Can College Presidents Tell Us the Truth?

“Truth? You can’t handle the truth!” Jack Nicholson’s Colonel Jessup in A Few Good Men captures the tension at the heart of American higher education: can college presidents confront veritas—the deep, sometimes uncomfortable truths about their institutions—or will they hide behind prestige, endowments, and comforting illusions?

At the foundation of academia lies veritas, Latin for truth or truthfulness, derived from verus, “true” or “trustworthy.” Veritas is not optional decoration on a university crest; it is a moral and intellectual obligation. Yet 2025 reveals a system where veritas is too often sidelined: institutions obscure financial mismanagement, exploit adjunct faculty, overburden students with debt, and misrepresent outcomes to the public.

The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) embodies veritas in action. In “Ahead of the Learned Herd: Why the Higher Education Inquirer Grows During the Endless College Meltdown,” HEI demonstrates that truth-telling can thrive outside corporate funding or advertising. By reporting enrollment collapses, adjunct exploitation, and predatory for-profit practices, HEI holds institutions accountable to veritas, exposing what many university leaders hope will remain invisible.

Leadership failures are a direct affront to veritas. “Scam Artist or Just Failed CEO?” scrutinizes former 2U CEO Christopher “Chip” Paucek, revealing misleading enrollment tactics and financial mismanagement that serve elite universities more than consumers. These corporate-style decisions in a higher education setting betray the very principle of veritas, prioritizing appearance and profit over educational integrity and human outcomes.

Student journalism amplifies veritas further. Through Campus Beat, student reporters uncover tuition hikes, censorship, and labor abuses, demonstrating that veritas does not belong only to administrators—it belongs to those who seek to document reality, often at personal and professional risk.

Economic and political realities also test veritas. In “Trumpenomics: The Emperor Has No Clothes,” HEI exposes how hollow economic reforms enrich a few while leaving the majority behind. Academia mirrors this pattern: when prestige is elevated over substance, veritas is discarded in favor of illusion, leaving students and faculty to bear the consequences.

Structural crisis continues. In “College Meltdown Fall 2025,” HEI documents federal oversight erosion, AI-saturated classrooms with rampant academic misconduct, rising student debt, and mass layoffs. To honor veritas, leaders would confront these crises transparently, but too often they choose comforting narratives instead.

Debt remains one of the clearest tests of institutional veritas. HEI’s “The Student Loan Mess: Next Chapters” shows how trillions in student loans have become instruments of social control. The Sweet v. McMahon borrower defense cases illustrate bureaucratic inertia and opacity, directly challenging the principles of veritas as thousands of debtors await relief that is slow, incomplete, and inconsistently applied.

Predatory enrollment practices further undermine veritas. Lead generators, documented by HEI, exploit student information to drive enrollment into high-cost, low-value programs, prioritizing revenue over truth, clarity, and student welfare. “College Prospects, College Targets” exposes how prospective students are commodified, turning veritas into a casualty of marketing algorithms.

Through all of this, HEI itself stands as a living testament to veritas. Surpassing one million views in July 2025, it proves that the public demands accountability, clarity, and honesty in higher education. Veritas resonates—when pursued rigorously, it illuminates failures, inspires reform, and empowers communities.

The question remains: can college presidents handle veritas—the unflinching truth about student debt, labor exploitation, mismanagement, and declining institutional legitimacy? If they cannot, they forfeit moral and public authority. Veritas is not optional; it is the standard by which institutions must be measured, defended, and lived.

---

Sources

• Calling All Campus Reporters: Help Us Tell the Truth

• Trumpenomics: The Emperor Has No Clothes

• HEI Resources Fall 2025

• College Meltdown Fall 2025

• Why the Higher Education Inquirer Continues

• Higher Education Inquirer Surpasses 1 Million Views

• Scam Artist or Just Failed CEO?

• Lead Generators in Higher Education

• The Student Loan Mess: Next Chapters

• Sweet

• Elite University Presidents: Most Hated Men (and Women) on Campus

• Elite Universities on Lockdown. Protestors Regroup.

College Meltdown Fall 2025

The Fall 2025 semester begins under intensifying pressure in U.S. higher education. Institutions are responding to long-term changes in enrollment, public funding, demographics, technology, and labor markets. The result is a gradual disassembly of parts of the postsecondary system, with ongoing layoffs, program cuts, and institutional restructuring across both public and private sectors.

