Between Empire and Enterprise: Harvard, Trump, and the Exploitation of International Students

As the Trump administration again targets immigrants and global institutions with punitive policies, international students at Harvard University—one of the world’s most prestigious academic brands—are experiencing what one student leader called “pure panic.” At the center of the storm: a now-halted move by the White House to revoke Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, threatening the legal status of thousands of students from nearly every country in the world.

Harvard responded with swift legal action, accusing the federal government of ideological retaliation. But while the Trump administration deserves criticism for its xenophobic and authoritarian maneuvers, it is equally important to interrogate Harvard’s own role in creating a system where international students are treated as both intellectual capital and financial assets.

Nearly 27% of Harvard’s student body—close to 7,000 individuals—comes from abroad. For decades, Harvard has positioned itself as a global institution, a magnet for the so-called "best and brightest" regardless of national origin. It has used this cosmopolitan image to bolster its prestige, attract philanthropic donations, and justify sky-high tuition rates. In reality, Harvard is not just a university—it is a flagship enterprise in the global neoliberal order.

This model—recruiting international students as both symbols of diversity and sources of income—reflects the logic of global capitalism more than the ideals of education. Harvard’s operations increasingly mirror those of a multinational corporation: high-end branding, worldwide recruitment, aggressive legal defense, and political lobbying. The foreign students it attracts are often among the global elite, or, in many cases, indebted strivers betting their futures on the supposed merits of a Harvard degree. When the political winds shift, as they have under Trump, these students are left exposed.

This is precisely what’s happening now.

Abdullah Shahid Sial, co-president of Harvard’s student body and a Pakistani national, told CNN that students are “very clearly, extremely afraid” about their legal status and whether they can return to campus. Some are stuck abroad, unsure if they’ll be allowed back. Others face suspended research projects or financial uncertainty. Sial praised Harvard officials for trying to help but also acknowledged the limitations. The window to transfer to other schools is closed for many. Aid packages, crucial to international students, don’t travel with them.

This crisis reveals the tension at the heart of elite higher education’s global ambitions. Harvard, like other elite U.S. universities, thrives on internationalism—so long as it serves its institutional goals. But when international students are treated not as community members but as liabilities or bargaining chips in political disputes, the myth of benevolent globalization unravels.

Yes, the Trump administration’s policies are driven by xenophobia and an open hostility to intellectual exchange. But they also expose the fragility and hypocrisy of the global education marketplace. International students are recruited into a system that offers opportunity but no guarantees, prestige but little protection.

Harvard cannot simply claim the moral high ground by suing the federal government. It must also reckon with its deep entanglement in the very structures that commodify students and expose them to geopolitical risk. For all its rhetoric about global citizenship, Harvard’s model remains fundamentally extractive—built to serve elite interests, not global equity.

If the United States is to remain a serious destination for global education, and if Harvard is to be more than a luxury brand in academic robes, the model must change. International students deserve more than branding and brochures. They deserve stability, legal protection, and a voice in the institutions that profit from their presence.

Until then, they remain trapped—between the nationalist paranoia of Washington and the neoliberal empire of Cambridge.

Preliminary Injunction Halts Dismantling of the Department of Education (Todd Wolfson, AAUP)

