As the Market Soars, Main Street Feels the Pinch: Dollar Tree and the Rising Cost of Survival

While Wall Street celebrates record highs, Main Street grapples with rising costs that strain household budgets. Dollar Tree, once synonymous with affordability, has seen its pricing structure evolve significantly. In 2021, the company increased its baseline price from $1 to $1.25, and by 2025, introduced items priced up to $10 in select stores.

For residents in food deserts—areas with limited access to affordable and nutritious food—stores like Dollar Tree serve as essential sources for groceries. However, these stores often stock predominantly ultra-processed foods, contributing to dietary challenges. A study by Tufts, Harvard, and the USDA found that while dollar store food purchases scored low on the Healthy Eating Index, households shopping there didn’t significantly differ in overall diet quality from those shopping primarily at grocery stores.

The expansion of dollar stores in low-income communities has been linked to exacerbating food insecurity. These stores often lack fresh produce and healthy staples, leading to diets high in processed foods. Research indicates that small food retailers are less likely than supermarkets to sell healthy staple foods, further entrenching food insecurity in these areas.

Despite the financial gains reflected in the stock market, the affordability gap widens for working-class families. Economic gains at the top do not trickle down to the communities that need them most. As investment portfolios swell, the affordability gap grows, and the promise of basic necessities remains increasingly out of reach. For working-class families and those living in under-resourced neighborhoods, the soaring market feels less like a sign of prosperity and more like a reminder of growing inequality.

In addition to rising costs, recent changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are further impacting low-income households. A new law backed by the Trump administration and signed in July 2025 is set to reduce SNAP benefits for 2.4 million Americans by expanding work requirements to additional groups, including parents of children aged 14 and up, adults aged 55–64, veterans, former foster youth, and homeless individuals. The legislation requires these groups to work, volunteer, or participate in job training for at least 80 hours per month to qualify. This expansion is expected to shift more costs to states and redistribute resources, increasing income for middle- and high-income households while reducing benefits for low-income households.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) notes that people in food-insecure households spend roughly 45% more on medical care annually than those in food-secure households. SNAP participation has been linked to improved health outcomes and reduced healthcare costs. For instance, early access to SNAP among pregnant mothers and in early childhood improved birth outcomes and long-term health as adults. Elderly SNAP participants are less likely than similar non-participants to forgo their full prescribed dosage of medicine due to cost.

The reduction or loss of SNAP benefits can lead to increased food insecurity and poorer health outcomes. A study published in Health Affairs found that the loss of SNAP benefits was associated with food insecurity and poor health in working families with young children. The study indicated that reduced benefits were associated with greater odds of fair or poor caregiver and child health.

As the affordability gap widens and access to essential resources becomes more challenging, the combination of rising costs and reduced support systems underscores the growing inequality faced by working-class families and communities in need.

---

Sources:

• Money Digest: Dollar Tree Chain Increasing Prices

• New York Post: Dollar Tree lifts price cap to $7

• Eating Well: Dollar Store Grocery Shopping Study

• Planet Forward: Dollar Stores and Food Security

• USDA Economic Research Service: Food Access Research Atlas

• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Consumer Price Index 2024 in Review

• DQYDJ: Average, Median, Top 1% Household Income Percentiles

• U.S. Census Bureau: Income in the United States: 2023

• The Guardian: Trump Law Will Cut Food Stamps for 2.4 Million People

• CBPP: SNAP Is Linked With Improved Health Outcomes and Lower Health Care Costs

• Health Affairs: Loss Of SNAP Is Associated With Food Insecurity And Poor Health In Working Families With Young Children

EANGUS: Nonprofit Shill for University of Phoenix

The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS), which claims to advocate for enlisted National Guard members, has long presented itself as a supporter of military families and career advancement. However, its ongoing partnership with for-profit institutions like the University of Phoenix raises serious questions about whose interests the organization truly serves.

On August 13, the University of Phoenix announced the winners of the 2025 EANGUS Future Phoenix Scholarship, which awards full tuition for bachelor’s or master’s programs to current enlisted National Guard servicemembers and their immediate family members. The winners—Nitasa Freund, Isabella Hunsicker, and John Wellington—were celebrated in press materials that emphasized the school’s commitment to veteran students.

University of Phoenix framed the scholarships as a way to “empower our members to turn their service-driven experience into academic achievement,” while EANGUS Executive Director John Gipe described the partnership as helping military members “step forward not just for the individual, but for the communities they continue to serve.”

But the reality behind these programs is far less altruistic. University of Phoenix, owned by the for-profit Apollo Global Management, has a long history of predatory recruitment practices targeting military and veteran populations. The school has faced multiple federal investigations and lawsuits over deceptive marketing, inflated job placement claims, and aggressive enrollment tactics that funnel servicemembers into costly, high-debt programs.

EANGUS’s role in promoting scholarships to the University of Phoenix illustrates how military associations can be co-opted by for-profit educational interests. By lending credibility and direct access to servicemembers, EANGUS effectively functions as a shill, steering military personnel and their families toward programs that often prioritize corporate profit over educational quality or genuine career outcomes.

Scholarship recipients’ stories, highlighted in University of Phoenix press materials, are framed as evidence of success. Nitasa Freund, a National Guard Staff Sergeant, is pursuing a master’s in criminal justice; John Wellington, a 101st Signal Battalion Company First Sergeant, is returning to higher education after decades of service; and Isabella Hunsicker is studying psychology. These narratives, while compelling, mask the broader systemic risks associated with enrolling in high-cost for-profit programs that may saddle veterans with unmanageable debt.

For an organization that claims to represent the interests of enlisted service members, EANGUS’s alignment with a for-profit education juggernaut raises ethical concerns. Military families seeking higher education deserve advocacy that prioritizes transparency, quality, and long-term outcomes—not promotion of institutions with a documented history of exploiting the very population they claim to serve.

As for-profit colleges continue to target veterans and military families, it is incumbent on military associations, watchdogs, and policymakers to scrutinize partnerships that appear charitable on the surface but may perpetuate financial harm behind the scenes. EANGUS’s ongoing collaboration with University of Phoenix is a stark reminder that even well-intentioned organizations can become complicit in corporate profiteering when oversight and accountability are lacking.