The Destruction of ED

In a stunning turn, the U.S. Department of Education has undergone a massive downsizing, slashing nearly half its workforce as part of the Trump administration’s push to dismantle the agency entirely. Education Secretary Linda McMahon framed the move as a “final mission” to restore state control and eliminate federal bureaucracy, but critics warn of chaos for vulnerable students and families who rely on federal programs. With responsibilities like student loans, Pell Grants, and civil rights enforcement now in limbo, Higher Education Institutions face a volatile landscape. The absence of centralized oversight has accelerated the fragmentation of standards, funding, and accountability—leaving colleges scrambling to navigate a patchwork of state policies and shrinking federal support.

AI Disruption: Academic Integrity and Graduate Employment 

Artificial Intelligence has rapidly reshaped higher education, introducing both powerful tools and profound challenges. On campus, AI-driven platforms like ChatGPT have become ubiquitous—92% of students now use them, and 88% admit to deploying AI for graded assignments. This surge has triggered a spike in academic misconduct, with detection systems struggling to keep pace and disproportionately flagging non-native English speakers Meanwhile, the job market for graduates is undergoing a seismic shift. Entry-level roles in tech, finance, and consulting are vanishing as companies automate routine tasks once reserved for junior staff. AI-driven layoffs have already claimed over 10,000 jobs in 2025 alone, and some experts predict that up to half of all white-collar entry-level positions could be eliminated within five years. For recent grads, this means navigating a landscape where degrees may hold less weight, and adaptability, AI fluency, and human-centered skills are more critical than ever.

Unsustainable Student Loan Debt and Federal Funding 

A recent report from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) highlights the depth of the crisis: more than 1,000 colleges could lose access to federal student aid based on current student loan repayment rates—if existing rules were fully enforced. The findings expose systemic failures in accountability and student outcomes. Many of these colleges enroll high numbers of low-income students but leave them with unsustainable debt and limited job prospects.

Institutional Cuts and Layoffs Across the Country

Job losses and cost reductions are increasing across a range of universities.

Stanford University is cutting staff due to a projected $200 million budget shortfall.
University of Oregon has announced budget reductions and academic restructuring.
Michigan State University is implementing layoffs and reorganizing departments.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center is eliminating positions to manage healthcare operating costs.
Harvard Kennedy School is reducing programs and offering early retirement.
Brown University is freezing hiring and reviewing academic offerings.
Penn State University System is closing three Commonwealth Campuses.
Indiana public colleges are merging administrative functions and reviewing low-enrollment programs.

These actions affect not only employees and students but also local communities and regional labor markets.

Enrollment Decline and Demographic Change

Undergraduate enrollment has fallen 14.6% since Fall 2019, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Community colleges have experienced the largest losses, with some regions seeing more than 20% declines.

The “demographic cliff” tied to declining birth rates is now reflected in enrollment trends. The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) projects a 15% decline in high school graduates between 2025 and 2037 in parts of the Midwest and Northeast.

Aging Population and Shifts in Public Spending

The U.S. population is aging. By 2030, all baby boomers will be over 65. The number of Americans aged 80 and older is expected to rise from 13 million in 2020 to nearly 20 million by 2035. Public resources are being redirected toward Social Security, Medicare, and elder care, placing higher education in direct competition for limited federal and state funds.

State-Level Cuts to Higher Education Budgets

According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), 28 states saw a decline in inflation-adjusted funding per student in FY2024.

The California State University system faces a $400 million structural deficit.
West Virginia has reduced academic programs in favor of workforce-focused realignment.
Indiana has ordered cost-cutting measures across public campuses.

These reductions are leading to fewer courses, increased workloads, and, in some cases, higher tuition.

Closures and Mergers Continue

Since 2020, more than 100 campuses have closed or merged, based on Education Dive and HEI data. In 2025, Penn State began closing three Commonwealth Campuses. A number of small private colleges—especially those with enrollments under 1,000 and limited endowments—are seeking mergers or shutting down entirely.

International Enrollment Faces Obstacles

The Institute of International Education (IIE) reports a 12% decline in new international student enrollment in Fall 2024. Contributing factors include visa delays and tighter immigration rules. Students from India, Nigeria, and Iran have experienced longer wait times and increased rejection rates. Graduate programs in STEM and business are particularly affected.