We got great news yesterday: In a suit we brought with Democracy Forward, the AFT, and other allies in the labor movement, a district court in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration’s unlawful effort to dismantle the Department of Education.  The massive reduction in force proposed by the administration would decimate crucial services the department provides to families across the country, severely limit access to education, and eviscerate funding for HBCUs and tribal colleges. We can’t do this work without your support. Will you become a member or make a donation to the AAUP Foundation today? Here’s some background on the case. In March, after having repeatedly expressed a desire to eliminate the Department of Education, the Trump administration announced a reduction in force that would cut its staff in half. Recognizing that the department was created by an act of Congress and was mandated to carry out a number of statutorily required programs, the administration claimed that it was not trying to eliminate the department but rather was seeking to improve “efficiency” and “accountability.” The court definitively rejected this claim, saying that the “defendants’ true intention is to effectively dismantle the Department without an authorizing statute. . . . A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all. This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself.” The court also highlighted the impact of the cuts on students, educational institutions, and unions. For example, the court found that “higher education is also likely to become more expensive for students” as the staffing cuts “will put federal funding for Pell grants, work-study programs and subsidized loans at risk, reducing the pool of students able to attend college and posing an existential threat to many state university systems such as those intended to serve first generation college students.” The court found that the administration had violated two clauses of the US Constitution, and that its actions were beyond its authority as well as arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, the court issued a preliminary injunction requiring the department to reinstate staff and resume operations disrupted by the cuts. Perhaps because of skepticism about the administration’s willingness to follow directives of the judiciary, the court specifically required that the administration provide notice of this order of preliminary injunction within twenty-four hours to all its officers, and that it “file a status report with this Court within 72 hours of the entry of this Order, describing all steps the Agency Defendants have taken to comply with this Order, and every week thereafter until the Department is restored to the status quo prior to January 20, 2025.” What’s next: It is almost certain that the administration will appeal this decision and will likely seek to have the preliminary injunction stayed by the court of appeals while the case is pending. Trump’s agenda is a clear path to setting America back in quality and fairness in education. The AAUP will continue to stand up against these attacks and fight for a higher education system that serves all Americans. We can’t do it without you. Please join us as a member or make a donation today! In solidarity, Todd Wolfson, AAUP President Veena Dubal, AAUP General Counsel

HEI Investigation: Campus.edu

In a sector under constant strain, Campus.edu is being heralded by some as the future of community college—and by others as a slick repackaging of the troubled for-profit college model. What many don’t realize is that before it became Campus.edu, the company was known as MTI College, a private, for-profit trade school based in Sacramento, California.

Campus.edu rebranded in 2020 under tech entrepreneur Tade Oyerinde, is backed by nearly $100 million in venture capital. Campus now markets itself as a tech-powered alternative to traditional community colleges—and a lifeline for students underserved by conventional higher ed.

The rebranding, however, raises red flags. While Campus.edu pitches a student-first mission with attractive promises—zero-cost tuition, free laptops, elite educators—the model has echoes of the troubled for-profit sector, with privatization, outsourcing, and digital-first delivery taking precedence over public accountability and academic governance.

The Promises: What Campus.edu Offers

Campus.edu markets itself with a clean, six-step path to success. The pitch is aspirational, accessible, and designed to appeal to working-class students, first-generation college-goers, and those shut out of elite institutions. Here’s what the company promises:

1. Straightforward Application – A simple application process, followed by matching with an admissions advisor who helps identify a student's purpose and educational fit.

2. Tech for Those Who Need It – A free laptop and Wi-Fi access for students who lack them, ensuring digital inclusion.

3. Personal Success Coach – Each student is assigned a personal success coach, offering free tutoring, career advising, and 24/7 access to wellness services.

4. Elite Educators – Courses are taught live via Zoom by faculty who also teach at top universities like Stanford and Columbia.

5. Enduring Support – Whether transferring to a four-year college or entering the workforce, Campus promises help with building skills and networks.

6. More Learning, Less Debt – For Pell Grant-eligible students, Campus markets its programs as costing nothing out-of-pocket, with some students completing degrees debt-free.

It’s a compelling narrative—combining social mobility, digital access, and educational prestige into a neat online package.

Behind the Curtain: MTI College and the For-Profit Legacy

Campus.edu did not rise out of nowhere. It emerged from the bones of MTI College, a long-running, accredited for-profit vocational school. MTI offered hands-on training in legal, IT, cosmetology, and health fields—typical offerings in the for-profit world. The purchase and transformation of MTI into Campus.edu allowed Oyerinde to retain accreditation, avoiding the long and uncertain process of seeking approval for a brand-new college.

This kind of maneuver—buying a for-profit and relaunching it under a new brand—is not new. We’ve seen similar strategies with Kaplan (now Purdue Global), Ashford (now the University of Arizona Global Campus), and Grand Canyon University. What makes Campus.edu unique is the degree to which it blends Silicon Valley aesthetics with the structural DNA of a for-profit college.

Missing Data, Big Promises

Campus.edu boasts high engagement and satisfaction, but as of now, no independent data on student completion, debt outcomes, or long-term career impact is publicly available. The company remains in its early stages, with aggressive growth goals and millions in investor backing—but little regulatory scrutiny.

