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.

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.

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 Future of Federal Student Loans

The U.S. student loan system, now exceeding $1.7 trillion in debt and affecting over 40 million borrowers, is facing significant challenges. As political pressures rise, the management of student loans could be significantly altered. A combination of potential privatization, the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education (ED), and a new role for the Department of the Treasury raises critical questions about the future of the system.

U.S. Department of Education: Strained Resources and Outsourcing

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is responsible for managing federal student loan servicing, loan forgiveness programs, and borrower defense to repayment (BDR) claims. However, ED has faced ongoing issues with understaffing and inefficiency, particularly as many functions have been outsourced to contractors. Companies like Maximus (including subsidiaries like AidVantage) manage much of the administrative burden for loan servicing. This has raised concerns about accountability and the impact on borrowers, especially those seeking loan relief.

In recent years, ED has also experienced staff reductions and funding cuts, making it difficult to process claims or maintain high-quality service. The potential for further cuts or even the elimination of the department could exacerbate these problems. If ED’s role is diminished, other entities, such as the Department of the Treasury, could assume responsibility for managing the student loan portfolio, though this would present its own set of challenges.

Potential for Privatization of the Student Loan Portfolio

One of the most discussed options for addressing the student loan crisis is the privatization of the federal student loan portfolio. Under previous administration discussions, including those during President Trump’s tenure, there were talks about selling off parts of the student loan portfolio to private companies. This would be done with the aim of reducing the federal deficit.

In 2019, McKinsey & Company was hired by the Trump administration to analyze the value of the student loan portfolio, considering factors such as default rates and economic conditions. While the report's findings were never made public, the idea of transferring the loans to private companies—such as banks or investment firms—remains a possibility.

The consequences of privatizing federal student loans could be significant. Private companies would likely focus on profitability, which could result in stricter repayment terms or less flexibility for borrowers seeking loan forgiveness or other relief options. This shift may reduce borrower protections, making it harder for students to challenge repayment terms or pursue loan discharges.

The Department of the Treasury and its Potential Role

If the U.S. Department of Education is restructured or eliminated, there is a possibility that the Department of the Treasury could step in to manage some aspects of the student loan portfolio. The Treasury is responsible for the country’s financial systems and debt management, so it could, in theory, handle the federal student loan portfolio from a financial oversight perspective.

However, while the Treasury has experience in financial management, it lacks the specialized knowledge of student loans and borrower protections that the Department of Education currently provides. For example, the Treasury would need to find ways to process complex Borrower Defense to Repayment claims, a responsibility ED currently manages. In 2023, over 750,000 Borrower Defense claims were pending, with thousands of claims related to predatory practices at for-profit colleges such as University of Phoenix, ITT Tech, and Kaplan University (now known as Purdue Global). Additionally, some of these for-profit schools were able to reorganize and continue operating under different names, further complicating the situation.

The Treasury could also contract out loan servicing, but this could increase reliance on profit-driven companies, possibly compromising the interests of borrowers in favor of financial performance.

Borrower Defense Claims and the Impact of For-Profit Schools

A large portion of the Borrower Defense to Repayment claims comes from students who attended for-profit colleges with a history of deceptive practices. These institutions, often referred to as subprime colleges, misled students about job prospects, program outcomes, and accreditation, leaving many with significant student debt but poor employment outcomes.

Data from 2023 revealed that over 750,000 Borrower Defense claims were filed with the Department of Education, many of them against for-profit institutions. The Sweet v. Cardona case showed that more than 200,000 borrowers were expected to receive debt relief after years of waiting. However, the process was slow, with an estimated 16,000 new claims being filed each month, and only 35 ED workers handling these claims. These delays, combined with the uncertainty around the future of ED, leave borrowers vulnerable to prolonged financial hardship. 

Lack of Transparency and Accountability in the System

While the U.S. Department of Education tracks Borrower Defense claims, it does not publish institutional-level data, making it difficult to identify which schools are responsible for the most fraudulent activity. 

In response to this, FOIA requests have been filed by organizations like the National Student Legal Defense Network and the Higher Education Inquirer to obtain detailed information about which institutions are disproportionately affecting borrowers. 

In one such request, the Higher Education Inquirer asked for information regarding claims filed against the University of Phoenix, a school with a significant number of Borrower Defense claims.