Increased Surveillance and Restrictions on Campus Speech

Data from FIRE and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) show increased use of surveillance tools on campuses since 2023. At least 15 public universities now use facial recognition, social media monitoring, or geofencing. State laws in Florida, Texas, and Georgia have introduced new restrictions on protests and diversity programs.

Automated Education Expands

Online Program Managers (OPMs) such as 2U, Kaplan, and Coursera are running over 500 online degree programs at more than 200 institutions, enrolling more than 1.5 million students. These programs often rely on AI-generated content and automated grading systems, with minimal instructor interaction.

Research from the Century Foundation shows that undergraduate programs operated by OPMs have completion rates below 35%, while charging tuition comparable to in-person degrees. Regulatory efforts to improve transparency and accountability remain stalled.

Oversight Gaps Remain

Accrediting agencies continue to approve closures, mergers, and new credential programs with limited transparency. Institutions are increasingly expanding short-term credential offerings and corporate partnerships with minimal external review.

Cost Shifts to Students, Faculty, and Communities

The ongoing restructuring of higher education is shifting costs and risks onto students, employees, and communities. Students face rising tuition, fewer available courses, and increased reliance on loans. Faculty and staff encounter job insecurity and heavier workloads. Outside the ivory tower, communities will lose access to educational services, cultural events, and local employment opportunities tied to campuses.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to report on the structural changes in U.S. higher education—grounded in data, public records, and the lived experiences of those directly affected.

Sources:
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), U.S. Census Bureau, State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), Institute of International Education (IIE), Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Government Accountability Office (GAO), The Century Foundation, Stanford University, University of Oregon, Penn State University System, Harvard Kennedy School, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Education Dive Higher Ed Closures Tracker, American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

Art Laffer at YAF: Still Relevant, Still Wrong

Arthur Laffer, the Reagan-era economist best known for the “Laffer Curve,” appeared recently at a Young America's Foundation (YAF) event, still making the same tired claims that have shaped decades of economic inequality, deregulation, and magical thinking. The event, broadcast on C-SPAN, was marketed as a fresh take on conservative economics. What it delivered instead was a rerun of discredited supply-side talking points—punctuated by jokes that fell embarrassingly flat.

Laffer claimed that Donald Trump's tariffs were a strategy to bring about more free trade in the future—a baffling contradiction to anyone who understands trade policy or the basics of coercive economic diplomacy. The idea that protectionism is a roundabout route to free markets would be laughable if it weren't so destructive. But Laffer, like many libertarians, thrives on contradiction. The audience—young, mostly white, mostly male—nodded along as if it all made sense.

He also defended increased U.S. military spending, invoking Ronald Reagan’s 1980s arms buildup. What he didn’t mention: Reagan was in the early stages of dementia during his presidency, and his military strategy deepened the national debt, even as Laffer’s beloved tax cuts starved the government of revenue. That context never surfaced, of course.

Laffer’s appearance was followed by Linda McMahon, former WWE executive and Small Business Administration head under Trump. The tag team pairing reinforced the spectacle of right-wing economic theater disguised as intellectual discourse.

YAF, a competitor to Turning Point USA, presents itself as the more polished brand of conservative youth organizing. It's backed by deep pockets and institutional support, but its message remains the same: glorify the market, demonize government, and elevate charisma over critical thinking. Its speakers are well-coached in rhetorical sparring, skilled in sophistry, and eager to exploit the inexperience of their college-aged audience.

Laffer fits that mold perfectly. He’s less a thought leader than a relic of failed policy, propped up by a movement that rewards ideological loyalty over intellectual honesty. His ideas can't really be called “theories” anymore—empirical evidence has repeatedly debunked them. But among libertarians and the far right, evidence is optional, and repetition is persuasive.

Young America’s Foundation is adept at drawing youth into a worldview of individualism that rarely benefits individuals. It relies on the passion and ignorance of its followers, asking them to embrace contradictions: that tariffs bring freedom, that debt from war is freedom, that cutting taxes magically increases revenue. It's a faith-based economics, and Laffer remains its high priest.

In the end, the only thing more stale than the Laffer Curve is the attempt to keep it alive.