With investors like Sam Altman (OpenAI), Jason Citron (Discord), and Bloomberg Beta, the pressure to scale is intense. But scale can come at the expense of quality, especially when students are promised the moon.

Marketing Meets Memory

Campus.edu is savvy. Its marketing strikes all the right notes: digital equity, economic mobility, mental health, and student empowerment. It presents itself as the antidote to everything wrong with higher education.

But as its past as MTI College shows, branding can obscure history. And as for-profit operators adapt to a new digital age, it’s essential to distinguish innovation from opportunism. Without transparency, regulation, and democratic oversight, models like Campus.edu could replicate the same old exploitation—with better user interfaces.

The stakes are high. For students already at the margins, a false promise can be more damaging than no promise at all.

Mental Health for the Working Class: Who’s Behind the Therapy Boom?

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, has significantly expanded access to mental health services in the United States, particularly for working-class individuals and families. The expansion of Medicaid and marketplace plans has made therapy and psychiatric care more accessible. However, the infrastructure supporting this mental health revolution is complex, under-resourced, and increasingly influenced by private equity. As more Americans seek care, questions arise about who is delivering that care—and whether the system prioritizes well-being or profits.

The Workforce Patchwork

The delivery of mental health services today relies on a varied network of professionals. In community clinics, federally qualified health centers, and outpatient networks, the bulk of therapeutic care comes from mid-level clinicians: Licensed Clinical Social Workers (LCSWs), Licensed Professional Counselors (LPCs), and Marriage and Family Therapists (MFTs). These are master's-level professionals who carry substantial educational and clinical training but are frequently underpaid and overworked.

Psychiatric Nurse Practitioners have also filled a critical gap, often handling medication management in lieu of psychiatrists, especially in rural and underserved areas. Meanwhile, case managers and peer support workers—some with minimal formal education—are tasked with providing wraparound services like housing support, job placement, and crisis management.

Psychiatrists and doctoral-level psychologists, though highly trained, are in short supply and are often unwilling to accept Medicaid or ACA plan reimbursements. This leaves many lower-income patients with few options for specialized care.

Enter Private Equity

In recent years, private equity (PE) firms have aggressively moved into the mental health space. Attracted by rising demand for services and relatively stable reimbursement streams from public insurance programs, PE investors have acquired numerous outpatient mental health clinics, telehealth platforms, and addiction treatment centers. Research indicates that PE firms now account for as much as a quarter of practices providing behavioral health services in some states (OHSU, 2024).

While this influx of capital has allowed for rapid expansion, it has also introduced new pressures on the workforce. To maximize returns, many PE-backed firms rely heavily on newly licensed clinicians or even graduate students under supervision. In some cases, providers are pushed into independent contractor roles to reduce labor costs and avoid benefit obligations.

Clinicians report being pressured to increase their patient loads, reduce session times, and adhere to standardized scripts or protocols designed for efficiency, not individualized care. Turnover is high, and burnout is common. A 2023 survey by the American Psychological Association found that over 60% of mental health practitioners reported experiencing symptoms of burnout (Therapy Wisdom, 2024).

The Role of Robocolleges in the Mental Health Pipeline

The rise of online, for-profit, and quasi-public "robocolleges"—such as Walden University, Purdue University Global, the University of Phoenix, Capella University, and others—has significantly shaped the labor pipeline for mental health services. These institutions mass-produce degrees in psychology, counseling, and social work, often catering to nontraditional and working adult students with limited time and financial resources.

Programs are designed for scale and efficiency, not necessarily for rigor or clinical depth. Courses are often asynchronous, adjunct-taught, and heavily standardized. Clinical placements and supervision, vital components of a therapist’s training, are sometimes outsourced or inadequately supported—leaving graduates with inconsistent real-world experience.

These institutions also disproportionately enroll students from lower-income and minority backgrounds, many of whom take on significant debt for degrees that may lead to low-paying, high-stress jobs in underfunded clinics or PE-owned mental health companies.

While robocolleges expand access to credentials, they may also contribute to a deprofessionalized, precarious workforce—one in which therapists are underprepared, underpaid, and overextended. Their graduates often fill the lower rungs of the mental health care ladder, working in environments where quality and continuity of care are compromised by systemic churn.