Sources:

• University of Phoenix Press Release, August 13, 2025

• EANGUS Official Website

• Apollo Global Management, University of Phoenix corporate information

• Government Accountability Office and Department of Education reports on for-profit colleges

What Other Countries Get Right About Education—and Why the U.S. Falls Behind

As the American education system grapples with a growing crisis—marked by student debt, political interference, declining public trust, and chronic underfunding—other countries are demonstrating alternative paths that yield better results. While the United States remains home to some of the world’s most prestigious universities, its broader education system is increasingly characterized by inequity, inefficiency, and disconnection from the labor market. In contrast, nations such as Finland, Germany, South Korea, Singapore, and Canada have implemented policies that prioritize equity, access, and workforce alignment in ways that have delivered tangible outcomes.

In Finland, public education is built around the principle of equality rather than competition. Teachers are required to hold advanced degrees and are granted significant autonomy in how they teach. Unlike the U.S., which is mired in a culture of standardized testing and punitive accountability, Finland trusts its educators and limits high-stakes assessments. Public universities in Finland are tuition-free, and students receive financial support for living expenses. The country’s emphasis on student well-being, professional respect for educators, and a curriculum that encourages critical thinking rather than rote learning makes it a global model for equitable education.

Germany offers a sharp contrast to the U.S. model of expensive higher education and weak vocational systems. Public universities are tuition-free for both domestic and international students, and the country’s dual education system blends classroom learning with paid apprenticeships. Rather than treating vocational training as a fallback option, Germany integrates it into mainstream education policy, offering real pathways to stable employment. The connection between education and labor markets is tightly managed, with active collaboration between government, industry, and unions.

South Korea and Singapore, while distinct in culture and governance, share a commitment to education as a national priority. South Korea has achieved one of the world’s highest rates of tertiary education attainment. Its students consistently perform at the top of international assessments, despite valid concerns about student stress and overwork. Singapore’s education system is centrally coordinated, with rigorous teacher training, continuous professional development, and a clear link between education outcomes and national economic planning. The city-state’s universities are heavily subsidized, and its skills-based institutions are designed in partnership with industry to meet changing economic demands.

In the Nordic countries, including Norway and Denmark, higher education is entirely tuition-free and students receive generous living stipends. The goal is not just to provide access but to ensure that students can complete their education without incurring debt. These countries invest heavily in public education across all levels, and their systems are marked by low inequality, high achievement, and strong social trust. The education system is treated as a foundation for social mobility and economic stability, rather than a competitive market.

Canada and the Netherlands offer relatively affordable higher education systems, stronger public support, and less bureaucratic complexity than the U.S. Canada, in particular, has implemented income-contingent repayment plans that are far simpler and more humane than the U.S. federal loan system. Public colleges and universities in these countries are better funded and more integrated with labor market strategies, avoiding the vast disparities seen across the American higher education landscape.

Meanwhile, the U.S. faces a fragmented system shaped by decades of disinvestment, privatization, and ideological battles over curriculum and governance. Public colleges and universities are under pressure to behave like businesses, raising tuition and relying on contingent labor. For-profit institutions have preyed on low-income and working-class students, especially veterans and single parents, with little federal oversight. Student debt has ballooned past $1.7 trillion, with no end in sight. Vocational training remains underdeveloped and stigmatized, while community colleges—despite their potential—are chronically underfunded and politically neglected.

America’s approach to education is defined more by markets than mission. The result is a system that exacerbates inequality and leaves millions of students in precarious positions, both financially and professionally. By contrast, other nations demonstrate that education can be a universal right, a public investment, and a national strategy—not just a private commodity.

It is tempting to attribute these international successes to cultural differences or smaller populations. But the truth is that many of these countries made deliberate political and economic choices to fund education fully, support students comprehensively, and plan systems around long-term social needs rather than short-term political gain. The United States has the resources to do the same. The question is whether it has the political will.

Understanding what others are doing better is not about mimicry, but about imagining what is possible. The U.S. does not lack talent, ambition, or innovation. What it lacks is a coherent vision for education that serves the many, not the few. Other countries are proving every day that another path is not only possible—it is already working.

Sources:

OECD Education at a Glance Reports

PISA 2022 Results

UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Reports

Center for American Progress

The Century Foundation

Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS)

Education International Reports on Finland and Germany

The Higher Education Inquirer: Investigating the Dark Corners of U.S. Higher Ed

For nearly a decade, the Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has cultivated a reputation for relentless, independent journalism in a field often dominated by press-release rewrites and trade-conference boosterism. In 2024 and 2025, that commitment has been on full display, with a series of investigations that not only expose institutional negligence and corporate greed, but also demand structural change.

Following the Money: GI Bill Loopholes and Veteran Betrayal

One of HEI’s most impactful 2025 stories examined how billions in GI Bill funds—more than Pell Grants or state scholarships—are diverted to for-profit and low-performing nonprofit institutions. Despite promises of career advancement, many veterans end up underemployed and in debt. The reporting points to deliberate policy gaps, such as the weakened 90–10 rule, that incentivize predatory recruitment over educational quality.

Student Debt Transparency: A FOIA Offensive

HEI has also launched an ambitious Freedom of Information Act campaign to shed light on the federal student loan portfolio and on how rarely student loan debt is discharged through bankruptcy. Requests to the Department of Education seek data going back to 1965—records that could help quantify decades of policy drift away from borrower relief.

The FOIA strategy doesn’t stop at the Department of Education. HEI has queried the Securities and Exchange Commission for complaint data against online program managers 2U and Ambow Education, bringing corporate accountability into sharper focus.

Beyond the Campus: Immigration, Religion, and Geopolitics

While student debt remains a central concern, HEI has broadened its investigative reach. In March 2025, it filed a FOIA with the State Department for details on more than 300 revoked student visas, a move to illuminate opaque policies that can upend lives without public explanation.

Other pieces have examined the rise of Christian cybercharter schools, warning of a drift toward ideological indoctrination in taxpayer-funded education. Internationally, HEI has scrutinized the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s U.S. media tour, questioning the intersection of higher education, faith-based advocacy, and political agendas.

Why This Work Matters

What makes HEI’s journalism unique is its sustained follow-through. Many outlets publish a single exposé and move on. HEI revisits stories months or years later, tracking the real-world consequences of policy changes and institutional behavior. This persistence has helped keep public attention on issues like the Corinthian Colleges collapse and the broader failure to deliver promised student debt relief.