Sources:

• C-SPAN: Art Laffer speech at YAF

• Reagan's Alzheimer's revelations: The New York Times

• Critiques of supply-side economics: Brookings, Economic Policy Institute

• YAF background: Media Matters, The Nation

Linda McMahon and the College Meltdown

July 2025 was not simply a busy month for the U.S. Department of Education—it was a deliberate and coordinated effort to reshape higher education in line with the political goals of the Trump administration. Under the leadership of Education Secretary Linda McMahon, the Department issued a torrent of investigations, policy changes, and legal maneuvers aimed at asserting control over universities and redefining the role of postsecondary education in American life.

What emerged was not the repair of a broken system, but the acceleration of a political project: to narrow the mission of higher education, undermine its independence, and punish institutions that resist the administration’s agenda.

A Month of Directives

The month began with the Department entering a resolution agreement with the University of Pennsylvania over Title IX violations (July 1). By July 2, the administration had concluded a negotiated rulemaking session focused on reshaping the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program—signaling that student aid reforms would now be filtered through political priorities rather than bipartisan consensus.

On July 4, the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law. This sweeping legislation gave the administration a mandate to implement provisions on accreditation, federal aid restrictions, civil rights compliance, and so-called “viewpoint neutrality.” Within two weeks, McMahon’s team was already implementing key parts of the bill, using it to alter the rules that govern financial aid eligibility and institutional recognition.

"Civil Rights" Enforcement as a Political Strategy

Throughout the month, the Department launched a wave of investigations under Title VI and Title IX. But the choice of targets raised concerns. Rather than focus on systemic discrimination or long-standing legal violations, the Department directed its attention toward cases that aligned with conservative cultural concerns.

• On July 8, an investigation was opened into the Connetquot Central School District after it banned a Native American logo.

• On July 10, George Mason University became the subject of a Title VI probe.

• On July 23, five universities were flagged for offering scholarships that allegedly favored foreign-born students.

• By July 25, five Northern Virginia school districts were found in violation of Title IX.

Harvard, Columbia, Duke, the University of Michigan, and Brown University were all pulled into scrutiny, with Columbia agreeing to pay $200 million and submit to new data-reporting requirements. These actions may appear to be standard enforcement but taken together they reflect a pattern of choosing high-profile or politically charged institutions as symbolic examples.

The use of federal compliance tools to pressure institutions seen as ideological opponents is not unprecedented—but under McMahon, it has become routine.

Policy Realignment and Workforce Redirection

On July 10, the Department announced the termination of federal aid for undocumented students, marking a sharp reversal from past practices. Just five days later, the Department entered into a new partnership with the Department of Labor to promote workforce training, part of a longer-term effort to reorient higher education toward narrow economic outcomes rather than liberal arts or civic development.

While such initiatives are framed as “efficiency” or “innovation,” the underlying message is clear: colleges that do not align themselves with federal job-training goals or cultural expectations may find their access to funding, recognition, and legal protections limited.

Restructuring the System

The Supreme Court’s decision on July 14 to permit a reduction in federal staffing has further empowered the Department to cut or replace internal personnel. By July 24, two new negotiated rulemaking committees were established, tasked with translating the One, Big, Beautiful Bill into enforceable rules. These committees will likely define the next phase of McMahon’s agenda—on issues like accreditation, financial eligibility, foreign influence, and institutional autonomy.

At the state level, the Department approved Missouri’s new pilot assessment program on July 31, continuing a pattern of promoting alternatives to standardized federal oversight. Meanwhile, state education officials were encouraged (July 29) to request waivers from burdensome federal requirements—an invitation to bypass regulations established under previous administrations.

What This Means for Higher Education

The July timeline reflects not just a burst of administrative activity, but a broader strategy to centralize decision-making power and reshape the ideological landscape of U.S. higher education. The Department has moved away from serving as a neutral enforcer of civil rights and federal law, and toward acting as a gatekeeper for cultural and political conformity.

Colleges that emphasize diversity, global engagement, or progressive research are increasingly viewed with suspicion. Those that fail to meet the administration’s evolving definition of compliance may face costly investigations, public shaming, or the loss of federal support.

The term “College Meltdown” once referred to financial instability, enrollment declines, and the erosion of public trust. Under Linda McMahon, it now also refers to a deliberate restructuring of the postsecondary system—where ideological alignment may determine institutional survival as much as financial solvency.

