town auditorium, listening to a stage full of big little voices as they belted out “Pain! You made me a believer, believer.”

However, at that moment, I could not have been further from row G, seat 1.

Suddenly and without consent, I was lost amid the voices in my head that for almost three years have relentlessly labeled me a loser, letdown, failure, and fraud — my entire being seized by a feeling akin to what I can only describe as white-knuckling an electric fence.

Until recently, I associated post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, with literal soldiers scarred by the hell of war. Yet I’ve spent most of the past decade not on the battlefield, but in the classroom. I’ve learned, however, that the majority of PTSD diagnoses do not in fact stem from past military service. Apparently, standing up for students’ right to read can leave its own scars.

Despite the deep personal and professional costs, it’s impossible to convey just how little remorse I have. None at all, really. Because not every battle worth fighting is winnable. Because sometimes “Paycheck or principle?” isn’t a rhetorical question.

We are living through a near-constant deluge of crises that are designed to make meaningful teaching and learning unsustainable and undesirable — from efforts to dismantle the Department of Education to the wholesale retraction of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, from book bans in PK-12 schools to ideological litmus tests imposed on American universities.

In this era of renewed threats to civil liberties coming out of the White House, the statehouse, and the courthouse, I’d challenge all teachers in the schoolhouse to ask themselves: What’s your QR code?

To teach is to take a stand. And just like teaching, taking a stand can look a lot of different ways, including:

• Recommending a story to a student that speaks to them as they are.
• Incorporating diverse voices and perspectives intentionally in lesson plans.
• Affirming students’ identities through intentional language and identity-sustaining classroom culture.
• Facilitating workshops for teachers on responding to educational gag orders and preserving access to diverse texts.
• Bringing together educators, librarians, and community members for public events defending inclusive curriculums.
• Documenting and reporting instances of censorship and/or policy overreach.

Sometimes, it can even look like resting, a radical act of resilience for the fight ahead.

As the youth scholar and artist Jasmine Lewis shared with me in a recent email exchange, “[The world today] reminds me how important it is that we continue reading, writing, and harnessing care in any/every space that we are able to.”

Against the torrent of extreme partisan interference in our public schools, it is your persistence, teachers, that forms the foundation for meaningful resistance to censorship efforts. Despite everything you’re up against, we need you for what comes next: the 2025-26 school year. There’s a lot riding on the integrity of those spines beyond books.

Summer Boismier (she/her) is an English language arts educator and doctoral student at the University of Oklahoma whose work focuses on free expression issues, culturally sustaining pedagogies, and educational equity in public schools. A nationally recognized youth free expression advocate, she is also a recipient of the Oklahoma State Department of Education’s 2019 Rising Star Award and Piedmont Public Schools’ 2018-2019 District Teacher of the Year honor. In 2024, the Oklahoma State Board of Education unanimously revoked her teaching certificate for telling her students about a public library card.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

Can Student Loan Debtors Work as Digital Nomads?

In recent years, the concept of working remotely while traveling—becoming a digital nomad—has become an aspirational lifestyle for many young professionals. The freedom to work from Bali, Buenos Aires, or Budapest with nothing more than a laptop and a Wi-Fi connection appeals to a generation burdened with economic precarity, stagnating wages, and dwindling faith in the American Dream.

But for over 40 million Americans burdened with student loan debt, the digital nomad lifestyle is not so simple. Can student loan debtors escape the geographic boundaries of the U.S. and work abroad without financial or legal risk? The answer depends on the type of loans, their repayment status, and how U.S. policy—particularly under presidential administrations—impacts enforcement and forgiveness.

The Debt No Passport Can Escape

Unlike credit card debt or even some tax liabilities, federal student loan debt follows Americans abroad. The U.S. Department of Education, through contracted servicers such as Aidvantage (a Maximus company), can still pursue debtors overseas. Wage garnishment, while difficult to enforce on foreign earnings, can be imposed if the debtor returns to the U.S. or has U.S.-based assets. More critically, failure to make payments can lead to loan acceleration, collection fees, and destruction of credit—regardless of one’s physical location.