Quality and Equity in the Balance

The result is a mental health system that, while more accessible than in previous decades, is increasingly stratified. Working-class patients often receive care from entry-level or overburdened professionals, while wealthier clients can afford private practitioners who offer more time, continuity, and personalized care.

This imbalance is further complicated by a lack of oversight. Licensing boards and state agencies struggle to monitor the growing number of clinics and telehealth services, many of which operate across state lines or rely on algorithms to triage patients.

Meanwhile, the very people the ACA aimed to help—those juggling low-wage jobs, family stress, and systemic disadvantage—are left in a system where care may be quick, transactional, and occasionally substandard.

The Role of Traditional Higher Education

Traditional colleges and universities play a dual role: they continue to train therapists and counselors in more rigorous academic environments, but they also face growing pressure to "compete" with robocolleges in terms of cost, speed, and flexibility. At the same time, these institutions increasingly outsource student counseling services to external mental health platforms—some of them owned by private equity firms.

Thus, the cycle continues: higher education feeds the mental health system, while also adopting many of its structural compromises.

Conclusion

The expansion of mental health coverage under the ACA is a major public policy achievement. But access alone is not enough. The quality of care, the working conditions of providers, and the growing influence of profit-seeking investors and education mills all demand greater scrutiny.

For working-class Americans, mental health has become another arena where the promise of care often collides with the reality of austerity and privatization. And for those training to enter the profession, especially through robocolleges, the path forward may be just as precarious.

---

References:

• Private Equity’s Inroads Into Mental Health Bring Concern

• The State of the Behavioral Health Workforce, November 2024 – HRSA

• Private Equity’s Move into Behavioral Health Care and Disparities

• Therapist Burnout and Toxic Private Equity in 2025

• Private Equity Is Gutting Autism Services – The Nation

• OHSU Study: Private Equity Expanding into Mental Health

• University of Phoenix and the Business of Selling Degrees

• The Cost of a Walden Degree

One Big, Ugly, & Deadly Bill (Reverand William Barber)

 

Watch now   One Big, Ugly, & Deadly Bill We must sharpen our language & clarify what is at stake now William J. Barber, II May 21   READ IN APP   This morning I joined Amy Goodman on Democracy Now to talk about the bill that House Republican leadership worked through the night to push toward a vote on the floor. The more Americans learn about what’s in this bill, the more outrage there will be that House members are willing to vote for cuts that will devastate communities so their billionaire donors can have a massive tax break. (That’s why they’re meeting to talk about the details in the middle of the night.) We must sharpen our language to make clear what’s at stake in this one big, ugly, and death-dealing bill. And we must prepare ourselves for moral action. We are glad to announce that Indivisible, the national organization behind “No Kings Day” on June 14th, has joined our Moral Monday partners to mobilize a mass action on June 2 outside of the US Capitol. We invite you to register here if you can join us for Moral Monday on June 2. To learn more, plan to join me and Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin for a Substack Live on Tuesday, May 27, at 12pm ET. I’m also looking forward to a conversation here on Substack next week with Robert Reich. We will be live Wednesday, May 28, at 5:30pm ET/2:30pm PT. To join live conversations with us on Our Moral Moment, you just need to download the Substack app, subscribe for free, and turn out notifications. You’ll get a notice on your phone that we are going live.

How the New Cryptocurrency Bill Could Accelerate a US Financial Collapse

The United States Congress is on the brink of passing a sweeping cryptocurrency bill that, under the guise of fostering innovation, may be paving the way for the next financial crisis. While crypto lobbyists and venture capitalists tout the legislation as a long-overdue framework for digital assets, critics warn that the bill’s deregulatory nature undermines consumer protections, enables fraud, and weakens the federal government’s ability to prevent a systemic collapse.

The proposed legislation—championed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers with significant donations from the crypto industry—shifts regulatory authority from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the more industry-friendly Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). This move effectively reclassifies most cryptocurrencies as commodities rather than securities, shielding them from stringent disclosure and investor protection requirements.

