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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Perdoceo did not respond to a request for comment.

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

Chris Rufo and Right Wing "Civil Rights"

Chris Rufo’s recent article in City Journal, titled "New Right-Wing Civil-Rights Regime", is a prime example of ideological revisionism that fails to engage with history in any meaningful way. At its core, Rufo presents an interpretation of the civil rights movement and its aftermath that is both profoundly ahistorical and dangerously reductionist. While attempting to frame his argument as a critique of the modern Left’s grip on civil rights law, Rufo distorts the legacy of the 1960s civil rights movement and misrepresents the real challenges of racial justice in America today.

Chris Rufo, a senior fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute and a prominent figure in the battle against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, has gained significant influence in recent years for his aggressive campaigns to shift the national discourse on race and education. Rufo's rise to prominence coincided with his efforts to expose and denounce critical race theory (CRT) in public education, a tactic that has been instrumental in shaping conservative rhetoric around race. His latest article continues this trend, proposing that the Trump administration's attack on DEI programs in higher education represents a necessary correction to what he perceives as a Left-wing racialist agenda.

However, Rufo’s understanding of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its legacy is highly problematic. The article begins by referencing Christopher Caldwell’s The Age of Entitlement, a book that has been influential in certain conservative circles. Caldwell’s thesis, which Rufo echoes, argues that the Civil Rights Act marked a "fundamental departure" from America’s constitutional tradition. According to Caldwell (and by extension, Rufo), the Act, initially a noble effort to combat racial discrimination, eventually "consumed core American freedoms" and has been weaponized to entrench "left-wing racialist ideology" in American institutions. This narrative, however, overlooks the essential purpose of the Civil Rights Act—to eliminate legally sanctioned racial discrimination and provide equal protection to marginalized groups.

Rufo’s invocation of Caldwell’s book is troubling because it oversimplifies the historical context of civil rights legislation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not the beginning of a long, slow descent into tyranny, as Rufo suggests, but rather the long-overdue correction of centuries of systemic racism. The idea that it was somehow a “departure” from constitutional principles is a misguided reading of both the Act’s intent and the broader history of American law. To frame the Act’s enforcement mechanisms and subsequent civil rights policies as a threat to "core American freedoms" is a distortion that erases the basic reality of racial oppression in the U.S. before and after its passage.

The Legacy of White Supremacy and Structural Racism

What Rufo and those who echo his arguments fail to acknowledge is the enduring legacy of white supremacy and structural racism that has pervaded American society for centuries. The very system of racial discrimination that the Civil Rights Act sought to dismantle is far from a relic of the past; it is woven into the fabric of American institutions, policies, and practices in ways that continue to disadvantage Black people and other people of color.

One glaring example is the practice of redlining, where federal policies explicitly denied mortgage loans and insurance to Black families and other communities of color in favor of white neighborhoods. The result was the creation of segregated, impoverished urban spaces that continue to suffer from disinvestment and lack of opportunity to this day. In many cities, predominantly Black neighborhoods were intentionally situated near polluting industries, highways, and other environmentally harmful sites—leading to environmental racism. For example, toxic waste was often dumped in or near Black communities, subjecting these populations to higher rates of asthma, cancer, and other health problems. These practices are a direct manifestation of a racist infrastructure that systematically devalued the lives and health of Black and Brown Americans.

Similarly, housing policies throughout the 20th century—especially during the post-WWII era—were designed to exclude Black families from the expanding suburban dream. The GI Bill, which offered housing subsidies to veterans returning from World War II, was administered in ways that largely excluded Black servicemen from accessing these benefits. As a result, millions of white families were able to buy homes and build wealth, while Black families were largely left out, forcing many into substandard housing or limited to racially segregated neighborhoods with fewer opportunities for economic mobility.

The effects of segregation are not limited to housing, however. In education, the legacy of white supremacy has created an unequal system that continues to affect Black and Latinx students today. While Brown v. Board of Education (1954) officially declared school segregation unconstitutional, de facto segregation still exists in many schools due to housing patterns, local funding disparities, and state and federal neglect. Predominantly Black schools often face chronic underfunding, inadequate facilities, and higher teacher turnover rates, all of which contribute to a less equitable education for students of color. The persistent racial achievement gap in standardized testing, college admissions, and career prospects is not an accident, but the direct result of this long-standing inequality in education.

In the workplace, systemic discrimination continues to be a major problem. Job discrimination against Black and Brown workers has been documented for decades, whether in hiring practices, wage disparities, or promotions. Studies show that applicants with “ethnic-sounding” names are less likely to be called back for job interviews, even when their resumes are identical to those of their white counterparts. Even in fields like law, medicine, and finance—where education and credentials are paramount—racial minorities face significant barriers to advancement.

