Borrower Defense Claims Surpass 750,000. Consumers Empowered. Subprime Colleges and Programs Threatened.

The Higher Education Inquirer has posted a number of articles about student loan debt. In 2023, the student loan mess has reached epic proportions. Not only has the US Federal Student Aid debt portfolio reached more than $1.6 Trillion, we learned that $674 Billion was estimated to be unrecoverable. 

In California, the US District Court in Sweet v Cardona agreed to a $6 Billion settlement between student debtors and the US Department of Education. 

In Texas, a group representing for-profit colleges has sued the US Department of Education for their actions in settling Borrower Defense claims. 

And across the US, about 40 million student debtors and their families are awaiting a decision from the US Supreme Court—a decision that will not likely favor the debtors.

Borrower Defense, Subprime Colleges, Subprime Programs

Borrower Defense to Repayment claims are claims by student loan debtors that their school misled them or engaged in other misconduct in violation of certain state laws. The Department of Education may discharge all or some of the student loan debt and hold the school and its owners responsible. 

As of January 2023, there are more than three quarters of a million Borrower Defense claims against schools. And each month, about 16,000 new claims are added.  Evidence from the Sweet v Cardona case revealed that only about 35 workers were responsible for processing hundreds of thousands of claims. Those claims have been disproportionately made against a number of for-profit colleges and formerly for-profit colleges, what we call “subprime colleges.”   

Some of these subprime schools have closed (Everest College, ITT Tech, and Westwood College for example), some remain in business as for-profit colleges (like University of Phoenix and Colorado Tech), some have changed names and become covert for-profit colleges or robocolleges (like Purdue University Global, University of Arizona Global Campus, and the Art Institutes), and some schools act act like subprime colleges regardless of tax status. This includes low-return on investment programs at several US robocolleges and overly expensive graduate programs offered by 2U, an online program manager for elite colleges.  

In the Sweet v Cardona case, more than 200,000 student borrowers are expecting to receive full debt relief after years of struggling.  A Facebook group Borrower Defense-Sweet vs. Cardona currently has more than 14,000 members. 

Named plaintiffs Theresa Sweet (L) and Alicia Davis (R) outside the federal district court in San Francisco on November 6, 2022, three days before the final approval hearing in Sweet v Cardona (Image credit: Ashley Pizzuti)

Transparency and Accountability 

The US Department of Education keeps an accounting of Borrower Defense claims, but only publishes the aggregate numbers, not institutional numbers. Those institutional numbers do make a difference in promoting transparency and accountability for the largest bad actors. So why does the Department of Education not publish those institutional numbers?

 
The National Student Legal Defense Network submitted a FOIA (22-01683F) to the US Department of Education (ED) in January 2022 asking just for that information. And what HEI has discovered is that just a small number of schools garnered the lion's share of the Borrower Defense claims. To get a digital copy of that information, please email us for a free download.

Related links:

Borrower Defense-Sweet vs Cardona (Facebook private group)  

Project on Predatory Student Lending

Sweet v. Cardona Victory (Matter of Life and Debt podcast)

I Went on Strike to Cancel My Student Debt and Won. Every Debtor Deserves the Same. (Ann Bowers)

An Email of Concern to the People of Arkansas about the University of Phoenix (Tarah Gramza)

People's Rally for Student Debt Cancellation to be held outside Supreme Court, February 28, 2023

 
A Letter to the US Department of Education and Student Loan Servicers on Behalf of Student X (Heidi Weber)  

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents"

Subprime College Crash Continues Under the Radar

2U Virus Expands College Meltdown to Elite Universities

Maximus, Student Loan Debt, and the Poverty Industrial Complex

 
More Transparency About the Student Debt Portfolio Is Needed: Student Debt By Institution  

The Future of Federal Student Loans

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.

U.S. Department of Education: Strained Resources and Outsourcing

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is responsible for managing federal student loan servicing, loan forgiveness programs, and borrower defense to repayment (BDR) claims. However, ED has faced ongoing issues with understaffing and inefficiency, particularly as many functions have been outsourced to contractors. Companies like Maximus (including subsidiaries like AidVantage) manage much of the administrative burden for loan servicing. This has raised concerns about accountability and the impact on borrowers, especially those seeking loan relief.

In recent years, ED has also experienced staff reductions and funding cuts, making it difficult to process claims or maintain high-quality service. The potential for further cuts or even the elimination of the department could exacerbate these problems. If ED’s role is diminished, other entities, such as the Department of the Treasury, could assume responsibility for managing the student loan portfolio, though this would present its own set of challenges.

Potential for Privatization of the Student Loan Portfolio

One of the most discussed options for addressing the student loan crisis is the privatization of the federal student loan portfolio. Under previous administration discussions, including those during President Trump’s tenure, there were talks about selling off parts of the student loan portfolio to private companies. This would be done with the aim of reducing the federal deficit.

In 2019, McKinsey & Company was hired by the Trump administration to analyze the value of the student loan portfolio, considering factors such as default rates and economic conditions. While the report's findings were never made public, the idea of transferring the loans to private companies—such as banks or investment firms—remains a possibility.

The consequences of privatizing federal student loans could be significant. Private companies would likely focus on profitability, which could result in stricter repayment terms or less flexibility for borrowers seeking loan forgiveness or other relief options. This shift may reduce borrower protections, making it harder for students to challenge repayment terms or pursue loan discharges.

The Department of the Treasury and its Potential Role

If the U.S. Department of Education is restructured or eliminated, there is a possibility that the Department of the Treasury could step in to manage some aspects of the student loan portfolio. The Treasury is responsible for the country’s financial systems and debt management, so it could, in theory, handle the federal student loan portfolio from a financial oversight perspective.