The Bill’s Key Provisions: A Gift to Speculators

Among the most controversial elements of the bill:

• Loosening of Know-Your-Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) safeguards for certain crypto entities;

• Legalization of certain decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms, many of which operate without clear accountability;

• Minimal oversight of stablecoins, despite their systemic risks as shown in the 2022 TerraUSD collapse;

• Tax exemptions for certain crypto gains, incentivizing speculative investment.

Supporters argue these measures will solidify America’s dominance in financial innovation. But the bill’s leniency raises echoes of past financial debacles—from the dot-com bubble to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis—where unregulated markets spiraled out of control.

A House Built on Sand

Cryptocurrency markets have already proven themselves to be volatile, largely unbacked, and susceptible to manipulation. The 2022 crash wiped out over $2 trillion in market value and exposed the fragility of companies like FTX, Celsius, and Voyager Digital—each of which left everyday investors devastated while insiders cashed out early.

Now, by codifying a legal gray zone as a financial free-for-all, the US government may be inviting a larger catastrophe. With trillions of dollars potentially flowing into underregulated crypto assets, a major crash could trigger a chain reaction through the broader financial system, especially as more institutional players and retirement funds are drawn into the space under the new law.

An Economy at Risk

The consequences of a crypto-induced financial collapse could be profound:

• Working families—already crushed by student debt, housing inflation, and stagnant wages—may be lured into speculative investments out of desperation, only to lose their savings in the next collapse.

• University endowments and public pension systems—some of which have already dabbled in crypto—could suffer catastrophic losses, compounding the higher education affordability crisis.

• State and federal regulators, stripped of the tools needed to intervene effectively, will be unable to respond to crises in real-time, much as they were in the early days of the 2008 crash.

Moreover, this deregulatory trend sets a dangerous precedent: one in which the government abdicates its responsibility to protect the public in favor of appeasing Silicon Valley and Wall Street interests.

The Educated Underclass Will Pay the Price

As financial elites speculate with impunity, the economic fallout will disproportionately affect young people, especially recent college graduates burdened with debt and lacking stable employment. Many of these individuals are already being pushed into gig work, underemployment, or unpaid labor under the guise of "internship experience." A crypto-fueled crash could devastate whatever remaining economic foothold they have.

As the Higher Education Inquirer has chronicled, the rise of the educated underclass is not merely a generational shift—it is a structural consequence of policies that prioritize capital over community, markets over morals, and deregulation over democratic control. This bill is just the latest example.

A Crisis of Governance

Far from being a step forward, the new cryptocurrency bill reflects a larger crisis in American governance. It prioritizes short-term gains and corporate lobbying over long-term stability and social equity. By turning over the keys of financial regulation to the very industries that have proven incapable of self-regulation, the US may be steering itself into another devastating collapse.

The Higher Education Inquirer urges lawmakers, journalists, educators, and citizens to scrutinize this legislation with the urgency it deserves. A failure to act could turn today’s crypto dreams into tomorrow’s financial nightmare—one that once again leaves the working class holding the bag.

---

For further investigative reporting on the intersection of finance, higher education, and social equity, follow the Higher Education Inquirer.

Glean Learner Impact Report 2025: Learners at Risk of Failing Saw GPAs Increase 79% When Using a Supportive Note Taking and Study Tool

CLEARWATER, FLA, May 20, 2025— Glean, a provider of a supporting note taking and study tool that significantly improves student success, today announced the release of its The Learner Impact Report 2025. The study analyzed the impact of Glean’s supporting note taking and study tool on 600 higher education learners across the U.S. during the fall 2024 and winter 2025 semesters. The study found that students at risk of failing saw their GPA increase an average of 79% after using Glean. Moreover, Glean helped 45% of all students at community, public and private colleges improve their GPA. 

Glean employs learning science to create a digital note taking tool that captures all information from an in-person or online class on any device. The tool then encourages students to organize and refine their notes for studying. Glean’s Quiz Me feature uses AI to autogenerate questions solely from class material, not the wider web, to test students’ knowledge and identify gaps. 

Major findings from the report show that using research-based, supportive note taking and study tools benefits students in several ways:

GPA gains

At-risk students with an initial GPA of less than 2.0 saw the greatest benefit — their GPA increased by an average of 1.27 points. But students overall saw significant benefits, with their GPA growing on average by 0.15 points after taking notes and studying with Glean’s assistance.

