Some time this March, President Trump's US Budget proposal will be submitted. It would not be out of the realm of possibility that budget cuts to the US Department of Education exceed 70 percent if the $1.7 Trillion Student Loan Portfolio is transferred to the US Treasury. President Biden's 2024 Budget for the US Department of Education was published March 11, 2024. This is what the proposal typically looks like.
The official Working Families Party response to President Trump's address to the joint session of Congress was delivered by Rep. Lateefah Simon (CA-12).
Stand Up for Science 2025 is a grassroots operation consisting of over 100 volunteers, all united in the belief that science is for everyone and benefits everyone.
Their core leadership team consists of Colette Delawalla (Emory University), Emma Courtney (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory), JP Flores (UNC Chapel Hill), Sam Goldstein (University of Florida), and Leslie Berntsen (stemEDify), and are supported by the incredible assistance and expertise of many people.
You can check the Stand up for Science 2025 on the Bluesky starter pack of SUFS organizers here.
#sciencenotsilence #scienceforall
The Trump administration and many state governments are accelerating attacks on academic freedom, shared governance, and higher education as a public good. We are working with our chapters and with allies in higher ed and the labor movement to defend and advance our vision: Higher education that is accessible and affordable for all who want it. Freedom to teach, to learn, to conduct research, to speak out on issues of the day, and to assemble in the organizations of our choice. Colleges and universities that create opportunity for students, workers, and communities. Sufficient funding to provide true education and sustainable working conditions. Information and resources to help in this fight are being added below as they are developed.
Immigration
Attacks on Science and Research
Federal Funding
Accreditation
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Anticipatory Obedience
Administrations sometimes go farther than the law requires to placate those who are attacking higher ed.
Please observe the boycott of Amazon from March 7-14, 2025. This is a step up from the one-day boycotts on February 28. Boycotts are an essential tool of nonviolent resistance and one way to make your voices heard.
In the mid-2010s, the U.S. Department of Education introduced the Gainful Employment (GE) regulations—a landmark attempt to hold career-focused educational programs accountable for their graduates' ability to earn a living wage. These regulations aimed to protect students from for-profit colleges and vocational programs that left them burdened with crippling debt and poor job prospects. However, over the past several years, political forces have consistently worked to weaken or outright undo these regulations, often in ways that raise concerns about the future of higher education and student protections.
The story of Gainful Employment begins in earnest during the Obama administration, when the Department of Education sought to curb the rapid growth of for-profit colleges that had been criticized for enrolling vulnerable students with promises of high-paying jobs, only to see them graduate into financial struggles. The GE rules were designed to measure whether students at these institutions were able to repay their loans based on their post-graduation earnings. If a program failed to meet certain thresholds, it would lose access to federal student aid, a lifeline for many struggling institutions.
Initially, the regulations were celebrated by consumer advocates and organizations that had long criticized the for-profit education sector for exploiting students. The Department of Education estimated that the GE rules could save taxpayers billions of dollars while protecting students from enrolling in programs that didn't deliver a return on their investment. In theory, if schools couldn't demonstrate that their graduates earned enough to repay their student loans, they would be incentivized to either improve their offerings or face the consequences of losing federal funding.
However, soon after the GE regulations were finalized, they came under fierce political attack.
In 2017, with the change in presidential administrations, the Trump administration began rolling back a number of regulations designed to protect students, including the GE rules. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, a long-time critic of what she saw as excessive government regulation in education, spearheaded efforts to delay and ultimately repeal the regulations. Her argument was that the rules were overly burdensome for schools, especially those providing vocational training, and that they unfairly penalized schools whose graduates may not have had high earnings but were nonetheless gaining valuable skills.
But DeVos wasn’t alone in her opposition. The for-profit college industry, which had faced heightened scrutiny under the Obama-era regulations, mounted an aggressive lobbying campaign to dismantle the GE rules. Aided by influential trade groups like the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU), the industry argued that the GE regulations undermined their ability to serve students, particularly those in underserved communities who might not have access to traditional four-year colleges or universities.
The political power of the for-profit sector, combined with the new administration’s deregulatory agenda, resulted in an effort to sideline the GE regulations. DeVos delayed the effective date of the rules and pushed back the enforcement deadlines, making it clear that the regulations were no longer a priority for the Department of Education. In 2019, the Department even went as far as to propose a new version of the rules that was far less stringent, ultimately rolling back the original GE provisions.
The political attacks on the GE rules weren’t just limited to administrative delays. Conservative lawmakers played a central role in undermining the regulations as well. In 2017, Congress included provisions in the budget bills that prevented the Department of Education from enforcing or implementing the GE rules. These provisions were not just about defunding enforcement—they were about making the regulations essentially toothless, rendering them ineffective in holding schools accountable for their graduates' financial success.
This legal maneuvering was supported by arguments from Republican lawmakers that the federal government shouldn’t be in the business of telling students and schools what a "good" or "bad" educational program looks like. They framed the issue as a matter of personal choice and freedom, with education viewed primarily as a private market rather than a public good that needs oversight. The rhetoric around personal choice was particularly potent when paired with claims of excessive governmental overreach and bureaucratic red tape, which found a receptive audience in a Congress eager to reduce the size and scope of federal regulation.
By 2020, the Trump administration had all but dismantled the original Gainful Employment rules, but their story was far from over. As soon as President Biden took office in 2021, there were hopes that the GE regulations might be resurrected and enforced more strictly. However, the political hurdles to reinstating the rules were significant. Biden’s administration, despite its promises to reform higher education, faced intense lobbying from powerful for-profit college associations and other stakeholders who feared the financial consequences of stricter regulations.