However, while the Treasury has experience in financial management, it lacks the specialized knowledge of student loans and borrower protections that the Department of Education currently provides. For example, the Treasury would need to find ways to process complex Borrower Defense to Repayment claims, a responsibility ED currently manages. In 2023, over 750,000 Borrower Defense claims were pending, with thousands of claims related to predatory practices at for-profit colleges such as University of Phoenix, ITT Tech, and Kaplan University (now known as Purdue Global). Additionally, some of these for-profit schools were able to reorganize and continue operating under different names, further complicating the situation.

The Treasury could also contract out loan servicing, but this could increase reliance on profit-driven companies, possibly compromising the interests of borrowers in favor of financial performance.

Borrower Defense Claims and the Impact of For-Profit Schools

A large portion of the Borrower Defense to Repayment claims comes from students who attended for-profit colleges with a history of deceptive practices. These institutions, often referred to as subprime colleges, misled students about job prospects, program outcomes, and accreditation, leaving many with significant student debt but poor employment outcomes.

Data from 2023 revealed that over 750,000 Borrower Defense claims were filed with the Department of Education, many of them against for-profit institutions. The Sweet v. Cardona case showed that more than 200,000 borrowers were expected to receive debt relief after years of waiting. However, the process was slow, with an estimated 16,000 new claims being filed each month, and only 35 ED workers handling these claims. These delays, combined with the uncertainty around the future of ED, leave borrowers vulnerable to prolonged financial hardship. 

Lack of Transparency and Accountability in the System

While the U.S. Department of Education tracks Borrower Defense claims, it does not publish institutional-level data, making it difficult to identify which schools are responsible for the most fraudulent activity. 

In response to this, FOIA requests have been filed by organizations like the National Student Legal Defense Network and the Higher Education Inquirer to obtain detailed information about which institutions are disproportionately affecting borrowers. 

In one such request, the Higher Education Inquirer asked for information regarding claims filed against the University of Phoenix, a school with a significant number of Borrower Defense claims.

The lack of transparency in the system makes it harder for borrowers to make informed decisions about which institutions to attend and limits accountability for schools that have harmed students. If the Treasury or private companies take over management of the loan portfolio, these transparency issues could worsen, as private entities are less likely to prioritize public accountability.

Conclusion

The future of the U.S. student loan system is uncertain, particularly as the Department of Education faces the potential of funding cuts, staff reductions, or even complete dissolution. If ED’s role diminishes or disappears, the Department of the Treasury could take over some functions, but this would raise questions about the fairness and transparency of the system.

The possibility of privatizing the student loan portfolio also looms large, which could shift the focus away from borrower protections and toward financial gain for private companies. For-profit schools, many of which have a history of predatory practices, are responsible for a disproportionate number of Borrower Defense claims, and any move to privatize the loan portfolio could exacerbate the challenges faced by borrowers seeking relief from these institutions.

Ultimately, there is a need for greater transparency and accountability in how the student loan system operates. Whether managed by the Department of Education, the Treasury, or private companies, protecting borrowers and ensuring fairness should remain central to any future reforms. If these issues are not addressed, millions of borrowers will continue to face significant financial hardship.

Borrower Defense Stories: The Human Cost of Higher Education Fraud

Over the past month, the Higher Education Inquirer has chronicled the experiences of borrowers misled by predatory institutions—mainly for-profit colleges—through its Borrower Defense Story Series. These narratives shed light on the deeply personal consequences of institutional deception and a federal loan forgiveness process that is often slow, bureaucratic, and uneven in its outcomes.

The stories are as diverse as the students who tell them, but they share a common theme: individuals who sought to improve their lives through education but were instead left with debt, broken promises, and uncertain futures.

In the first story, “I Did Everything Right. And I’m Still Paying for a Degree I Never Got,” a single mother describes her experience at Chamberlain University School of Nursing. She followed every instruction, met every deadline, and committed herself to a profession in health care. Yet she never earned her degree. Despite this, she remains burdened with thousands of dollars in student loan debt. Her borrower defense application has yet to yield relief.

In “Anxiety & Interest (KH),” another borrower shares her journey with Kaplan University Online. Lured by promises of job placement and flexibility, KH soon realized that the school’s assurances were empty. The debt accumulated rapidly. After transferring to another college and completing her degree elsewhere, she applied for borrower defense, but the outcome remains unclear. Her story highlights the emotional and psychological toll of dealing with deceptive institutions and a broken loan forgiveness system.

The third story in the series, “Modern Indentured Servitude,” critiques the broader system of higher education finance. It describes how students—particularly those without wealth or institutional support—are drawn into debt relationships that limit their freedom, autonomy, and economic mobility. Rather than offering a pathway to security or upward mobility, college becomes a mechanism of financial entrapment.

In the most recent installment, “Fashion Gone Bad for a Private Student Borrower,” a former fashion student recounts how she took on private loans to attend a program marketed with glowing career outcomes. In reality, the education was minimal, job prospects were nonexistent, and her private loans—unlike federal loans—offered no path for borrower defense relief. The result was financial devastation with no recourse.

These stories are not isolated. As of April 30, 2024, over 974,000 borrowers had received more than $17 billion in loan discharges under the borrower defense rule. Many of these were through group claims tied to settlements involving institutions like Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, and DeVry. However, hundreds of thousands of other borrowers still await decisions, and many more are excluded entirely—either because they took out private loans, their schools were not included in settlements, or their claims have been delayed indefinitely.

The Borrower Defense to Repayment rule was intended to protect students from institutional fraud. But implementation has been marred by political interference, legal challenges, inconsistent enforcement, and an overwhelmed bureaucracy. The HEI story series captures what those numbers and legal filings cannot: the lived experience of people who were deceived, indebted, and left behind.

HEI continues to collect and share these narratives—not only to document harm but to advocate for deeper accountability, faster relief, and a transformation of the credential-based education economy that profits from the desperation of working-class students.