Higher student confidence and wellbeing

More than three-quarters (76%) of all students felt more confident in their note taking skills, and confidence gains were highest among first-generation, ESL and adult undergraduates. Moreover, 78% said using these tools made studying less stressful and 76% said exam preparation was easier.

“New majority learners” benefited even more than traditional students

Non-traditional learners now constitute the majority in higher education: 40.2% of students in the U.S. are over the age of 22, and 69.3% work while studying. Part-time learners make up 39.2% of the student population, and the number of neurodiverse learners has increased by more than 2.5 times since 2004.

Students who identify as parents saw the highest GPA increase of new majority learners at 11.4%, more than double the percentage increase across all learners. They also ended the semester with the highest average GPA at 3.58. Students over the age of 25 saw the next biggest increase at 9%. 

Additionally, these groups saw their confidence in studying effectively increase by at least 20%, and almost 9 in 10 (88%) working students said working with these learning tools enabled them to enjoy their courses more.

Community college students saw the biggest GPA increase

Students at community colleges saw their GPAs increase from 2.95 to 3.32, on average, a 12% increase. Private college students saw gains from 3.3 to 3.43 (4% increase), while four-year public college students saw their GPAs grow from 3.36 to 3.48 (3.5% increase).

“More than ever, higher education is facing intense pressure to increase student retention and graduation rates,” said Dave Tucker, Founder and co-CEO, at Glean. “This report shows that Glean’s note taking and study tool significantly increases student achievement while also boosting their confidence and enjoyment. And while all students saw benefits, at-risk and New Majority students showed the greatest gains. With the right digital tools, students not only raise their GPA, but they also transform their learning experience, laying the foundation for future academic success.”

To read The Learner Impact Report 2025, visit https://glean.co/resources/learner-impact-report. 

About Glean

Glean’s mission is to unlock better learning for everyone, with courses that develop learning skills and tools that put knowledge into action. Glean’s products are beautifully simple, meaningfully structured, and effortlessly connected. Trusted by more than 800 institutions globally, Glean has assisted learners in over 1.6 million classes, empowering 91% of learners using Glean’s tools to improve and maintain their grades while reducing stress and boosting confidence. Especially as non-traditional students become the New Majority Learner, Glean helps institutions increase enrollment and grow graduation rates.

For more information on Glean, visit https://glean.co/. 

UK's College Meltdown

The UK higher education sector is teetering on the edge of a financial precipice, with a record number of institutions now operating at a loss. A recent analysis by The Telegraph found that 61 of 143 universities – roughly 43 percent of the sector – reported deficits in the 2023-24 academic year, marking the highest number ever recorded.

This fiscal freefall has provoked urgent calls from policy experts and university leaders for the UK government to reconsider its longstanding refusal to bail out struggling institutions. Critics warn that continued inaction could result in the collapse of one or more universities, with dire consequences for regional economies, local employment, and the UK’s global reputation in higher education.

Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), described the current path as “100 percent not sustainable.” He pointed out that many institutions have now run deficits for multiple consecutive years and noted that the situation has only deteriorated further since the reporting period, as inflation continues to erode tuition fee values and new taxes such as the National Insurance hike place added burdens on institutional budgets.

Among the most vulnerable are smaller, specialized universities such as Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln, which reported a staggering 19 percent deficit relative to income. Five institutions – Bishop Grosseteste, Cranfield University, the Guildhall School of Music and Drama, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), and the University of Reading – have reported losses for six consecutive years.

While some institutions are attempting to manage the crisis through internal restructuring and tapping into financial reserves, the scale of the challenge appears overwhelming. In 2023-24, UK universities laid off a record 10,223 staff across 108 institutions, with £210 million paid out in severance—nearly double the previous year. Notable cuts included Oxford University Press (656 staff) and the University of Central Lancashire (264 staff).

The underlying causes of the crisis are complex but familiar: flatlined domestic tuition fees, sharp declines in international student numbers, and research funding that consistently fails to cover costs. While the government has announced plans to index tuition fees to inflation beginning next year—a first since 2017—Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has made it clear that universities should not count on taxpayer-funded bailouts.