By pairing data-driven reporting with insider accounts and whistleblower input, HEI not only documents abuse but also lays out pathways for reform. In a higher education system where financialized logic often outweighs student welfare, that combination is increasingly rare—and increasingly necessary.

---

Sources:

• Higher Education Inquirer

• Higher Education Inquirer – GI Bill Reform

• University Leadership Central

• Student Affairs Connection

Time to Shut Off the Tap: The Case for Ending DoD Tuition Assistance to Predatory Colleges

On July 3, 2025, the Higher Education Inquirer received the latest response from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) regarding FOIA request 22-F-1203—our most recent effort in a nearly eight-year campaign to uncover how subprime and for-profit colleges have preyed on military servicemembers, veterans, and their families.

The response included confirmation that 1,420 pages of documents were located. But of those, 306 pages were withheld in full, and 1,114 were released only with heavy redactions. A few for-profit colleges—Trident University International, Grand Canyon University, DeVry University, and American Public University System (which includes American Military University and American Public University)—were specifically mentioned in the partially visible content.

And yet the larger truth remains hidden. The names of other institutions known to have exploited military-connected students—University of Phoenix, Colorado Technical University, American InterContinental University, Purdue University Global, and Liberty University Online, among others—were nowhere to be found in the documents we received. Their absence is conspicuous.

We have been pursuing the truth since December 2017, demanding records that would reveal how the DoD enabled these schools to thrive. We sought the list of the 50 worst-performing colleges receiving Tuition Assistance (TA) funds, based on data compiled under Executive Order 13607 during the Obama Administration. That list was never released. When the Trump Administration took power in 2017, they quietly abandoned the protective measures meant to hold these colleges accountable. Our FOIA request DOD OIG-2019-000702 was denied, with the Pentagon claiming that no such list existed. A second request in 2021 (21-F-0411) was also rejected. And now, more than three years after we filed our 2022 request, the DoD continues to deny the public full access to the truth.

The records we did receive are riddled with legal exemptions: internal deliberations, privacy claims, and most notably, references to 10 U.S.C. § 4021, a law that allows the DoD to withhold details of research transactions outside of traditional grants and contracts. In other words, the Pentagon has built legal firewalls around its relationships with for-profit education providers—and continues to shield bad actors from scrutiny.

But the complicity doesn’t end there. It extends deep into the institutional fabric of how the military interfaces with higher education.

Decades of Systemic Corruption

Since the 1980s, the U.S. Department of Defense has worked hand-in-glove with for-profit colleges through a nonprofit called the Council of College and Military Educators (CCME). What began in the 1970s as a noble initiative to expand access to education for military personnel was hijacked by predatory colleges—including the University of Phoenix—that used the organization as a lobbying front.

These schools infiltrated CCME events, using them to curry favor with military officials, often by hiring veterans as on-base sales agents and even providing alcohol to loosen up potential gatekeepers. While CCME publicly maintained the appearance of academic integrity and service, behind the scenes it served as a conduit for lobbying, influence, and enrollment schemes. Military education officers were schmoozed, manipulated, and in some cases, quietly co-opted. This is something you won’t find in CCME’s official history.

We have been told by multiple insiders that the partnership between DoD and these schools was not just tolerated but actively nurtured. Attempts at reform came and went. Investigations were buried. Promises to "do better" evaporated. No one was held accountable. No one went to jail. But the damage has been lasting—measured in ruined credit, wasted benefits, and lives derailed by fraudulent degrees and broken promises.

The Trump-Hegseth Department of Defense

And still, new scandals—except those uncovered by us—go largely unreported. The media has moved on. Congressional attention has shifted. And the same schools, or their rebranded successors, continue to operate freely, often under the protective shadow of military partnerships.

Today, the DoD continues to deny that the DODOIG-2019-000702 list of the 50 worst schools even exists. But we know otherwise. Based on VA data, whistleblower accounts, and independent reporting, we are confident that this list was compiled—and buried. The question is why. And the answer may very well lie in the unredacted names of institutions too politically connected or too legally protected to be exposed.

The Evidence Is Overwhelming

The most damning proof of institutional complicity remains publicly available. In GAO Report GAO-14-855, published in 2014, the Government Accountability Office detailed the deep flaws in DoD’s oversight of its Tuition Assistance program. The report highlighted inconsistent evaluations, unqualified contractor reviewers, vague standards, and incomplete data collection. The DoD had spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on schools without ensuring quality or protecting students. In response, DoD temporarily halted its school evaluations—then quietly resumed business as usual.

PwC audits from 2015 and 2018 confirmed widespread noncompliance with DoD’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Schools violated marketing guidelines, offered misleading transfer information, and failed to provide basic academic counseling. Few were sanctioned, and even fewer were removed from eligibility lists.

Gatehouse Strategies, in its 2022 report, reinforced these conclusions. It warned of “a lack of consistent enforcement mechanisms,” and found that even institutions under investigation continued to receive DoD TA funding. The system appeared designed not to punish misconduct, but to tolerate and obscure it.

The Cost of Inaction

Meanwhile, service members seeking education are left exposed. Many receive low-value credentials, accumulate debt, and waste their limited benefits at schools that offer little academic rigor and even less career mobility. When those credits don’t transfer—or worse, when degrees are rejected by employers—the burden falls squarely on the individual.

Institutions like American Public University System, University of Phoenix, Colorado Technical University, DeVry, and Purdue Global have collected tens of millions in DoD TA funding. Some are under state or federal investigation. Others have quietly changed ownership or rebranded. But the underlying model—targeting military students with high-volume, low-quality online programs—remains largely intact.

We Don’t Need Another Report

The time for reflection is over. The data from GAO, PwC, Gatehouse, and from our own FOIA investigations are clear. What remains is the political will to act.

The Department of Defense should immediately:

– Revoke TA eligibility for schools with documented abuse, federal scrutiny, or repeat MOU violations.
– Release the suppressed list of the worst-performing colleges, as identified under Executive Order 13607.
– Mandate transparent outcome reporting—including transferability, job placement, and default rates—for every school in the TA program.
– Sever ties with lobbyist conduits like CCME that have enabled predatory behavior for decades.

This is not just a matter of bureaucratic reform—it is about justice. For the servicemembers who were deceived. For the families who sacrificed. For the taxpayers who unknowingly foot the bill for failure.