Sources
https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/07/i-did-everything-right-and-im-still.html
https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/07/fashion-gone-bad-for-private-student.html
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106530
https://standup4borrowerdefense.com
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2023/10/24/colleges-concerned-about-rise-borrower-defense-claims

Dreams I'll Never See: Higher Ed’s Broken Promises and the American Student

“I’m hung up on dreams I’ll never see.”

That Southern rock refrain from Molly Hatchet captures the bitter reality faced by millions of Americans who invested in higher education only to be left with debt, shattered hopes, and uncertain futures.

Educator Gary Roth’s The Educated Underclass points to a growing class of credentialed individuals caught in precarious economic and social positions—overqualified yet underpaid, burdened by debt without the stability education promised. Yet it is the borrowers’ own stories that reveal the human toll behind the numbers.

Over the past month, The Higher Education Inquirer has chronicled the experiences of borrowers misled by predatory institutions—mainly for-profit colleges—through its Borrower Defense Story Series. These narratives shed light on the deeply personal consequences of institutional deception and a federal loan forgiveness process that is often slow, bureaucratic, and uneven.

In one story, a single mother describes her experience at Chamberlain University School of Nursing. She followed every instruction, met every deadline, and committed herself fully to a career in health care. Yet she never earned her degree. Despite this, she remains burdened with thousands of dollars in student loan debt. Her borrower defense application has yet to yield relief.

Another borrower shares her journey with Kaplan University Online, where promises of flexible learning and job placement proved empty. After transferring and completing her degree elsewhere, she still faces uncertainty as her borrower defense claim drags on, highlighting the emotional toll of navigating a broken loan forgiveness system.

A third story critiques the broader system of higher education finance, describing how students—especially those without family wealth or institutional support—become trapped in debt relationships that limit their autonomy and economic mobility. Rather than offering a pathway to security, college becomes a mechanism of financial entrapment.

Most recently, a former fashion student recounts how private loans—unlike federal loans—offered no path for borrower defense relief after she attended a program marketed with glowing career outcomes that never materialized. The result was devastating financial consequences with little recourse.

These individual stories are not exceptions. As of April 30, 2024, over 974,000 borrowers had received more than $17 billion in loan discharges under borrower defense rules, mostly through group claims tied to scandals involving Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, and DeVry. Yet hundreds of thousands still await decisions, and many are excluded entirely due to private loans, school exclusions, or bureaucratic delays.

The borrower defense rule was meant to shield students from fraud, but political interference, legal challenges, and an overwhelmed bureaucracy have marred its implementation. Behind the statistics are people deceived, indebted, and left behind.

Meanwhile, elite institutions hoard resources, adjunct faculty struggle to survive, and the promise of higher education rings hollow for many.

“I’m hung up on dreams I’ll never see.” This lyric is not just poetry but the lived reality for millions. Unless there is radical change—debt cancellation, labor protections, honest admissions, and accountability—the cycle of exploitation will only grow louder.

Some were sold dreams they could never afford. Many of those dreams are now lost.

---

Sources

Roth, Gary. The Educated Underclass. Pluto Press, 2022
National Center for Education Statistics. “Debt After College”
The Institute for College Access and Success (TICAS). “Student Debt and the Class of 2023”
American Psychological Association. “Mental Health Impacts of Student Debt”
Bousquet, Marc. How the University Works. NYU Press, 2008
McMillan Cottom, Tressie. Lower Ed. The New Press, 2017
https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/07/i-did-everything-right-and-im-still.html
https://www.highereducationinquirer.org/2025/07/fashion-gone-bad-for-private-student.html
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106530
https://standup4borrowerdefense.com
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2023/10/24/colleges-concerned-about-rise-borrower-defense-claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Borrower Defense Case Goes to US Supreme Court. How will it decide?

On January 10, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Department of Education’s petition for a writ of certiorari to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Career Colleges and Schools of Texas v. Department of Education. The Fifth Circuit had preliminarily enjoined the 2022 Borrower Defense to Repayment (BDR) final rule on a nationwide basis. This rule, published on November 1, 2022 (87 Fed. Reg. 65,904), is a key component of the Biden administration’s broader student loan forgiveness efforts.

The Supreme Court’s review will focus on one pivotal question: whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Higher Education Act does not permit the assessment of borrower defenses to repayment before default, in administrative proceedings, or on a group basis. Notably, the Court will not address the second question posed by the Department: whether the appeals court erred in ordering the district court to grant preliminary relief on a universal basis.

Background and Legal Battle

The lawsuit originated on February 28, 2023, when the Career Colleges and Schools of Texas (CCST) filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. CCST sought to enjoin and vacate the 2022 BDR rule, arguing that it creates unlawful processes, serves no legitimate purpose under the Higher Education Act, and constitutes executive overreach by the Biden administration, violating the Department’s statutory authority and the Constitution’s separation of powers.

After the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas denied the preliminary injunction, CCST pursued an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On April 4, 2024, the Fifth Circuit overturned the lower court’s decision and, despite the Department’s objections, postponed the effective date of the 2022 BDR rule pending final judgment. The Department’s petition for rehearing was denied, prompting its appeal to the Supreme Court.

What’s at Stake

The Supreme Court’s decision will likely have significant consequences for both borrowers and institutions. If the Court rules against the Department of Education, it could severely limit the scope of borrower defense claims, especially on a group basis, making it harder for defrauded students to receive relief. For-profit colleges and other institutions might feel emboldened to challenge similar regulations and forgiveness measures.

A ruling in favor of the Department, while seemingly less likely given the Court’s conservative majority, would affirm the Biden administration’s approach to processing borrower defenses and may secure loan forgiveness for thousands of borrowers who attended predatory institutions.