Sources:

• U.S. Department of Education, July 2025 public statements and press releases

• One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025

• Columbia University settlement, July 23, 2025

• Supreme Court ruling on federal workforce reductions, July 14, 2025

• Negotiated Rulemaking updates from the Office of Postsecondary Education

• Brown University agreement with the Department of Education, July 30, 2025

Linda McMahon’s Holocaust-Denial Response Sets Off Alarm Bells

In a tense moment during a recent House Education and Workforce Committee hearing, Education Secretary Linda McMahon faced sharp criticism for comments that some argue could lend legitimacy to Holocaust denial. When asked by Rep. Mark Takano whether refusing to hire a Holocaust denier at a university like Harvard would constitute an impermissible ideological litmus test, McMahon deflected by stating that “there should be diversity of viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campuses.”

McMahon’s answer was met with disbelief from lawmakers, educators, and journalists, who see her framing as a troubling signal of how far the rhetoric of “viewpoint diversity” can be stretched. Critics argue that her remarks echo the language used by far-right groups to justify pseudohistory, hate speech, and conspiracy theories under the guise of academic freedom.

The exchange quickly drew national attention. On CNN, host Abby Phillip challenged panelists over whether McMahon’s statement meant that institutions must accept Holocaust denial as a legitimate perspective. The conversation became heated, exposing deep divisions over how educational institutions should manage historically discredited views, especially in an era of increasing political polarization.

This controversy isn’t occurring in a vacuum. The Trump administration has taken an aggressive stance against perceived ideological bias in higher education, using terms like “viewpoint diversity” to criticize hiring practices, curriculum content, and campus speech policies. The result has been a chilling effect on institutions that wish to enforce rigorous academic standards while navigating political pressure from federal and state governments.

For institutions like Harvard—and for the broader higher education community—the implications of McMahon’s statement are stark. Academic freedom is not a license for falsehood. Holocaust denial is not a matter of interpretation or opinion; it is a deliberate distortion of documented genocide. By refusing to categorically reject it, McMahon undermines the integrity of scholarly inquiry and opens the door to broader normalization of anti-intellectualism.

Higher education institutions face a dilemma: how to defend academic freedom while protecting the truth. Universities must clarify that “diversity of viewpoints” cannot extend to historically debunked and morally abhorrent falsehoods. Faculty and administrators need clear guidelines that distinguish between open inquiry and misinformation masquerading as intellectual dissent. Curricula must reflect historical consensus, not propaganda.

McMahon’s response reflects a larger political movement that seeks to erode trust in institutions and blur the line between truth and ideology. The Higher Education Inquirer has long warned about the rise of pseudoscience and revisionist history within the credential economy. What happened in the hearing room last week is a symptom of that broader rot. If the idea of "viewpoint diversity" is weaponized to protect Holocaust denial, then the American educational system is not merely in decline—it is being actively dismantled.

For those committed to education grounded in truth, McMahon's comments should not be dismissed as a gaffe. They should be seen as a warning.

Sources
The Hill: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-linda-mcmahon-s-answer-on-holocaust-denialism-should-scare-us/ar-AA1J16hH
The Daily Beast: https://www.thedailybeast.com/abby-phillip-clashes-with-cnn-co-star-over-trump-education-secretary-linda-mcmahon
CNN coverage archived on July 18, 2025

Interest charges will restart for borrowers in SAVE forbearance (Student Borrower Protection Center)

 