By the end of 2022, the Biden administration had made a step toward strengthening the GE regulations, proposing new rules to bring back accountability measures—but they faced obstacles as well. The continuing political and legal challenges surrounding the GE regulations are a testament to the deep entrenchment of vested interests within the higher education landscape. Critics argue that, while the Biden administration’s changes represented progress, they still fell short of the original intent and fail to fully restore the protections for students that had been so dramatically weakened under the Trump era.
For students, the reversal of the GE regulations has had profound consequences. According to research, when educational programs fail to provide students with the skills necessary to secure well-paying jobs, the result is often long-term financial instability, and this issue disproportionately affects low-income students, first-generation college-goers, and students of color.
Without robust regulations to hold programs accountable, the for-profit sector can continue to expand unchecked, marketing programs that may leave students with massive debt but few prospects for a secure future. The constant legal and political battles around the GE rules show just how difficult it can be to enact lasting change in an industry as influential as higher education. As long as lobbying power and political maneuvering continue to shape policy, the promise of education as a tool for social mobility and economic security will remain out of reach for many Americans.
In his State of the Union message last night, President Trump reaffirmed his interest in encouraging rich people from around the world to become US citizens. The price of US Gold Cards, and a path to citizenship, will be $5M per person. Trump added that these Gold Card members would not have to pay taxes to their native countries.
The US Department of Government Efficiency regularly posts cuts to all US federal agencies, including the US Department of Education, which it is working on to dismantle. The cuts include "asset sales, contract/lease cancellations and renegotiations, fraud and improper payment deletion, grant cancellations, interest savings, programmatic changes, regulatory savings, and workforce reductions."
As of March 4, 2025, DOGE has reduced ED regulations by 1.25 million words and approximately 3,340 sections of regulation. according to DOGE, ED has 4,245 employees making an average of $140,000 per year. The average employee is 49 years of age and has worked for the Department for 13 years. The total cost of employee wages is $596M per year.
Here's a sample of the current list of Department of Education contracts cut by DOGE.
According to our sources at the US Department of Education, the number of personnel in its Office of Inspector General (OIG) is down approximately 14 percent from January 1, 2025. The number of workers there could be further reduced as President Trump issues his austerity budget. The current loses at ED-OIG include retirements, those who have chosen to be part of the deferred resignation program, and those who left the organization for positions elsewhere. While this cutting may reduce personnel costs, what will happen with less OIG workers to oversee the proper use of federal funds? Will this embolden bad actors, including predatory schools and debt servicers? We're guessing it does.
The U.S. student loan system, now exceeding $1.7 trillion in debt and affecting over 40 million borrowers, is facing significant challenges. As political pressures rise, the management of student loans could be significantly altered. A combination of potential privatization, the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education (ED), and a new role for the Department of the Treasury raises critical questions about the future of the system.
Our long-awaited report shares findings from 91 institutions across 16 states that participated in Hope Impact Partnerships (HIP) and fielded The Hope Center Student Basic Needs Survey between Spring 2023 and Summer 2024.
.png)
Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky wouldn’t concede the point. A tense Oval Office meeting Friday that was supposed to end in Ukraine agreeing to share mining resources with the U.S. devolved into a heated argument as President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance insisted Ukraine should express more gratitude for U.S. support and agree to a ceasefire with Russia, even without clear security guarantees from the U.S. “You don’t have the cards right now,” Trump told Zelensky, as the two interrupted each other during a forceful exchange in front of TV cameras.
Tuition has increased faster than inflation. State funding has increased faster than inflation. Administrator salaries have increased faster than inflation. Yet, the administration is demanding that the teachers, librarians, and researchers who drive the university’s educational mission take real wage cuts.
While everyone acknowledges the financial challenges facing higher education, the UO is receiving more money per student than ever before. If this money isn’t going toward student education and knowledge creation, where is it going?
The Facts:
Quality Education Requires Investment in Faculty
The value of a University of Oregon degree depends on the quality of its professors, instructors, researchers, and librarians. When faculty wages erode due to artificial austerity, neglect, or slow attrition, it affects not only the quality of education and research, but also the long-term value of a UO degree for students and alumni alike.
Faculty Sacrificed to Protect UO—Now It’s Time for Fair Wages
During the pandemic, faculty agreed to potential pay reductions to help UO weather an uncertain financial future. We made sacrifices to ensure the university could continue to serve students. Now, as we bargain our first post-pandemic contract, the administration refuses to offer wage increases that:
Our Vision for UO: Excellence in Teaching & Research
The University of Oregon’s mission is clear:
“The University of Oregon is a comprehensive public research university committed to exceptional teaching, discovery, and service. We work at a human scale to generate big ideas. As a community of scholars, we help individuals question critically, think logically, reason effectively, communicate clearly, act creatively, and live ethically.”
Our vision for the University of Oregon is one where the educational and research mission are at the fore; an institution of higher learning where we attract and maintain the best researchers and instructors and provide a world class education for the citizens of Oregon and beyond. Yes, this will take a shift in economic priorities, but only back to those before the pandemic. Our demands are neither extravagant nor frivolous. Our demand is that the fiduciaries of the University of Oregon perform their primary fiduciary duty: support the mission of the University of Oregon.
Why This Matters Now
We are currently in state-mandated mediation, a final step before a potential faculty strike. Striking is a last resort—faculty do not want to disrupt student learning. However, the administration’s arguments for austerity do not align with the university’s financial situation or acknowledge the increased faculty labor and inflated economic reality since the pandemic. If the administration does not relent, we may have no choice but to strike.
We Need Your Support
A strong show of support from the UO community—students, parents, alumni, donors, legislators and citizens of Oregon and beyond—can help pressure the administration to do the right thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