The Political Dimension

The timing of this case is crucial. Just days before the Supreme Court granted certiorari, the Biden administration announced the cancellation of loans for 150,000 borrowers—most of which were through the borrower defense process. Shortly afterward, additional forgiveness for income-based repayment plan borrowers and individual borrower defense approvals was announced. However, the future of these forgiveness efforts remains uncertain, as the second Trump administration has signaled intentions to rollback or revise Biden’s loan forgiveness policies.

A Conservative Court’s Approach to Executive Power

Given the Supreme Court’s current composition and its recent track record in cases like West Virginia v. EPA, it seems likely that the justices will scrutinize the executive authority wielded in crafting the BDR rule. The conservative majority may favor a narrow interpretation of the Higher Education Act, signaling that large-scale forgiveness should come from Congress rather than executive agencies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the 2022 BDR rule will set a precedent that could define the future of student debt relief and the Department of Education’s authority. For borrowers hoping for widespread relief, the outcome could mean the difference between long-awaited forgiveness and a protracted legal battle. For institutions, particularly for-profits, a ruling against the Department could bolster their resistance to accountability measures.

Defenders of the Higher Ed Business: How Lawyers Shield a Broken Industry

In the long decline of American higher education, a certain class of professionals has quietly prospered—lawyers who specialize in defending institutions from the consequences of their own behavior. These attorneys rarely appear in public debates over student debt, predatory recruitment, or collapsing regional colleges. Yet their fingerprints are everywhere: in courtroom strategies designed to run out the clock, in motions that narrow the rights of borrowers, in settlement agreements that mask wrongdoing without forcing structural reform. They are the legal custodians of an industry that has spent decades avoiding accountability.

These lawyers often frame their role as neutral, simply providing representation to clients who need it. But the nature of the representation matters. When institutions mislead students, inflate job-placement claims, push them into unaffordable debt, or fire whistleblowers who object to unethical practices, these firms defend the institution—not the student, not the truth, and certainly not the public interest. Litigation summaries and public communications frequently present a parallel universe in which colleges are the victims, regulators are overreaching meddlers, and students who seek restitution are opportunists or pawns of political forces.

The legal work is highly lucrative. In many cases, struggling institutions spend more on their attorneys than they do on direct student support. Colleges on the brink of closure still find six-figure retainers to fight state attorney general investigations or borrower defense claims. Public institutions use taxpayer dollars to shield themselves from transparency, all while students—particularly first-generation, low-income, and working-class students—absorb the losses. Attorneys in this sector are acutely aware of the harms their clients may have caused, yet their work consistently prioritizes institutional preservation over student restitution.

The history of this defense strategy is well documented. In 2011, federal courts began seeing cases from former students challenging institutions for misleading claims, untransferable credits, and failure to provide promised training. Courts often compelled arbitration, effectively removing class action rights and leaving individual students to pursue costly and complex proceedings alone. This pattern set a precedent: institutional defense relied on procedural tools rather than addressing substantive misconduct. Between 2012 and 2013, state supreme courts upheld arbitration clauses that stripped students of collective redress, signaling to institutions that strategic legal defenses could block accountability. Students’ claims of misrepresentation, fraud, and breaches of enrollment agreements were repeatedly forced into private arbitration. The courts emphasized procedural enforcement over consideration of the underlying harms, allowing institutions to continue operating without public scrutiny.

From 2015 to 2018, the Department of Education’s Inspector General documented widespread mismanagement of federal Title IV funds, showing that hundreds of millions in federal loans were issued to students at institutions that were later found to have misrepresented outcomes or violated federal regulations. Lawsuits brought by former students during this period, including allegations under the False Claims Act, were often dismissed or compelled to arbitration. Institutions were shielded, while borrowers were left with debt and limited recourse.

In 2018 and 2019, state attorneys general filed enforcement actions against multiple institutions for fraudulent recruitment practices and misrepresentation of accreditation status. In almost every case, institutions relied on their legal teams to secure procedural victories: dismissal of class action claims, enforcement of arbitration clauses, and delays in settlements. While regulators attempted to intervene, the structural power of corporate legal defense delayed, diluted, or obscured accountability. During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020–2021, students sued institutions for failure to provide adequate online instruction and for abrupt changes in course delivery. Defense attorneys successfully argued that enrollment agreements allowed these operational changes, resulting in widespread dismissal of student claims. Again, institutional defense won the day while students absorbed the financial and educational consequences.

From 2022 to 2025, the Borrower Defense to Repayment program and the SAVE Plan promised relief for students harmed by mismanaged institutions. Yet litigation and regulatory challenges have slowed implementation. Institutions and their attorneys have repeatedly used procedural maneuvers to contest forgiveness, compel arbitration, or delay repayments, leaving thousands of students in limbo while debt accumulates. Throughout this period, legal strategy has consistently prioritized institutional survival over student restitution. Arbitration clauses, procedural dismissals, and regulatory delay have allowed colleges and universities to maintain access to federal funds, complete mergers, or restructure under bankruptcy protection, all while leaving harmed students with debt, disrupted education, and minimal legal recourse.

These attorneys also help shape the narratives consumed by policymakers, journalists, and college trustees. Public-facing summaries often downplay institutional misconduct and amplify court decisions that limit student rights. They rarely acknowledge the emotional and financial devastation suffered by borrowers or the systemic risks created when institutions know their lawyers can absorb most of the blow. Instead, they champion a legal environment that treats higher education primarily as a business subject to claims risk, not as a public trust.

Justice, in this ecosystem, becomes a matter of resources. Students and former employees face a wall of corporate legal expertise, while institutions with long records of abuse continue to operate behind settlements and sealed agreements. Attorneys who could use their considerable skills to protect the most vulnerable instead use them to reinforce a system that extracts value from students and leaves them to fend for themselves once the promises fall apart.

The Higher Education Inquirer has long documented the College Meltdown: the closures, the debt, the failed oversight, and the human cost. But the meltdown is not only a story about administrators, investors, or federal agencies. It is also a story about the lawyers who defend the indefensible and who help maintain a higher education marketplace where accountability is optional and harm is routine. They may sleep well, but only because the consequences of their work are borne by others.