The Higher Education Inquirer will not stop pushing for those names, those documents, and that accountability. Behind every redaction is a veteran who trusted the system—and got scammed. Behind every delay is another student targeted by the same exploitative machinery. Behind every refusal to act is a government more loyal to profit than to people.

Related Reading
GAO-14-855: DoD Education Benefits Oversight Lacking
Military Times (2018): DoD review finds 0% of schools following TA rules
Military Times (2019): Schools are struggling to meet TA rules, but DoD isn’t punishing them. Here’s why.

“We Can’t Make It Here Anymore” Still Rings True

More than twenty years after James McMurtry released We Can’t Make It Here Anymore, the song’s haunting verses continue to echo across the American landscape. Originally written during the early 2000s under the weight of offshoring, union busting, and post-9/11 disillusionment, McMurtry’s protest ballad has aged not with irrelevance but with renewed urgency.

McMurtry wrote about Vietnam veterans pushed aside by a society eager to forget its mistakes. Today, those veterans have been replaced by men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan—some with missing limbs, some with invisible wounds, many with few job prospects. The system still tells them “thanks for your service” while it sends their factories overseas, their benefits into the shredder, and their children into debt servitude at for-profit colleges or underfunded public universities.

The song’s refrain—“And the banks run the loan game, and the dollar jumps the track”—has only deepened in meaning in the era of trillion-dollar student loan burdens and the financialization of everything from housing to higher education. Entire zip codes have been gutted by opioid overdoses, job loss, and rising suicide rates. The technology is flashier now, but the despair McMurtry chronicled feels even more entrenched. The “big boys” still “don't like to lose,” and the factories are still “boarded up,” not just in Michigan and West Virginia, but now in the shadows of elite universities, where campuses flourish while surrounding communities falter.

Higher education, the supposed equalizer, has played its own part in this disillusionment. Where once it held the promise of upward mobility, it now too often offers low-wage adjunct jobs, debt without degrees, and institutions more concerned with branding and endowments than student welfare. McMurtry sings, “The doctor can't be reached, he has moved back to LA,” and in 2025, that’s still true—except now the doctor’s been replaced by a telehealth AI, and the local hospital has been bought out by a hedge fund.

We Can’t Make It Here Anymore is not nostalgia. It is indictment. It is reportage. It is prophecy. And like Woody Guthrie before him, McMurtry tells a story corporate media would rather ignore.

The song’s last verse ends not with hope, but with observation:
“Will work for food, will die for oil, will kill for power and to us the spoils.”
Two decades later, the empire has not changed course. It has just changed spokespeople.

The names may change—NAFTA to USMCA, Halliburton to BlackRock—but the machinery grinds on. And McMurtry’s anthem remains a soundtrack for those who never made it out of the wreckage, for the veterans of war and labor still trying to make it here.

Sources

• James McMurtry, We Can’t Make It Here Anymore, 2004

• U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

• U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

• National Student Legal Defense Network

• Higher Education Inquirer archives

Higher Learning Commission Passes the Buck on Ambow-CSU Deal

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

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

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

As previously reported by the Higher Education Inquirer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

• U.S. Department of Education accreditation database

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

Gini Index: Higher Education and the US Line of Inequality

Over the past century, the United States has undergone enormous changes in how wealth and income are distributed. From the opulence of the Roaring Twenties to the postwar rise of the middle class, from the tech booms of the 1990s to the pandemic economy of the 2020s, the line of inequality has rarely been flat—and never fair.

To track these shifts, economists use the Gini Index, a number between 0 and 1 (or 0 and 100 in percentage terms), where 0 represents perfect equality and 1 represents perfect inequality. The U.S. Gini Index has changed dramatically over time, reflecting wars, economic crises, policy decisions, and structural changes in education, taxes, and immigration.

In the 1920s, the United States experienced a high level of income inequality. The economy was booming for the wealthy, but the benefits of that growth were concentrated at the top. This period, often referred to as the first Gilded Age, was marked by weak labor protections, minimal taxation on the rich, and limited social safety nets. At the same time, immigration was heavily restricted, which limited labor competition but also reinforced the racial and ethnic hierarchies that shaped income and opportunity.

The Great Depression and World War II marked a dramatic shift. As the economy collapsed in the 1930s, public pressure mounted for systemic reform. New Deal policies expanded labor rights, created Social Security, and introduced public works programs. These efforts, along with wartime wage controls and steep taxes on the wealthy, helped reduce inequality. The federal income tax reached top rates over 90 percent. Education expanded as the GI Bill sent millions of returning veterans—mostly white men—to college and into homeownership. However, the benefits of this postwar expansion were unequally distributed, with Black Americans and other minorities largely excluded through redlining, school segregation, and discriminatory lending.

From the 1950s to the 1970s, the U.S. experienced what some call the Great Compression. Income gaps between rich and poor narrowed. Manufacturing jobs were abundant, union membership was high, and wages grew alongside productivity. Federal and state investments in education opened doors for many, although property taxes, which fund most local public schools, reinforced disparities between wealthier suburbs and poorer cities or rural communities. Immigration remained limited during these decades, and federal tax policy remained progressive. The Gini Index stayed relatively stable, reflecting broad-based growth and a more equal distribution of income.

The 1980s brought a reversal. The Reagan administration cut top income tax rates dramatically, weakened labor unions, and deregulated many industries. The economy became more financialized, and capital gains were increasingly favored over wages. Globalization and the offshoring of manufacturing jobs weakened the bargaining power of American workers. At the same time, immigration increased, often filling low-wage and precarious jobs in agriculture, construction, and service industries. While immigration boosted overall economic output, it also contributed to greater income stratification within certain sectors.

The Gini Index rose steadily through the 1980s and 1990s. The tech boom created vast wealth for a small segment of the population, while wages for most workers stagnated. Public universities saw declining state support, leading to tuition hikes and the explosion of student loan debt. Property taxes continued to shape educational inequality, with affluent districts able to fund advanced programs and facilities while lower-income schools struggled. Tax policy changes in the 2000s, including further reductions in capital gains and estate taxes, widened the gap between those who earn their income from investments and those who rely on wages.