The criminal justice system is perhaps the most visible example of how structural racism is still a significant issue in the United States. The over-policing of Black neighborhoods, mass incarceration, and the disproportionate sentencing of Black Americans for similar offenses compared to their white counterparts are stark reminders of how racial inequality remains embedded in American institutions. Rufo’s argument that we have moved past the systemic racism embedded in our society ignores this reality, while conveniently minimizing or disregarding the lived experiences of Black and Brown communities.

"Colorblindness" as a Historical Evasion

Rufo goes on to argue that the Right, for years ambivalent about civil rights law, has now discovered its “winning argument”—one grounded in “colorblind equality.” This is where the article takes a dangerous turn, suggesting that policies such as affirmative action and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives are the result of a Left-wing plot to institutionalize racial discrimination. The article not only misrepresents the goals of such programs but also fundamentally misunderstands the role they play in a society that has never fully reckoned with its history of racial inequities.

The notion of “colorblindness” as the ideal model of equality, promoted by Rufo and others, is deeply problematic. While it may sound appealing in theory, in practice, colorblindness ignores the structural realities of race in America. It’s an abstraction that overlooks the lived experiences of racial minorities and fails to address the historical and ongoing disadvantages they face. In higher education, for example, DEI policies are designed not to perpetuate discrimination but to provide opportunities for those who have been historically excluded from academic spaces. Rufo’s argument that these policies are a form of “racialist discrimination” is not only misleading but actively harmful, suggesting that efforts to correct inequality are themselves a form of bigotry.

Chris Rufo’s Avoidance of Class in His Analysis

One of the most glaring omissions in Rufo’s analysis is his near-total avoidance of class as a factor in understanding systemic inequality. Rufo's focus is almost exclusively on race, specifically on how he perceives racial policies to be privileging one group over another, but he does not consider the ways in which class and economic status intersect with race to perpetuate inequality. This avoidance of class, particularly in the context of economic mobility and working-class struggles, weakens his entire argument and distorts the reality of how racism operates in modern American society.

Rufo’s critique of the modern civil rights regime seems to entirely ignore the vast disparities in wealth, income, and opportunity that are not simply a product of racial identity but of class-based systems of power. For example, his focus on “colorblind” equality in education does not account for the fact that the richest Americans, regardless of their racial background, have access to a far superior education and resources than the poor, who are disproportionately Black, Latinx, or Indigenous. The education gap that Rufo claims is a result of racial policies is also a direct consequence of economic inequality, where low-income communities—largely communities of color—are unable to access the same quality of education as wealthier, predominantly white communities. Acknowledging this would complicate Rufo’s narrative, as it would challenge the simplistic framing of a racial conflict between different ethnic groups, rather than a structural critique of the class divide in America.

Moreover, Rufo’s call for a “colorblind” society effectively erases the fact that poverty and economic disempowerment are racialized in ways that cannot be understood without examining the intersection of race and class. By focusing solely on racial hierarchy without addressing the role that economic disparity plays in sustaining social divisions, Rufo contributes to a larger ideological erasure of class struggle from the national conversation. His avoidance of class is a deliberate one, as it allows him to cast the issue of racial justice solely in terms of “identity politics” and to dismiss efforts aimed at addressing material inequality as divisive or unnecessary.

Who Will Be Receptive to This Propaganda?

While Rufo's article represents a highly selective interpretation of civil rights history, it will likely resonate with certain groups whose political and cultural leanings align with his critique of left-wing ideologies. These are individuals who believe that the modern civil rights agenda, particularly in the form of DEI and affirmative action programs, has gone too far and is now harmful to the interests of "oppressor" groups like white people, men, and even some Asian Americans. This demographic includes:

1. Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers: Many who align with conservative or libertarian ideologies are drawn to the narrative that civil rights policies have become a tool of social engineering, seeking to dismantle traditional values in the name of racial and gender equality. Rufo’s emphasis on "colorblind" policies will appeal to those who see government intervention as an overreach and prefer individual merit over group-based policies.

2. Populist Right-Wing Activists: The article will likely resonate with populist voters who view institutions like the Ivy League universities as bastions of elitism and left-wing ideologies. These individuals are often distrustful of academic institutions, the media, and governmental institutions, and Rufo’s framing of DEI as racialist discrimination plays into their fears of being "marginalized" in favor of minority groups.

3. Cultural War Foot Soldiers: Many of Rufo’s ideas are packaged as part of the broader culture wars. His framing of CRT, DEI, and "wokeness" as threats to American values is designed to rally those who feel alienated by changes in cultural norms, especially regarding race, gender, and identity. This group tends to be more reactive to what they perceive as a breakdown in social order, and Rufo provides a coherent narrative that positions them as defenders of a traditional, meritocratic society.