That stance has drawn criticism from both sides of the political aisle. Helen Hayes, Labour MP and chair of the Education Select Committee, warned that institutional bankruptcies would jeopardize not only education but also the social and economic fabric of entire communities. “Universities are often anchor institutions,” she said, “and their collapse could devastate local economies and diminish the UK’s international standing.”

Meanwhile, Universities UK CEO Vivienne Stern emphasized the broader impact of the crisis. “Falling per-student funding, visa changes, and the failure of research grants to cover costs are creating huge pressures across the UK. Our universities are a national asset, contributing over a quarter of a trillion pounds to the economy annually. We need them firing on all cylinders.”

Despite hopes that a Labour government might bring a more sympathetic approach, some university leaders are increasingly disillusioned. Nick Hillman noted that recent Labour proposals have echoed those of the previous Conservative administration, including restrictions on student visas. “There’s an even greater sense of demoralization,” he said. “It feels like the flames are getting closer.”

With staff morale at a historic low and financial pressures mounting, many institutions are making hard choices. Some, like Bishop Grosseteste and Coventry University, are investing in long-term restructuring despite short-term losses. Others, like the University of Reading and SRUC, are leaning on reserves and making strategic investments, hoping to weather the storm without compromising on quality.

But time may be running out. Without a comprehensive and sustainable funding solution from the government, the UK higher education sector could be heading for a reckoning that transforms its landscape for decades to come.

Will policymakers step in before institutions begin to fall—or will market forces be allowed to determine the future of British higher education?

Trump Administration Cancels $37 Million Fine Levied Against Grand Canyon U For Deceiving Students (David Halperin)

The Donald J. Trump administration, which claims its DOGE-driven reshaping of the federal government is aimed at cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, quietly cancelled a $37 million fine that the Department of Education, under the Biden administration, imposed in 2023 on Grand Canyon University. The fine was levied after Department investigators documented extensive findings that GCU, which takes billions in taxpayer dollars, systematically deceived students about the costs of their educations.

Grand Canyon announced the cancellation of the fine on its website on Friday.

Grand Canyon had appealed the fine to a review panel inside the Department. Republic Report contacted Grand Canyon spokesperson Bob Romantic last Wednesday inquiring about the status of the appeal; he messaged me that he would get back in touch Thursday to respond, but he didn’t respond to my follow-up message that day. The Department of Education did not reply to my request last week for comment on the appeal.

In its announcement Friday, Grand Canyon stated that the Department, by means of “a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal order issued by ED’s Office of Hearings and Appeals” acted to “dismiss[ ] the case with no findings, fines, liabilities or penalties of any kind.”

Grand Canyon, which bills itself as a Christian school, had waged a public campaign claiming it was attacked by the Biden administration on the basis of politics and religious persecution.

In reality, the $37 million fine, indeed unusually large for the Department, was pegged to the gravity and scope of the abuses, as well as the size of the institution and the taxpayer funds it receives: Phoenix-based Grand Canyon, which in 2022-23 enrolled more than 100,000 students in-person and online, gets the largest amount of federal student aid of any college or university in the country. GCU received $862 million from taxpayers for Department of Education federal student grants and loans in 2022-23 out of $1.3 billion in revenue, and received additional federal funding for student aid from the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

In a 34-page letter addressed to Grand Canyon president Brian Mueller in October 2023, the Department described in detail the deceptive conduct found by its investigators.


The Department concluded that Grand Canyon “lied to more than 7,500 former and current students about the cost of its doctoral programs over several years. GCU falsely advertised a lower cost than what 98% of students ended up paying to complete certain doctoral programs.”


The probe found that going back to 2017, GCU violated the prohibition in federal law against making “substantial misrepresentations” by failing to tell students enough about the cost of the school’s doctoral programs and stating on the school website and in other materials that the programs cost between $40,000 and $49,000. GCU’s own data, according to the Department, shows that less than 2 percent of graduates completed their students within the cost range that GCU advertised. Most students needed to enroll in and pay for “continuation courses” to complete the dissertation requirement in these doctoral programs. The school’s data also showed that 78 percent of doctoral program graduates had to pay between $10,000 and $12,000 more than GCU had advertised.