The 2008 financial crisis deepened existing divides. While wealthy households recovered quickly due to stock market gains and low interest rates, working-class families faced job losses, home foreclosures, and long-term economic insecurity. Federal stimulus programs helped avert total collapse, but they did little to reverse decades of rising inequality. By the 2010s, the U.S. Gini Index was among the highest in the developed world.

In the early 2020s, the COVID-19 pandemic once again exposed the structural weaknesses in the American economy. Emergency relief programs and expanded unemployment benefits briefly reduced poverty in 2020, but these were temporary fixes. Billionaires saw massive increases in wealth, while millions of essential workers faced health risks, layoffs, and housing instability. Public schools and universities adapted to online learning, but the digital divide left many students behind. Property taxes remained the primary source of school funding, preserving long-standing inequalities in education. Immigrants continued to perform essential but undervalued labor, often without access to healthcare or legal protections.

Federal tax policy remains tilted toward the wealthy. Income from stocks and real estate is taxed at lower rates than income from work. Loopholes and deductions allow corporations and the ultra-rich to minimize their tax bills. At the same time, working families face regressive payroll taxes and growing out-of-pocket costs for healthcare, education, and housing.

Higher education, once seen as a pathway to mobility, increasingly reflects the same patterns of inequality seen in the broader economy. Elite universities with billion-dollar endowments serve a small, privileged student population. Public colleges and community colleges—where most students from working-class and minority backgrounds enroll—operate on tight budgets and often rely on underpaid adjunct faculty. Rising tuition, administrative bloat, and student debt have turned education into both a product and a burden.

The Gini Index provides a simple way to measure inequality, but it does not capture all of the structural forces behind it. To understand why inequality remains so persistent, we must look at the systems that shape opportunity from birth: local property taxes, unequal schools, debt-financed higher education, regressive tax codes, and immigration policies that create a stratified labor market.

The line of inequality in the United States is not just a chart—it’s a reflection of who holds power, who gets access, and who pays the price. Changing that line will require more than numbers. It will take bold public action, political courage, and a serious rethinking of how we fund education, how we tax wealth, and how we value labor in an age of digital capitalism.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to trace the contours of inequality—across classrooms, campuses, and communities—because understanding the line is the first step to redrawing it. 

Sources

Piketty, Thomas, Saez, Emmanuel, and Zucman, Gabriel. Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2018.

Congressional Budget Office. The Distribution of Household Income, 2019. Published November 2022.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/58528

U.S. Census Bureau. Income and Poverty in the United States: 2022.
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-280.html

Economic Policy Institute. State of Working America: Wages.
https://www.epi.org/data/#?subject=wages

Goldin, Claudia and Katz, Lawrence F. The Race Between Education and Technology. Harvard University Press, 2008.

Chetty, Raj et al. The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility Since 1940. Science, 2017.

Desmond, Matthew. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. Crown Publishing, 2016.

Kuznets, Simon. Economic Growth and Income Inequality. American Economic Review, 1955.

Saez, Emmanuel and Zucman, Gabriel. The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay. W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.

OECD. Income Inequality (Gini Coefficient).
https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm

National Center for Education Statistics. Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cma

Urban Institute. The Unequal Distribution of State and Local Revenues.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98725/the-unequal-distribution-of-state-and-local-revenues_1.pdf

Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States.
https://itep.org/whopays/

Migration Policy Institute. Immigrant Workers: Vital to the U.S. COVID-19 Response, Disproportionately Vulnerable.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigrant-workers-us-covid-19-response

National Bureau of Economic Research. Education and Inequality Across the American States.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w31455

A Broken Promise: Why the GI Bill Demands Major Reform

The GI Bill was meant to be a pathway to economic opportunity for those who served. But behind the patriotic language and glossy marketing lies a deeply flawed system—one that routinely fails to deliver on its promise. The Higher Education Inquirer’s own investigations, including Blue Falcons: Politicians, Government Agencies, and Nonprofits Serve Themselves, Not Those Who Have Served, have exposed how a powerful network of politicians, government agencies, and nonprofit actors have prioritized institutional profit over veterans' well-being. These actors cloak themselves in red, white, and blue, while steering billions of taxpayer dollars into the hands of subprime and for-profit colleges that consistently produce poor educational and economic outcomes.

In Veterans Left Behind: How Oversight Failures Harm Veterans in Higher Education, Michael Hainline recounts his personal experience of being misled by a federally approved training program in commercial trucking. The program used outdated, dangerous equipment. He was injured, left without the credentials he was promised, and unable to work in the field. Despite numerous formal complaints, the State Approving Agency and Department of Veterans Affairs failed to act. His story is not unique. Thousands of veterans have lost valuable time, their health, and their benefits to programs that were supposed to help them reintegrate into civilian life.

These anecdotes are supported by hard data. A 2021 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, covered by Forbes, found that veterans who used the Post‑9/11 GI Bill earned $900 less per year, nine years after service, than peers who did not use the benefit. While the GI Bill slightly increased college enrollment and bachelor’s degree attainment, the economic return was negative for most users. The worst outcomes were concentrated among those who attended for-profit colleges, as well as those who had lower Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) scores or served in lower-skilled military roles. Instead of launching veterans into thriving careers, the GI Bill has too often led them into low-value programs that waste time, drain benefits, and reduce long-term earnings.

The scale of the issue is enormous. GI Bill expenditures now exceed $13 billion annually—more than all state-funded scholarships and Pell Grants combined. Yet for each marginal bachelor’s degree produced, the GI Bill program spends between $486,000 and $590,000. For-profit colleges, despite their poor outcomes and frequent legal troubles, continue to absorb a disproportionate share of these funds. Their business model depends heavily on recruiting veterans, aided by a legal loophole that allows GI Bill funds to be excluded from the federal 90–10 funding cap. That exemption incentivizes aggressive marketing campaigns targeting veterans and military families, while institutions offer minimal support and poor instruction in return.

Veterans deserve better, and the American public deserves transparency and accountability for how billions of dollars are spent. Reform begins with policy rooted in results. That means requiring schools to meet minimum thresholds for graduation rates, job placement, and post-graduation earnings before receiving GI Bill funds. The 90–10 loophole must be closed, and federal agencies must reinstate the gainful employment rules that were gutted under previous administrations. Oversight bodies like the VA’s Office of Inspector General and State Approving Agencies need resources and independence to investigate, enforce, and shut down bad actors. Just as importantly, veterans need access to transparent, comprehensible data on outcomes before they enroll—data about job placement rates, average earnings, completion rates, and institutional accreditation.