4. Right-Wing Media Consumers: The article is likely to appeal to consumers of right-wing media who are already attuned to the language of cultural decline and political correctness. These readers will be receptive to Rufo’s framing because it aligns with familiar themes promoted by conservative pundits.

In the end, Rufo’s narrative is one that is carefully designed for a particular audience—a segment of the American populace that feels threatened by the cultural shifts around race, identity, and equality. By presenting a revisionist history of civil rights and ignoring the deeply embedded structural inequalities of class, race, and economics, Rufo continues to peddle an ideological framework that is more about cultural warfare than actual justice.

The Failure of DOD Tuition Assistance

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

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

The Problem with Accreditation Misrepresentation

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

Lack of Support for Military Students

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

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

The Numbers Behind the Failures

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

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

A Call for Transparency and Accountability

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

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

Looking Ahead

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

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

MEDIA ADVISORY UPDATE: 'Hands Off!' March at San Diego Civic Center, April 5 Noon - Protesters to March Demanding Protection of Rights and Services

SAN DIEGO, CA — Community members will gather at the San Diego Civic Center Plaza for a “Hands Off!” march on April 5 to protest DOGE and the Trump administration’s attack on programs and services used by San Diego residents. The local march will coincide with a nationwide day of demonstrations expected to be attended by hundreds of thousands…

Organizers describe the event as a collective response to policies impacting our community. “San Diegans who are veterans, who are postal workers and teachers, who rely on Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare, and who are horrified at the Trump-Musk billionaire takeover of our government are coming together to protest the Trump Administration’s attacks on the rights and services they depend upon, many of them for survival” said Angela Benson, a member of the organizing coalition.

Event Details:

• What: Over 10,000 San Diegans expected to peacefully demand "HANDS OFF!" their rights and services in one of over 1,000 HANDS OFF! events scheduled nationwide on April 5

• Who: Coalition of San Diego Pro-Democracy Groups

• When: Saturday, April 5, noon, 1 mile march to leave approximately 12:15 PM

• Where: March starts at Civic Center Plaza Fountain by 1200 Third St., ends at Hall of Justice at 330 W Broadway

• Transportation: Participants are encouraged to take public transit to the event

Planning group:

• Change Begins With ME

• CBFD Indivisible

• Indivisible49

• Indivisible North San Diego County

• Democratic Club of Carlsbad and Oceanside

• Encinitas and North Coast Democratic Club

• SanDiego350

• Swing Left/Take Action San Diego

• Activist San Diego

• 50501 San Diego

Media Opportunities:

• The following representatives will be available day-of the march for interviews. If interested, please coordinate with Richard (770-653-6138) prior to the event, and plan to arrive at the location marked below by 11:30 AM Pacific

• Representatives

• Sara Jacobs - House of Representatives, CA-51 district

• Scott Peters - House of Representatives, CA-50 district

• Chris Ward - California State Assemblymember, 78 district

• Stephen Whitburn - San Diego Councilmember

• Reverend Madison Shockley II - Pilgrim United Church of Christ

• Yusef Miller - Executive Director of North County Equity & Justice Coalition

• Brigette Browning - Executive Secretary San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council and President, Unite Here!

• Crystal Irving - President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

• Andy Kopp - Veteran

• Patrick Saunders - Veteran

• Phil Petrie - SanDiego350, Climate Activist

• Recommended Schedule

• 11:30 AM - 11:40 AM: Representative introductions - Group/cause they’re representing, why they’re marching

• 11:40 AM - 12:05 PM: Representatives break off, available for interview by Press

• 12:05 PM - 12:15 PM: Representatives move to beginning of march

• 12:15 PM: March begins

• 12:15 PM - 2:00 PM: March to Hall of Justice

• 2:00 PM: March ends at Hall of Justice, participants may disperse or continue to federal plaza

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.   

(HR 1391). Restoring the GI Bill for Vets Ripped Off by Predatory Schools

The US House Bill to restore GI Bill funds to those who have been ripped off by predatory schools has had little traction so far.  While politicians like to say "thank you for your service," only nine House members have signed on to the Bill, all Democrats. Both Republicans and Democrats have received funds by these schools, which also have lobbyists in DC to promote their agenda.  

A group of folks who have been ripped off by these schools have formed Restore GI Bill for Veterans to share information and organize for justice in this matter. The private group has approximately 250 members and has been active for more than two years. Membership is vetted. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DODOIG-2019-000702 List of the 50 Worst Schools