According to the Department, Grand Canyon “did not contest [the Department’s] determination that 98% of students enrolled in certain doctoral programs had to pay more than GCU’s advertised cost.”

Yet the Department under new Trump education secretary Linda McMahon has now let Grand Canyon off the hook.

GCU President Mueller said in a statement Friday, “The facts clearly support our contention that we were wrongly accused of misleading our Doctoral students and we appreciate the recognition that those accusations were without merit.”

Educator Mueller, who makes $661,000 as president of non-profit Grand Canyon University, and then another $2 million a year as CEO of the school’s for-profit servicing arm Grand Canyon Education, held a scare rally on the GCU campus in 2023 after his school was fined. There, he warned his audience, “There is a group of people in Washington DC who has the intention to harm us.” He also advanced the baseless and incendiary claim, subsequently echoed by conservative influencers, that Grand Canyon was targeted because it presents itself as a Christian school.

But the evidence developed by the Department’s investigation that GCU deceived doctoral students was echoed by many of those affected: The Department said last year that it had received more than 750 complaints by doctoral students against GCU since 2020.

As in the first Trump administration, people connected to for-profit colleges now have influence over higher education decisions at the Department. For example, Trump’s nominee for Under Secretary of Education, Nicholas Kent, currently a senior adviser at the Department, once was a senior staff member at the for-profit college lobbying group CECU. Prior to that, Kent was an executive at Education Affiliates, a Baltimore-based for-profit college operation that faced civil and criminal investigation and actions by the Justice Department for deceptive practices.

Another federal agency, the Federal Trade Commission, also has taken action against Grand Canyon, suing the school, for-profit arm Grand Canyon Education, and Mueller in Arizona federal court in December 2023 over the same deceptive claims to doctoral students about the costs and course requirements of programs — and claims about the school’s nonprofit status. The FTC also alleged that Grand Canyon engaged in deceptive and abusive telemarketing.

Grand Canyon has twice moved to throw out the FTC lawsuit, and the judge has dismissed some aspects of it, including removing GCU as a defendant, but the case is still pending, bogged down in disputes over discovery. (Mueller’s personal attorneys in the case include former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement and Steven Gombos.)

Grand Canyon said on Friday that the FTC lawsuit continues “despite the fact the lawsuit essentially raises the same manufactured nonprofit and doctoral disclosure claims that have been refuted, rejected and dismissed.”

The Trump administration has cancelled numerous law enforcement investigations against entities that have shown fealty to or ideological kinship with President Trump, and has fired the two Democratic commissioners on the FTC. But the FTC case against GCU, at least for now, is proceeding.

While some in the career college industry donated big to Trump, federal records show only one political contribution by Brian Mueller in the last federal cycle: $1000 in 2023 to Mike Pence for President.

Part of Grand Canyon’s righteous anger toward the Department of Education during Biden’s term focused on the Department’s refusal to recognize Grand Canyon as a non-profit school for purposes of Department rules, even though, after Grand Canyon converted its school from for-profit to non-profit, the IRS granted the school that status for tax purposes. But the ties between supposed non-profit Grand Canyon University and for-profit Grand Canyon Education were so blatant — GCU sends most of its revenue to publicly-traded GCE, and Brian Mueller is the head of both operations — that GCU’s non-profit status was rejected not by Biden education secretary Miguel Cardona, but by his predecessor, deeply Christian and deeply for-profit college-loving Betsy DeVos. (Last November, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed a district court decision upholding the Department’s denial of non-profit status to GCU and remanded to the Department to revisit the decision under a different legal standard.)

Even if the Trump administration has cancelled the Biden education department’s effort to protect America’s students from Grand Canyon’s deceptive and predatory practices, Grand Canyon’s legal troubles are not over. Beyond the FTC case, in June 2024, students filed a class action lawsuit against Grand Canyon Education, alleging that the company “orchestrated a deceitful racketeering scheme by misleading prospective students about the true cost of doctoral degrees at Grand Canyon University….” On May 6, a federal judge in Arizona rejected all but one of the arguments raised by GCE in a motion to dismiss, meaning the case will move forward on most of the students’ claims.

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