The obsession with four-year degrees also needs to be reexamined. Many veterans would be better served by career-aligned certificates, apprenticeships, and credentialing programs that build directly on their military experience. These programs often provide faster, cheaper, and more secure pathways into the labor market, especially in fields like skilled trades, technology, and logistics.

Problem	Proposed Reform
Predatory institutions and marketing practices drain GI Bill funds and deliver poor outcomes	Enforce outcomes-based funding, limiting GI support to programs with strong results
Legal loopholes allow evasion of accountability	Close the 90–10 exemption and restore gainful employment rules
Oversight is fragmented and ineffective	Fund and empower federal and state oversight agencies to act decisively
Veterans lack guidance in a confusing marketplace	Mandate counseling and public reporting of school-level outcome data
Degree inflation and misalignment with the job market	Expand alternative credentialing pathways tied to real workforce demand

The GI Bill is more than a financial benefit—it is a symbol of the nation’s promise to those who have served. When that promise is broken, it not only damages individual veterans, but undermines trust in the institutions meant to serve the public good. Reforming the GI Bill is not just a budgetary concern—it is a moral imperative.

The Higher Education Inquirer calls for immediate, systemic reform. Veterans have earned more than shallow rhetoric and exploitation. They deserve an education system that works. That system must be transparent, accountable, and rooted in reality—not nostalgia or false promises. It must reward service with genuine opportunity, not debt and disappointment. Until then, we will continue to investigate and expose the truth—and stand with veterans who are being left behind.

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

          [JB and Penny Pritzker] 

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

Penny Pritzger

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

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

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

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

JB Pritzger

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

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

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

Elites in US Higher Education, A Familiar Theme 

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

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

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

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

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

Higher Education Inquirer Nears One Million Views: Investigative Journalism Drives Unprecedented Growth

The Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) is approaching a significant milestone: nearly one million total views expected by September 2025. This achievement underscores the growing demand for investigative journalism that holds higher education institutions accountable.

HEI's traffic growth has been steady for more than a year with an explosive rise over the last few months. In the first quarter of 2025, the site recorded about 132,000 views, showing increased interest. By June, monthly views passed 160,000. The highest single-day traffic came yesterday, July 21, 2025, with 10,391 views, breaking previous records. This peak coincided with the release of several articles on economic and social issues facing students, student loan debtors, and young workers.

Key articles included Bryan Alexander’s examination of whether higher education still makes financial sense for students. Our staff contributed reports on young workers’ declining confidence in the job market and the expanding role of fintech companies like SoFi in student loans.

HEI also covers broader social and political topics. An article on June 25 about Gaza’s humanitarian crisis and campus dissent drew hundreds of views, showing the publication’s interest in global issues related to academic freedom and student activism.

One of the most significant examples of HEI’s investigative reporting has been its ongoing coverage of corruption and scandal in the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). In May and June 2025, HEI published detailed exposés documenting alleged fraud, retaliation against whistleblowers, grade manipulation, wage theft, and falsification of faculty credentials. These stories brought to light longstanding issues within LACCD, including actions by administrators such as Annie G. Reed, whose conduct has repeatedly raised serious concerns since at least 2016.

The impact of HEI’s coverage extended beyond readership numbers. After critical articles published by allied independent media outlets were removed from online platforms, HEI stood firm in reporting these issues, highlighting the challenges faced by whistleblowers and the vital role of independent journalism in holding institutions accountable.

In July 2025, HEI published an in-depth investigation revealing the Pentagon's longstanding relationship with for-profit colleges, particularly through the Council of College and Military Educators (CCME). The investigation uncovered how these institutions have exploited military-connected students, veterans, and their families, benefiting from federal programs like the Post-9/11 GI Bill and Department of Defense Tuition Assistance. Despite multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, the Department of Defense has withheld critical documents, raising questions about transparency and accountability in military education partnerships.

Additionally, HEI's reporting on the exploitation of veterans under the guise of service highlighted how politicians, government agencies, and nonprofits have failed to protect those who have served. The investigation revealed that instead of supporting veterans, these entities have perpetuated systems that prioritize self-interest over the well-being of veterans, leading to wasted benefits and poor educational outcomes.

Several factors explain HEI’s growth. The publication relies on original documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, legal filings, and insider accounts to reveal facts often missed by mainstream media. This research appeals to readers seeking solid information.

Contributions from scholars and activists like Bryan Alexander, Henry Giroux, David Halperin, and Michael Hainline add context that helps readers understand education trends and policies.

HEI focuses on long-term issues such as adjunct faculty exploitation, college closures, student debt, and the privatization of public education, rather than fleeting news. This approach builds a loyal audience interested in ongoing analysis.

The site offers free access without paywalls or advertising, encouraging sharing and reader interaction through comments, tips, and feedback. Its presence on social media and forums like Reddit helps reach more readers organically.

Central to HEI’s mission is a commitment to transparency, accountability, and value in higher education. The publication seeks not only to reveal problems but also to hold institutions and policymakers responsible. HEI stresses that higher education must deliver real financial, social, and intellectual value and that openness is key to achieving this.

The political and economic context has also contributed to HEI’s growth. Lasting effects of Trump-era policies—such as changes in Title IX enforcement, rollbacks of diversity efforts, and disputes over federal funding—have increased public interest. HEI’s clear, evidence-based coverage helps readers understand these complex changes.

Public concerns about rising student debt, now over $1.7 trillion nationwide, and doubts about the value of college degrees have also driven readers to HEI. At the same time, debates around campus culture and diversity heighten demand for balanced reporting.

As HEI nears its million-view goal, it plans to expand investigative work, grow its viewership base, and increase community engagement through interactive features and reader participation. The publication intends to continue monitoring higher education’s power structures and highlight factors affecting students, faculty, and institutions.

In a time of declining trust in mainstream media and widespread misinformation, HEI’s growth shows a strong need for journalism that is thorough, honest, and focused on those involved in higher education.

For readers seeking clear, direct insight on changes in colleges and universities, HEI offers an essential platform—living up to its motto, “Ahead of the Learned Herd.” Its rise marks a shift toward more accountable journalism in the field.