The question is not how they sleep at night. The question is how many more students will lose before the legal strategies that protect institutions are no longer enough to protect the industry itself.

Sources:

U.S. Department of Education, Borrower Defense to Repayment decision data, 2022–2025

Government Accountability Office (GAO), “For-Profit Colleges: Student Outcomes and Federal Oversight,” 2021

Department of Education Office of Federal Student Aid, Borrower Defense decisions, 2020–2025

State Attorneys General filings and enforcement actions against higher education institutions, 2018–2023

U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General, audits and reports on Title IV program compliance, 2015–2022

GAO report on arbitration clauses in for-profit colleges, 2018

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms

A Notice by the Education Department on 05/19/2025

Department of Education[Docket No.: ED-2025-SCC-0002]

AGENCY:

Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).

DATES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 18, 2025.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain to access the site. Find this information collection request (ICR) by selecting “Department of Education” under “Currently Under Review,” then check the “Only Show ICR for Public Comment” checkbox. Reginfo.gov provides two links to view documents related to this information collection request. Information collection forms and instructions may be found by clicking on the “View Information Collection (IC) List” link. Supporting statements and other supporting documentation may be found by clicking on the “View Supporting Statement and Other Documents” link.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, 202-453-5967.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms.

OMB Control Number: 1845-0163.

Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 83,750.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 217,750.

Abstract: On April 4, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit granted a preliminary injunction against 34 CFR 685.400 et seq. (“2023 Regulation”) enjoining the rule and postponing the effective date of the regular pending final judgment in the case. The current Borrower Defense to Repayment application and related Request for Reconsideration are drafted to conform to the enjoined provisions of the 2023 Regulation. This request is to revise the currently approved information collection 1845-0163 to comply with the regulatory requirements of the borrower defense regulations that are still in effect, 34 CFR 685.206(e) (“2020 Regulation”), 34 CFR 685.222 (“2016 Regulation”), and 34 CFR 685.206(c) (“1995 Regulation”) (together, the “current regulations”). These regulatory requirements are distinct from the 2023 Regulation's provisions. The revision is part of contingency planning in case the 2023 Regulation is permanently struck down. The Department of Education (“the Department”) is attaching an updated Borrower Defense Application and application for Request for Reconsideration. The forms will be available in paper and electronic forms on studentaid.gov and will provide borrowers with an easily accessible and clear method to provide the information necessary for the Department to review and process claim applications. Also, under the current regulations, the Department will no longer require a group application nor group reconsideration application.


Dated: May 13, 2025.

Brian Fu,

Program and Management Analyst, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.


[FR Doc. 2025-08857 Filed 5-16-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
Published Document: 2025-08857 (90 FR 21296)

University of Phoenix and the Ash Heap of Higher Ed History

 (Updated September 14, 2023)

The University of Phoenix (or at least its name) may soon enter the ash heap of US higher education history--and rise again as a state-run robocollege.  But it shouldn't--at least not yet. Once hailed as the leader in affordable adult education for workers entering middle management, it is a shell of its former self--in an economy less certain for workers and consumers. 

With the school's wreckage are approximately one million people buried alive in an estimated $14B-$35B in student loan debt.  

Pattern of Fraud

As of January 2023, more than 69,000 of these student loan debtors have filed Borrower Defense to Repayment fraud claims with the US Department of Education against the University of Phoenix (UoPX). Many more could file claims when they become aware of their rights to debt relief. In the partial FOIA response below, the US Department of Education reported that 69,180 Borrower Defense claims had been made against the school.

In a recent federal case, Sweet v Cardona, most if not all of the 19,860 "denied" cases were overturned in favor of the student loan debtors.  We estimate the smaller number of fraud claims alone to amount to hundreds of millions of dollars.  

Through a FOIA request, we also discovered 6,265 consumer complaints in the FTC database. In 2019, the FTC and the University of Phoenix settled a claim for $191M for deceptive employment claims.  Based on the consumer complaints, we have no reason to believe that Phoenix has changed its behavior as a bad actor. 

On May 3, 2023, six US Senators (Warren, Brown, Blumenthal, Durbin, Merkley, Hassan) called for the US Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Defense to investigate the University of Phoenix for launching a new program suggesting that it was a public university.  The letter stated that the school "has long preyed on veterans, low-income students, and students of color."

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing

University of Phoenix's owners could potentially be liable for refunding the US government for the fraud. But as a state-related organization, it may be more politically difficult to claw back funds, no matter how predatory the school is.  

Purdue University Global and University of Arizona Global set a precedence in state-related organizations acquiring subprime schools (Kaplan University and Ashford University) and rebranding them as something better. Whether they are better for consumers is questionable. Phoenix will have to cut costs, largely by reducing labor. Using Indian labor (like Purdue Global) and AI could be profitable strategies.  It's likely that this deal, even if profitable, will add fuel to the growing skepticism of higher education in the US. 

University of Phoenix's Finances

Apollo Global Management and Vistria Group currently own University of Phoenix but have been trying (unsuccessfully) to unload the subprime college for more than two years. Little is publicly known about the school's finances. What is known is that UoPX gets about $800M every year from the federal government, through federal student loans, Pell Grants, GI Bill funds, and DOD Tuition Assistance.

Despite this government funding, US Department of Education data show the school's equity value for the Arizona segment declined significantly, from $361M in FY 2018 to $187M in FY 2021. 

$347M of the University of Phoenix's $518M in assets are intangible assets. Intangible assets typically include intellectual property and brand reputation. The school has $348M in liabilities.  

The University of Phoenix has been reducing expenses by cutting instructional costs, from $70M in FY 2020 to $60M in FY 2021. UoPX spends about 8 percent of its revenues on instruction.