The lack of transparency in the system makes it harder for borrowers to make informed decisions about which institutions to attend and limits accountability for schools that have harmed students. If the Treasury or private companies take over management of the loan portfolio, these transparency issues could worsen, as private entities are less likely to prioritize public accountability.

Conclusion

The future of the U.S. student loan system is uncertain, particularly as the Department of Education faces the potential of funding cuts, staff reductions, or even complete dissolution. If ED’s role diminishes or disappears, the Department of the Treasury could take over some functions, but this would raise questions about the fairness and transparency of the system.

The possibility of privatizing the student loan portfolio also looms large, which could shift the focus away from borrower protections and toward financial gain for private companies. For-profit schools, many of which have a history of predatory practices, are responsible for a disproportionate number of Borrower Defense claims, and any move to privatize the loan portfolio could exacerbate the challenges faced by borrowers seeking relief from these institutions.

Ultimately, there is a need for greater transparency and accountability in how the student loan system operates. Whether managed by the Department of Education, the Treasury, or private companies, protecting borrowers and ensuring fairness should remain central to any future reforms. If these issues are not addressed, millions of borrowers will continue to face significant financial hardship.

What now for the US Department of Education?

What happens now with the US Department of Education now that Elon Musk claims that it no longer exists? It's hard to know yet, and even more difficult after removing career government workers that we have known for years.  

We are saddened to hear of contacts we know who have been fired: hard working and capable people, in an agency that has been chronically understaffed and politicized. 

We also worry for the hundreds of thousands of student loan debtors who have borrower defense to repayment claims against schools that systematically defrauded them--and have not yet received justice. 

And what about all those FAFSA (financial aid) forms for students starting and continuing their schooling? How will they be processed in a timely manner?

Without funding and oversight, the Department of Education looks nearly dead. But with millions of poor and disabled children relying on Title I funding and IDEA and tens of millions more with federal student student loans, it's hard to imagine those functions disappearing for good.  

Let's see how much slack is taken up by private enterprise and religious nonprofits who may benefit from the pain. With student loans, much of the work has already been contracted out. It would not be out of the question for the student loan portfolio to be sold off to corporations who could profit from it. And that may or may not require Congressional approval.  

Major updates: student debt relief progress and new fact sheets (SBPC)

The fight for student loan borrowers continues! In the last remaining days of the Biden-Harris Administration, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is pushing some final relief through for student loan borrowers, new Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) Account Adjustment payment counts are live, and we have new fact sheets shedding light on the impact of the student debt crisis on borrowers. Here’s a roundup of the latest: Over 5 million borrowers have been freed from student debt. In a major win for borrowers, ED announced that the Biden-Harris Administration has now approved $183.6 billion in student debt discharges via various student debt relief fixes and programs. This relief has now reached over 5 million borrowers and includes new approvals for Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) relief, borrower defense relief, and Total and Permanent Disability Discharge relief. This relief is life-changing for millions of families, proving the power of bold, decisive action on student debt. Yet, there is much more work to do. Every step toward relief underscores the need to continue fighting for policies that reduce the burden of student debt and ensure affordable access to higher education. Final phase of the IDR Account Adjustment is underway—take screenshots! In tandem with the latest cancellation efforts, ED has also finally started updating borrower payment counts on the Federal Student Aid dashboard. Providing official payment counts will help borrowers receive the credit they have earned towards cancellation under IDR, and ensure that all borrowers who have been forced to pay for 20 years or longer are automatically able to benefit from relief they are entitled to under federal law. ***If you are a borrower with federal student loans, we recommend that you check your dashboard on studentaid.gov, screenshot your new count, and save it in your records. Previously, many borrowers—including those who work in public service jobs and low-income borrowers struggling to afford payments—were steered into costly deferments and forbearance, preventing them from reaching the 20 years or longer for IDR relief or the 120 payments necessary for PSLF cancellation. Under the IDR Account Adjustment, these periods are now counted, even if borrowers were mistakenly placed in the wrong repayment plan or faced servicing errors.

New SBPC fact sheets on the student debt crisis are live. As the new administration and conservative congressional majority considers proposals that would roll back critical protections for student loan borrowers and make student loan debt even more expensive, we’re committed to protecting borrowers. We’ve released statewide and congressional-level snapshots of the student debt crisis to shine a light on the impact of student debt across the country.