Neoliberalism, Accreditation, and the Endless Reinvention of Higher Ed Scams

Fraudsters are like cockroaches: persistent, hard to eliminate, and always scurrying just beneath the surface. And like cockroaches, when you see one, you can assume many more are hidden from view. In the sprawling, trillion-dollar ecosystem of American higher education—built on trust, hope, and credentials—fraud has been a constant companion. And under neoliberalism, it doesn’t just survive. It adapts, multiplies, and thrives.

The case of Anthony Bieda and the newly formed National Association for Academic Excellence (NAAE) is a vivid reminder of how this ecosystem protects and even rewards those who have failed the public. Bieda, a former executive at the disgraced Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS), is now fronting a fresh accreditation startup, backed by conservative donors and political forces aligned with Donald Trump’s vision for higher ed deregulation.

NAAE’s mission is to provide a “holistic,” “anti-woke” alternative to traditional accreditors, evaluating colleges not on outcomes like graduation rates or job placement, but on how they shape the “human person.” It's vague, ideological, and intentionally opaque. Even Bieda admits the metrics are a secret—soon to be intellectual property.

Fraud in American higher education didn’t start with Trump University or Corinthian Colleges. It dates back to the 19th century, when diploma mills sold degrees like snake oil. In the early 20th century, accreditation systems emerged to clean up the mess—but fraud simply evolved. As the federal government opened the spigot of student aid after World War II, for-profit colleges and shady operators followed the money.

By the 2000s, the con had been professionalized. Publicly traded companies like Corinthian and ITT Tech learned how to game the system, using slick advertising, inflated job placement rates, and predatory recruiting to rake in billions in Title IV funds. The students—often low-income, Black, Latino, veterans, or single mothers—were left with broken promises and ballooning debt.

The watchdogs failed them. And some, like ACICS, weren’t just negligent—they were complicit.

In theory, accreditors are gatekeepers. In practice, they’ve too often been enablers. Accreditation bodies are funded by the very institutions they review, leading to deep structural conflicts of interest. ACICS became notorious for accrediting schools that federal and state regulators had flagged as predatory. After years of scrutiny, it was finally shut down in 2022.

Yet here we are, three years later, with ACICS’s former leader launching a new accrediting agency, this time cloaked in the language of "freedom of thought" and "anti-wokeness." Backed by the American Academy of Sciences and Letters (AASL), which insists it’s apolitical despite pushing overt culture war themes, NAAE is asking to be trusted with federal gatekeeping power.

It’s neoliberalism in action: dismantle public systems, defang oversight, and recycle failed leaders with fresh branding. The logic isn’t about protecting students—it’s about deregulating markets under the guise of reform.

The digital age has only made things worse. Online colleges with low academic standards, limited faculty oversight, and profit-driven motives are booming. AI will soon be used not just in instruction and grading, but in accreditation assessments themselves. NAAE promises to use AI to detect inconsistencies and enforce its vague standards. But when the standards themselves are ideological and untested, automation becomes a smokescreen.

Meanwhile, shady consultants, student loan relief scammers, and credentialing platforms are multiplying. It's not just about bad schools anymore—it’s an entire financialized ecosystem that treats students as data points and debtors.

Occasionally, the public sees the fraud for what it is. Corinthian and ITT collapsed. Whistleblowers have emerged. Borrower defense lawsuits have won relief. But like cockroaches, fraudsters scatter and reassemble elsewhere. They form new schools, new agencies, new lobbies. They rebrand and wait for the political winds to shift.

And with Trump pushing to dismantle the Department of Education and rewrite accreditation rules by executive order, the roaches are back in the kitchen.

At the Higher Education Inquirer, we believe fraud is not just a byproduct of capitalism—it’s a feature of an underregulated, investor-driven model of education. The solution is not to invent new accreditors with old ideas, but to demand radical transparency and public accountability.

That means open data on outcomes, default rates, and executive pay. It means public audits of accreditor decisions. It requires whistleblower protections for staff and students. And it must include criminal and financial penalties for institutional fraud.

Because fraudsters are like cockroaches. You may never eliminate them all—but you can turn on the lights, close the cracks, and make it a lot harder for them to scurry back into power.

Sources
Theo Scheer, “He Helped Lead a Disgraced College Accreditor. Under Trump, He Might Have Another Shot.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 21, 2025
U.S. Department of Education actions on ACICS (2016–2022)
Higher Education Inquirer reporting on for-profit colleges, accreditation failures, and Trump-era education policy
Interviews with whistleblowers and former students of collapsed institutions

Liberty University Online: Master’s Degree Debt Factory

Liberty University, one of the largest Christian universities in the United States, has built an educational empire by promoting conservative values and offering flexible online degree programs to hundreds of thousands of students. But behind the pious branding and patriotic marketing lies a troubling pattern: Liberty University Online has become a master’s degree debt factory, churning out credentials of questionable value while generating billions in student loan debt.

From Moral Majority to Mass Marketing

Founded in 1971 by televangelist Jerry Falwell Sr., Liberty University was created to train “Champions for Christ.” In the 2000s, the school found new life through online education, transforming from a small evangelical college into a mega-university with nearly 95,000 online students, the vast majority of them enrolled in nontraditional and graduate programs.

By leveraging aggressive digital marketing, religious appeals, and promises of career advancement, Liberty has positioned itself as a go-to destination for working adults and military veterans seeking master's degrees. But this rapid expansion has not come without costs — especially for the students who enroll.

A For-Profit Model in Nonprofit Clothing

Though technically a nonprofit, Liberty University operates with many of the same profit-driven incentives as for-profit colleges. Its online programs generate massive revenues — an estimated $1 billion annually — thanks in large part to federal student aid programs. Students are encouraged to take on loans to pay for master’s degrees in education, counseling, business, and theology, among other fields. Many of these programs are offered in accelerated formats that cater to working adults but often lack the rigor, support, or job placement outcomes associated with traditional graduate schools.

Federal data shows that many Liberty students, especially graduate students, take on substantial debt. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard, the median graduate student debt at Liberty can range from $40,000 to more than $70,000, depending on the program. Meanwhile, the return on investment is often dubious, with low median earnings and high rates of student loan forbearance or default.