Marketing and advertising expenses are not available, but Phoenix has been visible on the Discovery Channel's Shark Week, CBS' Big Brother, and other television events. ISpot.tv reports that University of Phoenix spends millions of dollars each year on television ads.  On one ad alone, the ad spend from February 2023 to July 2023 was an estimated $3.5M. 

Attempts to Sell UoPX

There have been two known potential buyers for the University of Phoenix: the University of Arkansas System and the University of Idaho. In both cases, the owners required the potential buyers to keep the deal secret until the sale was imminent.  

Fear of the impending higher education enrollment cliff appears to be an important pitch to potential buyers. 

Arkansas, the first target, was in the process of making the deal, and it might have gone through if nit for the voice of one whistleblower and one outstanding investigative reporter, Debra Hale Shelton of the Arkansas Times.

In the case of Idaho, news of the potential deal was publicly noted just one day before the preliminary agreement was made with the Idaho Board of Education. Two other secret meetings were held before that.  

A number of journalists including Kevin Richert (Idaho EdNews), Laura Guido (The Idaho Press), Troy Oppie (Boise State Public Radio), and Noble Brigham (Idaho Statesman) have exposed some of the problems and potential problems with the deal.  In June, Idaho legislators began questioning the acquisition.  

More recently, the opinion editor at the Idaho Statesman argued that the deal may actually be worthwhile. 

Particulars about the finances are sketchy at best and misleading at worst.  The University of Phoenix is said to include $200M in cash in the deal, but they have not said how much of that sum is required by law as "restricted cash"--money the school needs if the Department of Education needs to claw back funds.  Phoenix also claims to be highly profitable, but without showing any evidence.  

What is known about the deal is that the University of Idaho will have to borrow $685M and put its (bond) credit rating at risk. The school has not identified important information how the bonds would be sold (underwriters, bond raters, date to maturity, interest rate). 

The University of Idaho has created an FAQ to answer questions about the sale, but HEI has identified a number of misleading statements about University of Phoenix's present finances (failure to report the school's equity), potential liability (cost of tens of thousands of Borrower Defense claims), and leadership (lack of background information about Chris Lynne, the President of the University of Phoenix).  These deficiencies have been reported to the University of Idaho and to the Representative Horman. 

On June 20, Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador filed a lawsuit to halt, or at least slow down the deal. 

The University of Idaho submitted a Pre-Acquisition Review from the US Department of Education, and it may take up to three months before the application is completed. 

As of September 2023, the deal is far from done.  Since this article was first published there have been a number of developments:

On September 11,  US Senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, and Richard Blumenthal called on University of Idaho President Green to abandon the sale.  The Senators also asked Green if he had a plan to pay for the Borrower Defense claims, noting that University of Arizona may be on the hook for thousands of claims against Ashford University (aka University of Arizona Global campus).

In November, the Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee of the Idaho Legislature is expected to discuss the issue again.

*The Higher Education Inquirer has made a FOIA request for more up-to-date numbers from the US Department of Education. We have also filed FOIA requests with the FTC. 

Related link: 

How University of Phoenix Failed. It's a Long Story. But It's Important for the Future of Higher Education.

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents"

More Transparency About the Student Debt Portfolio Is Needed: Student Debt By Institution

Borrower Defense Claims Surpass 750,000. Consumers Empowered. Subprime Colleges and Programs Threatened.

Seventh Quarterly Report under Settlement Agreement in Sweet, et al. v. Cardona (US Department of Education)

The latest report regarding Borrower Defense to Repayment settlements has been published. National Student  Loan Data System records indicate that discharges have been fully processed for at least 195,5908 Class Members eligible for relief. Refunds have been fully processed for at least 194,782 Class Members eligible for relief.  

Borrower Defense to Repayment is a debt forgiveness strategy for consumers if they believe they were defrauded by a school and can document that fraud. The Project on Predatory Student Lending (PPSL) has provided assistance to thousands of consumers defrauded by for-profit colleges and still offers help. 

For consumer support regarding about Borrower Defense claims, we also recommend joining the r/Borrower Defense group on Reddit.  

Trump's Department of Education Continues to Drag Feet on Borrower Defense

On June 26th, the US Department of Education was brought to the Ninth District Court (and Judge Alsup) to show how many the Borrower Defense to Repayment cases that have been resolved per court order.  

While we wait for a transcript of the latest episode of Sweet v McMahon, what we can tell you is that the Trump government continues to drag its feet in paying back debtors who have been defrauded.  

According to Theresa Sweet:

“We really need Borrower Defense applicants included in both the full and post class of Sweet to send any denials to the Project on Predatory Student Lending. It’s important for the legal team to be able to track this and make sure there are no patterns of boilerplate denials or mass denials. It’s also really important to remember that if a Sweet class or post class member gets a denial it should include a Revise and Resubmit notice, which *must* be resubmitted on time or the denial becomes final unless the person takes it to court on their own.”

More than 950.000 student loan debtors have filed borrower defense fraud claims.

Fraud Claims Against University of Phoenix Continue to Grow

The Higher Education Inquirer received a FOIA response today from the US Department of Education stating that 73,740 consumer fraud claims have been filed against the University of Phoenix. These claims have been made through the Department of Education's Borrower Defense to Repayment program.

The Sweet v Cardona lawsuit, concluded earlier in 2023, allowed for about 19,000 claims to be settled immediately--in favor of student debtors and against the University of Phoenix. Another 15,000 or so cases are supposed to be expedited as a result of the federal ruling.  

23-02373-F Final Response

We estimate that the potential liability of these immediate claims to be $200M-$600M with another $500M-$1.5B for the remaining cases. The higher estimates are based on the median federal loan debt among borrowers who completed their undergraduate degree ($32,421) and a study by Adam Looney and Constantine Yannelis that indicated University of Phoenix debtors, on average, paid off almost nothing of their principal. The authors also estimated that total student loan debt from more than a million University of Phoenix debtors was $35B. 