Student Borrower Protection Center’s research partners are conducting a groundbreaking research study that aims to understand how Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) and Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) programs impact borrowers’ well-being. If you are currently in an IDR plan, working towards PSLF, or your loans have been cancelled through PSLF, please consider participating below (Password: REPAYE). Participate in Survey   Dahn, The Biden Administration’s Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) repayment plan promised to lower monthly student loan payments for millions of Americans. But legal attacks by the same conservative state attorneys general who exploited the courts to block President Biden’s original student debt relief plan resulted in a court injunction that has blocked borrowers from enrolling. Thus, borrowers have been trapped in a year-long, interest-free forbearance while their unprocessed Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) applications wait in limbo. But now, Trump and Education Secretary McMahon are saddling these borrowers with interest. Last week, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced that it will begin restarting student loan interest charges on August 1, 2025, for the nearly 8 MILLION borrowers stuck in this forbearance. McMahon voluntarily chose to do this—there was no state or federal court order forcing her hand. Read our Executive Director Mike Pierce’s statement on this below:   “Instead of fixing the broken student loan system, Secretary McMahon is choosing to drown millions of people in unnecessary interest charges and blaming unrelated court cases for her own mismanagement. Every day, we hear from borrowers waiting on hold with their servicer for hours, begging the government to let them out of this forbearance, and help them get back on track—instead, McMahon is choosing to jack up the cost of their student debt without giving them a way out. These are teachers, nurses, and retail workers who trusted the government’s word, only to get sucker-punched by bills that will now cost them hundreds more every month. McMahon is turning a lifeline into a trap and fueling one of the biggest wealth grabs from working families in modern history. It’s a betrayal.”   Read the Full Statement In response to this announcement, we released a new analysis of this policy change, projecting that the typical SAVE borrower will be forced to pay more than $3,500 per year—or $300 per month—in unnecessary interest charges. In total, we found that affected borrowers will be charged more than $27 BILLION in interest over the next 12 months. Read Our Analysis Borrowers have suffered long enough because of the broken student loan system. Despite promises to lower costs for working families, Trump and his allies have only raised them more. Eliminating SAVE and replacing it with the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP) created by Congressional Republicans means the typical student loan borrower will see their annual student loan costs skyrocket by $2,900—and millions of other borrowers will see their monthly loan bills increase by 50 percent. In fact, they will pay more for longer. RAP forces borrowers to pay for 30 years instead of the 20-25 year timelines of current IDR plans. And now, the Trump Administration wants to pile $27 billion dollars of interest charges over the next 12 months onto struggling borrowers. But McMahon can’t hide from her decision to drown borrowers in interest charges. We’ve been busy sounding the alarm of her policy choice in widespread coverage: Washington Post: Trump Ends Interest Subsidy for Biden’s Student Loan Repayment Plan MarketWatch: Millions of Americans are about to see their student loans accrue interest again. Here’s what to know. Daily Mail: Millions of Student Loan Borrowers to Be Hit With Crippling Interest Charges as Trump Ends Biden-Era Pause New York Times: 8 Million Federal Student Loan Borrowers Will Soon See Interest Restart Newsweek: Student Loan Update: Interest Payments Expected To Jump Thousands The attacks on borrowers and working families must end. Borrowers deserve justice—not retaliation to the tune of billions of dollars in unnecessary, harmful debt. In solidarity, Brandon Herrera Communications and Digital Strategist Student Borrower Protection Center

HEI Files FOIA to Expose Delays and Disparities in Borrower Defense Discharges

The Higher Education Inquirer has submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the U.S. Department of Education, seeking critical data on Borrower Defense to Repayment claims tied to some of the most notorious for-profit and career college chains in the United States. Filed on July 13, 2025, and formally acknowledged by the Department on July 14, this request seeks to uncover how many borrowers have received student debt relief, how many remain in limbo, and how many have been left in the dark despite being eligible.

The FOIA request includes a list of institutions with long histories of documented fraud, federal investigations, lawsuits, and closures. These include Corinthian Colleges (which operated Everest, Heald, and WyoTech), ITT Technical Institute, Westwood College, Marinello Schools of Beauty, the Art Institutes, Argosy University, American National University, Charlotte School of Law, DeVry University, Globe University/Minnesota School of Business, Independence University, Kaplan College/Kaplan University, Le Cordon Bleu, Missouri College, Mount Washington College, University of Phoenix, Virginia College, and Vatterott College.

For each institution, the Inquirer is requesting the number of borrowers identified for group discharge under the Borrower Defense authority. Of those, we are asking how many have had their loans discharged, how many cases remain pending, how many borrowers have been approved for discharge but not yet notified, and how many claims overlap with the class-action lawsuit Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v. Cardona and Sweet v. DeVos). For Corinthian Colleges specifically, the request also asks for the number of discharged borrowers under previous Department announcements and how many were also part of the Manriquez v. McMahon or Sweet settlements.

This data request covers the one-year period from July 13, 2024, to July 13, 2025, and asks for results in a structured, electronic format, preferably Excel.