These fact sheets provide granular data on: The number of borrowers and total student debt in each area Constituents benefiting from affordable repayment plans The life-changing impact of debt relief over the past four years We hope these snapshots offer critical context to help ensure new and returning policymakers understand the toll of student debt on their communities—and the urgent need for bold action to alleviate this crisis.

The fight to protect student loan borrowers continues. The new political dynamics of the 119th Congress raise the stakes for borrowers. Proposals to roll back protections, gut affordable repayment plans like the Saving on a Valuable Education Plan, and shift costs onto working families, threaten the progress we’ve made. But our coalition and community of borrowers and advocates are ready to stand strong together and continue protecting our wins while fighting for more.

Standing together, Persis Yu Deputy Executive Director & Managing Counsel Student Borrower Protection Center

Biden-Harris Administration Announces Final Student Loan Forgiveness and Borrower Assistance Actions (US Department of Education)

Total Approved Student Debt Relief Reached Almost $189 Billion for 5.3 Million Borrowers

The Biden-Harris Administration today announced its final round of student loan forgiveness, approving more than $600 million for 4,550 borrowers through the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) Plan and 4,100 individual borrower defense approvals. The Administration leaves office having approved a cumulative $188.8 billion in forgiveness for 5.3 million borrowers across 33 executive actions. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) today also announced that it has completed the income-driven repayment payment count adjustment and that borrowers will now be able to see their income-driven repayment counters when they log into their accounts on StudentAid.gov. Finally, the Department took additional actions that will allow students who attended certain schools that have since closed to qualify for student loan discharges. 

“Four years ago, President Biden made a promise to fix a broken student loan system. We rolled up our sleeves and, together, we fixed existing programs that had failed to deliver the relief they promised, took bold action on behalf of borrowers who had been cheated by their institutions, and brought financial breathing room to hardworking Americans—including public servants and borrowers with disabilities. Thanks to our relentless, unapologetic efforts, millions of Americans are approved for student loan forgiveness,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona. “I’m incredibly proud of the Biden-Harris Administration’s historic achievements in making the life-changing potential of higher education more affordable and accessible for more people.” 

From Day One the Biden-Harris Administration took steps to rethink, restore, and revitalize targeted relief programs that entitle borrowers to relief under the Higher Education Act but that failed to live up to their promises. Through a combination of executive actions and regulatory improvements, the Biden-Harris Administration produced the following results for borrowers: 

Fixed longstanding problems with Income-Driven Repayment (IDR). The Administration has approved 1.45 million borrowers for $57.1 billion in loan relief, including $600 million for 4,550 borrowers announced today for IBR forgiveness. 

IDR plans help keep payments manageable for borrowers and have provided a path to forgiveness after an extended period. These plans started in the early 1990s, but prior to the Biden-Harris Administration taking office, just 50 borrowers had ever had their loans forgiven. The Administration corrected longstanding failures to accurately track borrower progress toward forgiveness and addressed past instances of forbearance steering whereby servicers inappropriately advised borrowers to postpone payments for extended periods of time. These totals also include borrowers who received forgiveness under the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan prior to court orders halting forgiveness under the SAVE plan. 

Today, the Department also announced the completion of the IDR payment count adjustment, correcting eligible payment counts. While the payment count adjustment is now complete, borrowers who were affected by certain servicer transitions in 2024 may see one or two additional months credited in the coming weeks. The Department is also launching the ability for borrowers to track their IDR progress on StudentAid.gov. Borrowers can now log in to their accounts and see their total IDR payment count and a month-by-month breakdown of progress.   

Restored the promise of Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF). The Administration has approved 1,069,000 borrowers for $78.5 billion in forgiveness.  

The PSLF Program provides critical support to teachers, service members, social workers, and others engaged in public service. But prior to this Administration taking office, just 7,000 borrowers had received forgiveness and the overwhelming majority of borrowers who applied had their applications denied. The Biden-Harris Administration fixed this program by pursuing regulatory improvements, correcting long-standing issues with tracking progress toward forgiveness and misuse of forbearances, and implementing the limited PSLF waiver to avoid harm from the pandemic. 

Automated discharges and simplified eligibility criteria for borrowers with a total and permanent disability. The Administration has approved 633,000 borrowers for $18.7 billion in loan relief. 