The Department of Education has not presented any estimates on the total debt by University of Phoenix students or its costs to the US government.  

Thousands of new cases continue to be filed. From January 2015 through January 1, 2022, there were 32,040 Borrower Defense claims made against the University of Phoenix. An additional 41,700 claims were filed between 2022 and August 2023. 

Idaho Sale

University of Phoenix's current owners are Apollo Global Management and Vistria Group, who have been trying to unload the online robocollege for years. The University of Idaho has been the most recent target, but the sale is far from being consummated.  The entire deal is expected to cost $685M. Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador has filed a lawsuit to stop or at least slow down the acquisition. And members of the Idaho Legislature continue to have questions.

In order to shield itself from liability the University of Idaho created a non-profit organization called 43 Education. But the state university may be responsible if the non-profit fails to make enough money to repay the bondholders of the new non-profit. 

The liability of these Borrower Defense claims to the current or future owners of the University of Phoenix seems possible in light of a recent statement by Department of Education Undersecretary James Kvaal. Kvaal said the University of Arizona Global Campus may be liable for the misdeeds of Ashford University (UAGC's former name). The University of Arizona purchased Ashford in 2020 for one dollar. 

Related articles:

Feds Cancel Loans for 2,300 Students Scammed by Ashford U. So Why Does the School Still Get Tax Dollars? (David Halperin)

University of Phoenix and the Ash Heap of Higher Ed History

Borrower Defense Claims Surpass 750,000. Consumers Empowered. Subprime Colleges and Programs Threatened.

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents"

More Transparency About the Student Debt Portfolio Is Needed: Student Debt By Institution

 

People's Rally for Student Debt Cancellation to be held outside Supreme Court, February 28, 2023

[Update: This event will be livestreamed at https://www.cancelmystudentdebt.org/peoples-rally-livestream ] 

Sign up for the People's Rally for Student Debt Cancellation to be held outside the US Supreme Court, Tuesday morning, February 28, 2023.  And please share this event with people in your network. 

The Supreme Court case involves the constitutionality of President Biden's order to cancel more than $400 billion in student loan debt, that according to the NY Fed would provide a disproportionate amount of relief to low and middle-income families. 

Supporters of the People's Rally include the Debt Collective, NAACP, National Urban League, American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, SEIU, the National Consumer Law Center, Young Invincibles, and Move On. Senator Elizabeth Warren will be one of the speakers. 

While there is no substitute for People on the ground, folks can also attend online.  

Before the hearing, the People are invited to use the #CancelItSCOTUS! hashtag and flood Twitter with personal and shared stories of why the cancellation is so vital. Access the toolkit to join the Twitterstorm on 2/28 at 9-11am.

Currently, there are about 45 million Americans carrying student loan debt. Based on our interpretation of the 2022 Financial Student Aid Annual Report, about 40 percent of the federal student loan debt portfolio ($674 Billion of $1.7 Trillion) is unrecoverable.* 

Meanwhile, student loan debt collectors like Maximus receive hundreds of millions of dollars from the US government while sometimes using unethical and predatory business practices. 

Students who attended subprime schools or who had low financial value majors have been hardest hit. And the debt takes its toll on millions of citizens, their families, and their communities--and reduces their opportunities to live the American Dream. 

About 200,000 student debtors who were defrauded by subprime schools are also facing a legal battle in the 9th Circuit Court to have their debt forgiven. Hundreds of thousands more have filed Borrower Defense to Repayment claims and are awaiting for decisions that can take several years, due to  understaffing and an enormous backlog at the US Department of Education.

 

So far, ED has only approved Borrower Defense to Repayment claims from a handful of closed schools, and it appears that victims of fraud from other subprime schools, like the University of Phoenix, have received blanket denials.  

Pushing back against the debtors, Republican lawmakers are calling for mandatory loan repayments to restart.  

Stay tuned to this post for more information.  #strikedebt 

 *We have asked the US Department of Education press team for a comment, but they have not responded, which is often the case.

Related link: I Went on Strike to Cancel My Student Debt and Won. Every Debtor Deserves the Same. (Ann Bowers*) 

Related link: Assessing the Relative Progressivity of the Biden Administration’s Federal Student Loan Forgiveness Proposal (NY Fed)

Related link:  Federal Student Aid FY 2022 Annual Report 

Related link: Sweet v Cardona (Borrower Defense to Repayment) 

Related link: Maximus, Student Loan Debt, and the Poverty Industrial Complex 

Related link: Borrower Defense to Repayment Loan Forgiveness Data

Corinthian Colleges: A For-Profit Empire, Lifelong Debt, and No Justice for the Victims

In the pantheon of higher education scandals, few match the scale and damage caused by Corinthian Colleges Inc. (CCI). Once hailed by Wall Street as a model for the future of "career education," Corinthian collapsed in 2015 amid federal investigations, lawsuits, and public outrage. The company left behind a trail of financial ruin: more than half a million former students burdened with life-altering debt and degrees of little or no value.

And yet—no one went to jail.

 
A Machine Built on Deception

Founded in 1995, Corinthian Colleges grew rapidly by acquiring small vocational schools and rebranding them under the names Everest, Heald, and WyoTech. Backed by investors and pumped with federal financial aid dollars, the company aggressively marketed to low-income individuals, single mothers, veterans, and people of color—those often excluded from traditional higher education.

Its business model depended not on education outcomes, but on enrollment numbers and federal subsidies. Behind its TV commercials and high-pressure call centers, Corinthian was fabricating job placement rates, enrolling unqualified students, and saddling them with tens of thousands in debt for programs that were often substandard or unaccredited.

At its peak, Corinthian enrolled more than 100,000 students and took in over $1.4 billion annually in federal aid.