The significance of this request cannot be overstated. Despite multiple well-publicized borrower defense settlements and mass discharge announcements, many defrauded students still have no clear idea whether they qualify for relief or when it might arrive. While the Department has made headlines for forgiving billions in student debt, especially for borrowers from predatory for-profit schools, those announcements often lack transparency and specificity. The FOIA request aims to fill those gaps and provide an accurate picture of the Department’s implementation of debt relief and justice for defrauded borrowers.

The Department of Education’s FOIA Service Center responded that the request has been received and is in queue. No further clarification is needed at this time, and no fees have been assessed. The Department did note that the current average processing time is 185 business days—over nine months. This timeline means that meaningful public disclosure may not happen until spring 2026, even as policymakers, advocates, and student debtors continue to push for faster relief and more accountability.

This FOIA request is part of the Higher Education Inquirer's ongoing efforts to investigate the afterlife of failed for-profit colleges, the bureaucratic delays in loan discharges, and the long shadow these schools have cast over the lives of working-class students. In many cases, these students were the first in their families to attend college and were aggressively targeted by institutions that promised fast-track careers and delivered financial ruin instead.

We will continue to monitor the Department’s response and will publish any findings we receive. If you are a former student of one of these schools and have filed a Borrower Defense claim—or have questions about whether you qualify—we invite you to share your experience. Your voice matters, and transparency is key to understanding how widespread the damage remains.

Contact the Higher Education Inquirer at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.

Sources
U.S. Department of Education FOIA Acknowledgment Letter, July 14, 2025
FOIA Request No. 25-04397-F
Sweet v. Cardona (formerly Sweet v. DeVos), Case No. 19-cv-03674, N.D. Cal.
Manriquez v. DeVos, Case No. 3:17-cv-07210, N.D. Cal.
U.S. Department of Education Borrower Defense Updates – studentaid.gov

Supreme Court Greenlights Layoffs and Department Dismantling: What It Means for the Future of U.S. Education

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to lay off nearly 1,400 employees from the U.S. Department of Education. The decision permits the administration to resume work on reducing the department’s operations, a step that critics argue amounts to a closure of the agency.

The Court issued its ruling through the shadow docket, without explanation, and with the three liberal justices dissenting. The order pauses a lower court injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston, who wrote that the layoffs would reduce the department’s capacity to fulfill its legal responsibilities. A federal appeals court had refused to stay Joun’s ruling while the administration appealed.

President Trump, in a post on his social media platform, praised the ruling, saying it would allow his administration to begin transferring functions of the department to the states. Education Secretary Linda McMahon also welcomed the decision, stating that the president has authority over agency operations and staffing.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent with Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, said the Court was allowing the executive branch to bypass legal limits. “When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” she wrote.

Two lawsuits, now consolidated, challenge the administration’s plan. One was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts, along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other was filed by a group of 21 attorneys general. The lawsuits argue that the layoffs prevent the department from carrying out functions required by Congress.

Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, which represents the plaintiffs, criticized the Court’s action. “Without explaining to the American people its reasoning, a majority of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have dealt a blow to this nation’s promise of public education for all children,” she said.

The layoffs affect about 1,100 civil servants and 250 contractors. Since March, these employees have been on paid leave. Judge Joun’s injunction prevented their termination, though they have not been allowed to return to work. The Education Department had stated it was reviewing how to reintegrate them and asked staff to disclose other employment.

The Court’s decision is one of several recent rulings in favor of the administration’s efforts to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Last week, the justices permitted the administration to implement a plan to reduce the federal workforce. The Court has also previously allowed cuts to teacher-training grants.

On the same day as the ruling, over 20 states filed suit against the administration over frozen federal education funding for after-school programs and summer initiatives.

While the lawsuit over the department's dismantling continues in federal court, the Supreme Court's decision allows the administration to proceed with layoffs that could reduce the department’s ability to function. If the courts later find the plan illegal, the department's infrastructure may already be altered.

Sources:

• Associated Press

• NBC News

• U.S. District Court (Judge Myong Joun)

• Democracy Forward

• Trump social platform

• U.S. Department of Education internal communications

• AFGE Local 252

The Accreditation Curtain: A 20-Year Reflection on Transparency and the Illusion of Access (Glen McGhee)

The cancellation of the latest NACIQI (National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity) meeting brought back bitter memories that refuse to fade. 