Borrowers who are totally and permanently disabled may be eligible for a total and permanent disability (TPD) discharge. The Biden-Harris Administration changed regulations to automatically forgive loans for eligible borrowers based upon a data match with the Social Security Administration (SSA). This helped hundreds of thousands of borrowers who were eligible for relief but hadn’t managed to navigate paperwork requirements. The Department also made it easier for borrowers to qualify for relief based upon SSA determinations, made it easier to complete the TPD application, and eliminated provisions that had caused many borrowers to have their loans reinstated. 

Delivered long-awaited help to borrowers ripped off by their institutions, whose schools closed, or through related court settlements. The Administration has approved just under 2 million borrowers for $34.5 billion in loan relief.  

For years, students had sought relief from the Department through borrower defense to repayment—a provision that allows borrowers to have their loans forgiven if their college engaged in misconduct related to the borrowers’ loans. The Department delivered long-awaited relief to borrowers who attended some of the most notoriously predatory institutions to ever participate in the federal financial aid programs. This included approving for discharge all remaining outstanding loans from Corinthian Colleges, as well as group discharges for ITT Technical Institute, the Art Institutes, Westwood College, Ashford University, and others. The Department also settled a long-running class action lawsuit stemming from allegations of inaction and the issuance of form denials, allowing it to begin the first sustained denials of non-meritorious claims. 

Today, the Department also approved 4,100 additional individual borrower defense applications for borrowers who attended DeVry University, based upon findings announced in February 2022.  

“For decades, the federal government promised to help people who couldn’t afford their student loans because they were in public service, had disabilities, were cheated by their college, or who had completed decades of payments. But it rarely kept those promises until now,” said U.S. Under Secretary of Education James Kvaal. “These permanent reforms have already helped more 5 million borrowers, and many more borrowers will continue to benefit.” 

The table below compares the progress made by the Biden-Harris Administration in these key discharge areas compared to other administrations. 

	Borrowers approved for forgiveness
	Prior Administrations	Biden-Harris Administration
Borrower Defense (Since 2015)	53,500	1,767,000*
Public Service Loan Forgiveness (Since 2017)	7,000	1,069,000
Income-Driven Repayment (all-time)	50	1,454,000
Total and Permanent Disability (Since 2017)	604,000	633,000

* Includes 107,000 borrowers and $1.25 billion captured by an extension of the closed-school lookback window at ITT Technical Institute.  

Additional actions related to closed school discharges 

The Department today also announced additional actions that will make more borrowers eligible for a closed school loan discharge. Generally, a borrower qualifies for a closed school discharge if they did not complete their program and were either still enrolled when the school closed or left without graduating within 120 days before it closed. . However, the Department has determined that several schools closed under exceptional circumstances that merit allowing borrowers who did complete and were enrolled in the school more than 120 days prior to the closure to qualify for a closed school discharge. justify extending the look-back window beyond the applicable 120 or 180 days--allowing additional borrowers to qualify for a closed school discharge. Generally, eligible borrowers will have to apply for these discharges, but the Secretary has directed Federal Student Aid to make borrowers aware of their eligibility, and to pursue automatic discharges for those affected by closures that took place between 2013 and 2020 and who did not enroll elsewhere within three years of their school closing. 

These adjusted look-back windows are: 

• To May 6, 2015, for all campuses owned at the time by the Career Education Corporation (CEC), which have since closed. That is the day CEC announced it would close or sell all campuses except for two brands. This affected the Art Institutes, Le Cordon Bleu, Brooks Institute, Missouri College, Briarcliffe College, and Sanford-Brown. 
• To December 16, 2016, for campuses owned by the Education Corporation of America (ECA) on that date that closed. ECA operated Virginia College, Brightwood College, EcoTech, and Golf Academies and started on the path to closure after its accreditation agency lost federal recognition and ECA could not obtain accreditation elsewhere. 
• To October 17, 2017 for all campuses owned or sold on that date by the Education Management Corporation (EDMC) and that later closed. That is the day EDMC sold substantially all of its assets to Dream Center Educational Holdings. The decision affects borrowers who attended the Art Institutes, including the Miami International University of Art & Design and Argosy University.  
• To April 23, 2021, for Bay State College. That is the day this Massachusetts-based college began to face significant accreditation challenges, which eventually led to the school losing accreditation and closing in August 2023. 

Borrowers who want more information about closed school discharge, including how to apply, can visit StudentAid.gov/closedschool. 

A state-by-state breakdown of various forms of student debt relief approved by the Biden-Harris Administration is available here.