Exploiting Faith and Patriotism

Liberty’s marketing strategy is finely tuned to appeal to Christian conservatives, homeschoolers, veterans, and working parents. By framing education as a moral and patriotic duty, Liberty convinces students that enrolling in an online master’s program is both a personal and spiritual investment. Testimonials of “calling” and “purpose” are common, but the financial realities can be harsh.

Many students report feeling misled by promises of job readiness or licensure, especially in education and counseling fields, where state licensing requirements can differ dramatically from what Liberty prepares students for. Others cite inadequate academic support and difficulties transferring credits.

 The university spends heavily on recruitment and retention, often at the expense of student services and academic quality.

Lack of Oversight and Accountability

Liberty University benefits from minimal federal scrutiny compared to for-profit schools, largely because of its nonprofit status and political connections. The institution maintains close ties to conservative lawmakers and was a vocal supporter of the Trump administration, which rolled back regulations on higher education accountability.

Despite a series of internal scandals — including financial mismanagement, sexual misconduct cover-ups, and leadership instability following the resignation of Jerry Falwell Jr. — Liberty has continued to expand its online presence. Its graduate programs, particularly in education and counseling, remain cash cows that draw in federal loan dollars with few checks on student outcomes.

A Cautionary Tale in Christian Capitalism

The story of Liberty University Online is not just about one school. It reflects a broader trend in American higher education: the merging of religion, capitalism, and credential inflation. As more employers demand advanced degrees for mid-level jobs, and as traditional institutions struggle to adapt, schools like Liberty have seized the opportunity to market hope — even if it comes at a high cost.

For students of faith seeking upward mobility, Liberty promises a path to both spiritual and professional fulfillment. But for many, the result is a diploma accompanied by tens of thousands in debt and limited economic return. The moral reckoning may not be just for Liberty University, but for the policymakers and accreditors who continue to enable this lucrative cycle of debt and disillusionment.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate Liberty University Online and similar institutions as part of our ongoing series on higher education debt, inequality, and regulatory failure.

Trump Signs Crypto Bill: A Gateway to Corruption and Financial Oppression

On July 17, 2025, Donald Trump signed into law the “American Digital Freedom Act,” a sweeping piece of legislation that federalizes and deregulates cryptocurrency markets in the United States. While hailed by supporters as a victory for innovation and financial autonomy, the new law is more accurately understood as a major victory for crypto billionaires, libertarian think tanks, and political operatives seeking to reshape American financial life with minimal public accountability.

This bill, which strips oversight powers from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and restricts consumer protections, was heavily influenced by the cryptocurrency lobby. It legitimizes risky, unregulated financial products, undermines state enforcement power, and further embeds private power into public infrastructure. Far from delivering financial freedom to everyday Americans, this law opens the door to unprecedented corruption and control, continuing a pattern long warned about in the pages of the Higher Education Inquirer.

Echoes of Student Debt, EdTech Fraud, and Neoliberal Capture

In our May 2025 article, "How the New Cryptocurrency Bill Could Open the Door to Corruption and Control," we warned that the crypto bill was less about democratizing finance and more about creating new extractive markets. As with the for-profit college industry, the gigification of academic labor, and the student loan crisis, the crypto sector markets itself to the financially desperate, the underemployed, and the debt-burdened.

Cryptocurrency platforms promise opportunity and empowerment, just as subprime for-profit colleges did during the early 2000s. Instead, they profit from volatility, speculation, and financial illiteracy. The collapse of companies like FTX and the unraveling of various "blockchain for education" experiments—like those pitched by Minerva, 2U, and Lambda School—should have served as a warning. Instead, the American Digital Freedom Act enshrines their business models into law.

From Financial Risk to Political Weapon

While proponents describe the law as a pro-innovation framework, the political context suggests otherwise. The crypto bill was pushed through by some of the same operatives behind efforts to weaken the Department of Education, dismantle Title IX protections, and privatize public universities. The legislation also dovetails with Trump-aligned plans to create “digital citizenship” systems linked to financial identity—a move critics argue could be used to surveil and suppress dissent.

By reducing AML (Anti-Money Laundering) standards and weakening Know Your Customer (KYC) rules, the new law also makes it easier for dark money to enter U.S. elections and political campaigns. The line between crypto lobbying, national security risks, and voter manipulation is already blurred—and this legislation will only accelerate the trend.

As the Higher Education Inquirer, there is a growing convergence of tech capital, deregulated finance, and political ideology that promotes “freedom” while gutting accountability. The crypto bill fits squarely within this pattern.

Targeting the Dispossessed

The communities that will bear the brunt of the consequences are already stretched thin: working-class students drowning in loan debt, unemployed graduates with useless credentials, and gig workers living paycheck to paycheck. These are the same groups now being told that speculative crypto investments are their only shot at economic mobility.

It’s no surprise that crypto apps are targeting community college students, veterans, and underbanked populations with gamified interfaces and referral incentives—echoing the same predatory logic as diploma mills. Instead of building generational wealth, these platforms often lock users into a new form of digital serfdom, driven by data extraction and monetized hype.

The Long Game of Financialized Authoritarianism

The Higher Education Inquirer has consistently highlighted the dangers of unregulated private capital colonizing public institutions. Whether through for-profit colleges, hollow credential marketplaces, or now unregulated crypto markets, the pattern is the same: promise empowerment, deliver exploitation, and consolidate power.

The crypto bill signed by Trump is not an end—it is a gateway. A gateway to a political economy where finance, tech, and politics are indistinguishable, and where the price of dissent may be counted not only in speech, but in digital wallets and blockchain-based reputations.

We will continue reporting on the consequences of this legislation—especially where it intersects with higher education, student debt, and the erosion of democratic infrastructure. If you’ve been affected by crypto scams in academic settings or targeted by blockchain-backed “innovation” schemes, we want to hear from you.

Sources:

• “How the New Cryptocurrency Bill Could Open the Door to Corruption and Control,” Higher Education Inquirer, May 2025

• “Socrates in Space: University of Austin and the Billionaire Pipeline,” Higher Education Inquirer, July 2024

• U.S. Congressional Record, July 17, 2025

• CoinDesk, “Trump Signs Historic Crypto Deregulation Bill,” July 2025

• Public Citizen, “Crypto Lobby’s Push to Rewrite U.S. Law,” June 2025

• SEC Chair Gary Gensler’s Remarks, April–June 2025

• Financial Times, “Digital Authoritarianism and Financial Surveillance,” May 2025