It’s been twenty years since I traveled to Washington, DC—dressed in my best lobbying attire and carrying a meticulous roster of Department of Education staff—to visit the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) on K Street. My goal was simple, even noble: to seek answers about the opaque workings of accreditation in American higher education. What I encountered instead was a wall of silence, surveillance, and authoritarianism.

I stepped off the elevator on the seventh floor of the Department building and signed in. Under "Purpose of Visit," I wrote: Reform. I was calm, professional, and respectful. I asked to see the NACIQI Chair, Bonnie, hoping that she would be willing to speak with me about a system that, even then, was falling into disrepair. But what happened next still infuriates me.

Within seconds, two armed, uniformed guards approached me. They didn’t ask questions. They gave an ultimatum: leave or be arrested.

I eventually complied, descending into the lobby, still stunned. From there I began dialing—one by one—through the directory of names I had so carefully assembled. I called staffers, analysts, assistants, anyone who might answer. Not a single person picked up. I could feel the eyes of the guards watching me, one of them posted on the mezzanine like a sniper keeping watch over a public enemy. I was not dangerous. I was not disruptive. I was, however, unwanted.

The next day, I turned to my Congressman, Allen Boyd, whose LA generously tried to intervene. His office contacted OPE, attempting to broker a meeting on my behalf. The Department didn’t even return his call. Apparently, a sitting member of Congress—who didn’t sit on a high-ranking committee—carried no weight at the fortress of federal education oversight.

This most recent overstepping by US ED—unilaterally postponing NACIQI’s Summer 2025 meeting—reminds observers of how limited the oversight provided by NACIQI really is. It is, apparently, nothing more than a performative shell that fulfills ceremonial functions, and not much more.

I would argue that this latest episode reveals that NACIQI is less an independent watchdog and more a ceremonial body with limited real power, and so my view differs somewhat from David Halperin, because he sees more substantive activity than I do.

The history of ACICS (Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools) and SACS (Southern Association of Colleges) appearing before NACIQI illustrates how regulatory capture can manifest not only through industry influence, but also through bureaucratic design and process control. The OPE’s central role, combined with NACIQI’s limited enforcement power, has allowed failing accreditors to retain recognition for years, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of noncompliance and harm to students.

The illusion of accountability has long been a feature of the accreditation system, not a flaw. NACIQI meetings, when they occur, are tightly scripted, with carefully managed testimony and limited public engagement. The real decisions are made elsewhere, behind closed doors, often under the influence of powerful lobbying groups and entrenched bureaucracies that resist transparency and reform at every turn.

Despite the increasing scrutiny on higher education and growing public awareness of student debt, poor educational outcomes, and sham institutions, the federal recognition of accreditors remains an elite-controlled process. It is a closed loop. Institutions, accreditors, and government officials all play their roles in a carefully choreographed performance that rarely leads to systemic change. The result is a system that protects institutions at the expense of students, particularly the most vulnerable—low-income, first-generation, and minority students who are often targeted by predatory schools hiding behind federal accreditation.

This is the reality of the U.S. Department of Education’s accreditation apparatus: inaccessible, unaccountable, and increasingly symbolic. NACIQI, far from being an independent advisory body, has always functioned as a ceremonial front for political appointees and entrenched interests. It is, as I see it, just another arm of Vishnu—multiplicitous, all-seeing, but ultimately indifferent to critique or reform. Whether it’s chaired by a bureaucrat or a former wrestling executive like Linda McMahon, the outcome is the same: the process is rigged to exclude dissent and suppress scrutiny.

And yet, pundits today still fail to grasp the implications. They speak of accreditation as if it were a technocratic process guided by evidence and integrity. They act as if NACIQI were a neutral arbiter. But I know otherwise, because I was there—thrown out, silenced, and treated like a trespasser in the very institution that claims to protect educational quality and student interest.

This is more than personal bitterness. It’s about structural rot. When critics are expelled, when staff are muzzled, and when public servants ignore elected representatives, we are not dealing with oversight—we are witnessing capture. Accreditation in this country serves the accreditors and the institutions, not students, not taxpayers, and certainly not reformers.

Two decades later, the anger remains. So does the silence.

---

Sources:
Department of Education building directory and procedures (2005)
Congressional Office of Rep. Allen Boyd (archival record, 2005)
Public notices regarding NACIQI meeting cancellations (2024–2025)
David Halperin, Republic Report