Private student loans, meanwhile, can be even more punishing. While they don't have access to federal collection tools like tax refund garnishment, private lenders have fewer forgiveness options and are often aggressive in court.

Income-Driven Repayment and Remote Work

In theory, debtors enrolled in an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan could continue making small or even zero-dollar payments based on low or foreign-earned income. The Biden administration’s SAVE Plan is one such program, but its future is uncertain under political pressure and litigation.

However, reporting foreign income can be complex. Many digital nomads use foreign bank accounts, local clients, or under-the-table gigs, making it hard to verify income and remain compliant. The IRS, via the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), already monitors foreign financial activity of U.S. citizens. Student loan servicers may increasingly cross-reference this information under future administrations eager to enforce repayment—especially if a second Trump administration pursues cuts to loan forgiveness or implements harsh penalties.

The Visa Question

Living abroad full-time usually requires a visa that allows remote work—a gray area in many countries. Some nations, like Portugal, Estonia, and Costa Rica, offer special digital nomad visas. However, these often require proof of steady income. A heavily indebted American with little in the bank and fluctuating freelance income might not qualify. And overstaying a tourist visa while evading loan collectors could lead to a new form of 21st-century statelessness: not legally grounded in any system, and hunted by both creditors and immigration authorities.

Loopholes and Limitations

Some student loan debtors have used their overseas lifestyle to delay or dodge repayments, either by avoiding wage garnishment or reporting low-to-no income. But this is a short-term tactic that can have long-term consequences. Defaulting on federal loans leads to disqualification from forgiveness programs and adds ballooning interest and penalties.

On the other hand, those determined to pursue Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) or new cancellation pathways must remain in qualifying U.S.-based work. International remote work doesn’t count, even if the employer is American or the job is virtual.

The Future of Debtors Abroad

With growing disillusionment in the U.S. labor market, housing unaffordability, and distrust in higher education, the idea of “exiting the system” is gaining appeal. Online forums like Reddit’s r/studentloandebt and r/digitalnomad are filled with testimonies of people seeking a way out—physically and financially.

But the federal student loan system was never designed with mobility in mind. Instead, it anchors borrowers to domestic obligations. Until policymakers make meaningful reforms—through widespread cancellation, interest elimination, or true debt jubilee—student loan debt will continue to act as a modern tether. For many, even paradise has strings attached.

Final Thoughts

Digital nomadism may offer a temporary reprieve from America’s financial rat race, but it is not a cure for systemic debt. For the student loan debtor, a life abroad might feel freer—but the burden of higher education’s broken promise still weighs heavily, no matter the zip code or time zone.

As the Higher Education Inquirer continues to investigate the exploitative nature of the U.S. credential economy, we invite student loan borrowers abroad or aspiring nomads to share their stories. In this new phase of global capitalism, the educated underclass is learning to move—but cannot yet escape.

The Pritzker Family Paradox: Elite Power, Higher Education, and Political Ambition

          [JB and Penny Pritzker] 

The Pritzker family stands as a symbol of wealth, influence, and access in American public life. From the luxury of Hyatt Hotels to the boardrooms of private equity and the highest ranks of government, their reach extends across economic sectors and institutional spheres. But beneath the carefully managed public image lies a troubling contradiction—one that implicates higher education, for-profit exploitation, and national politics.

Penny Pritzger

Penny Pritzker, a former U.S. Secretary of Commerce and current trustee of Harvard University, has been a key figure in shaping education policy from elite perches. She also had a working relationship with Vistria Group, a private equity firm that now owns the University of Phoenix and Risepoint. These two entities have been central to the subprime college industry—profiting from the hopes of working-class students while delivering poor outcomes and burdensome debt.

Pritzker’s relationship with Vistria runs deeper than simple association. In the late 1990s, she partnered with Vistria co-founder Marty Nesbitt to launch The Parking Spot, a national airport parking venture that brought them both business success and public recognition. When Nesbitt founded Vistria in 2013, he brought with him the experience and elite networks formed during that earlier partnership. Penny Pritzker’s family foundation—Pritzker Traubert—was among the early funders of Vistria, helping to establish its brand as a more “socially conscious” private equity firm. Although she stepped away from any formal role when she joined the Obama administration, her involvement in Vistria’s formation and funding set the stage for the firm’s expansion into sectors like for-profit education and healthcare.

Vistria’s acquisition of the University of Phoenix, and later Risepoint, positioned it as a major player in the privatization of American higher education. The firm continues to profit from schools that promise economic mobility but often deliver student debt and limited job prospects. This is not just a critique of business practices, but a systemic indictment of how elite networks shape education policy, finance, and outcomes.

Penny’s role as a trustee on the Harvard Corporation only sharpens this contradiction. Harvard, a university that markets itself as a global champion of meritocracy and inclusion, remains silent about one of its trustees helping to finance and support a firm that monetizes educational inequality. The governing body has not publicly addressed any potential conflict of interest between her Harvard role and her involvement with Vistria.

JB Pritzger

These contradictions are not limited to Penny. Her brother, J.B. Pritzker, is currently the governor of Illinois and one of the wealthiest elected officials in the country. Though he has no documented personal financial stake in Vistria, his administration has significant ties to the firm. Jesse Ruiz, J.B. Pritzker’s Deputy Governor for Education during his first term, left state government in 2022 to take a top leadership position at Vistria as General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer.

This revolving-door dynamic—where a senior education policymaker transitions directly from a progressive administration to a private equity firm profiting from for-profit colleges—underscores the ideological alignment and operational synergy between the Pritzker political machine and firms like Vistria. While the governor publicly champions equity and expanded public education access, his administration’s former top education official is now helping manage legal and compliance operations for a firm that extracts value from struggling students and public loan programs.

J.B. Pritzker has announced plans to run for a third term as governor in 2026, but many observers believe he is positioning himself for a 2028 presidential campaign. His high-profile public appearances, pointed critiques of Donald Trump, and increased visibility in early primary states all suggest a national campaign is being tested. With his vast personal wealth, Pritzker could self-fund a serious run while drawing on elite networks built over decades—networks that include both his sister’s role at Harvard and their shared business and political allies.

Elites in US Higher Education, A Familiar Theme 

What emerges is a deeply American story—one in which the same elite networks shape both the problems and the proposed solutions. The Pritzkers are not alone in this dynamic, but their dual influence in higher education and politics makes them a case study in elite capture. They are architects and beneficiaries of a system in which public office, private equity, and nonprofit institutions converge to consolidate power.

The for-profit education sector continues to exploit regulatory gaps, marketing expensive credentials to desperate individuals while avoiding the scrutiny that traditional nonprofit colleges face. When private equity firms like Vistria acquire troubled institutions, they repackage them, restructure their branding, and keep extracting value from public loan dollars. The government lends, students borrow, and investors profit. The people left behind are those without political clout—low-income students, veterans, working parents—who believed the marketing and now face debt with little return.

Harvard’s silence, University of Phoenix’s reinvention, the rebranding of Academic Partnerships/Risepoint, and J.B. Pritzker’s ambitions all signal a troubling direction for American democracy. As more billionaires enter politics and public institutions become more dependent on private capital, the line between public service and private gain continues to erode.

The Higher Education Inquirer believes this moment demands not only scrutiny, but structural change. Until elite universities hold their trustees accountable, until political candidates reject the influence of exploitative industries, and until the public reclaims its voice in higher education policy, the Pritzker paradox will continue to define the American experience—where access to opportunity is sold to the highest bidder, and democracy is reshaped by those who can afford to buy it.

Sources
– U.S. Department of Education College Scorecard
– University of Phoenix outcome data (IPEDS, 2024)
– Harvard University governance and trustee records
– Vistria Group investor reports and public filings
– Wall Street Journal, “America’s Second-Richest Elected Official Is Acting Like He Wants to Be President” (2025)
– Associated Press, “Governor J.B. Pritzker positions himself as national Democratic leader” (2025)
– Vistria.com, “Marty Nesbitt on his friendship with Obama and what he learned from the Pritzkers”
– Politico, “Former Obama Insiders Seek Administration’s Blessing of For-Profit College Takeover” (2016)
– Vistria Group announcement, “Jesse Ruiz Joins Vistria as General Counsel and CCO” (2022)