 
The Collapse and the Fallout

In 2014, under pressure from federal and state regulators—particularly California Attorney General Kamala Harris—the U.S. Department of Education began tightening scrutiny. When CCI failed to provide accurate job placement data, the government cut off access to Title IV funds. Corinthian tried to sell off its campuses piecemeal before declaring bankruptcy in 2015.

The closure stranded tens of thousands of students mid-degree and left hundreds of thousands with massive debt for worthless credentials.
Lifelong Damage

Many Corinthian students never recovered. Some lost years of work and study. Many saw their credit scores destroyed. Others defaulted and faced wage garnishment, loss of tax refunds, and psychological trauma.

Although the Biden administration in 2022 announced $5.8 billion in loan cancellation for more than 560,000 former Corinthian students—the largest discharge of federal student loans in U.S. history—many students were excluded. Others had taken out private loans or never received proper notification. Some died before receiving relief. Others continue to pay interest on fraudulent debts.

 
The Executives Who Walked Away

While students and their families were left in financial ruin, Corinthian’s executives escaped virtually untouched.

Jack D. Massimino, Corinthian’s longtime CEO and chairman, collected millions in compensation over the years—reportedly more than $3 million in a single year (2010). Despite leading the company through its most fraudulent period, Massimino was never criminally charged. He quietly disappeared from public view after the company’s collapse.

Patrick J. Carey, former Chief Operating Officer and later CEO after Massimino stepped down, also avoided prosecution. Carey was involved in the company’s operations during the period when job placement numbers were allegedly falsified.

William D. White, former Chief Financial Officer, signed off on SEC filings during years of misleading statements to investors and regulators, yet he too faced no criminal charges.

A handful of lawsuits and civil enforcement actions targeted the company, but not its top brass. The Obama-era Department of Education fined Corinthian $30 million for misrepresentations at its Heald campuses in California—but again, no individuals were held accountable.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil suit in 2016 against Massimino and two other executives—Robert Owen (former CEO of Everest) and David Moore (former Vice President of Career Services)—but the penalties were civil, not criminal. The matter was quietly resolved years later, with no admission of guilt and limited financial penalties.

 
A Legal and Regulatory Failure

The failure to prosecute Corinthian’s leadership reveals the broader dysfunction of federal oversight. The Department of Education continued to funnel billions to Corinthian even after whistleblowers and state attorneys general raised serious concerns. Accreditors rubber-stamped programs with low graduation and job placement rates. Congress held hearings but passed little reform.

And when the reckoning came, it was the students—not the executives or shareholders—who paid the price.

 
A Cautionary Tale Still Unfolding

The Corinthian Colleges scandal is not simply a story of corporate greed. It is a story of systemic complicity—of a regulatory system that rewards enrollment over outcomes, that protects corporate actors while ignoring the human cost.

Today, many former Corinthian students remain in financial limbo, excluded from relief due to paperwork errors, technicalities, or bureaucratic delays. Some have moved on, but with scars—financial, emotional, and psychological—that may never fully heal.

Meanwhile, the men who engineered this billion-dollar fraud have retired or moved on to new ventures. Their profits are intact. Their reputations barely scratched.

Borrower Defense to Repayment: A Broken Lifeline

In theory, Borrower Defense to Repayment (BDR) was supposed to be the lifeline for students defrauded by predatory institutions like Corinthian Colleges. Enshrined in federal law since the 1990s and expanded during the Obama administration, BDR allows borrowers to seek federal student loan cancellation if their school misled them or violated certain state laws. In practice, however, this “safety net” has been riddled with delay, denial, and political sabotage.

During the Trump administration, then-Education Secretary Betsy DeVos all but dismantled BDR, slow-walking or denying tens of thousands of claims and rewriting the rules to make relief nearly impossible to obtain. Her Department of Education sat on a mountain of applications, many of them from Corinthian students, and forced some defrauded borrowers to repay loans they never should have owed.

Legal battles ensued. A class action suit brought by student borrowers (Sweet v. Cardona) eventually compelled the Department of Education to process tens of thousands of long-delayed claims. But the damage from years of neglect and politicization left lasting scars.

The Biden administration, to its credit, sought to restore the original intent of Borrower Defense. In 2022, it wiped out $5.8 billion in federal loans for former Corinthian students—an unprecedented act of relief. And yet, it was not complete justice.

Thousands of borrowers still have pending BDR applications. Some were denied under DeVos-era policies and must reapply. Others have struggled to access relief due to confusing eligibility requirements or missing documentation. And those with private loans—outside the reach of BDR entirely—remain stuck with illegitimate debt and few legal options.

More troubling, the system remains vulnerable to future political manipulation. Without statutory protections, BDR can be gutted again by a future administration, leaving borrowers once more at the mercy of ideology and inertia.

Corinthian’s legacy, then, lives on—not just in the ruined finances of its former students but in the unsteady scaffolding of a student loan forgiveness system still prone to failure. If Borrower Defense to Repayment is to mean anything, it must become more than a postscript to scandals like Corinthian. It must become a durable right—shielded from politics, enforced with urgency, and backed by a real commitment to justice.

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate how many were excluded, why relief was delayed, and what deeper reforms are needed—not just to help the Corinthian generation, but to prevent the next generation from falling into the same trap.

Sources:

U.S. Department of Education press releases (2015–2024)
SEC v. Massimino, Owen, Moore (2016)
California v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (AG Kamala Harris)
The Atlantic, “The Lie That Got Half a Million People Into Debt”
The Chronicle of Higher Education archives
Debt Collective reports and legal filings
U.S. Senate HELP Committee (Harkin Report, 2012)
Inside Higher Ed, “Corinthian Execs Walk Away”
Sweet v. Cardona case documents and related rulings
Borrower Defense regulations: 34 CFR § 685.206 and subsequent amendments

Let us know if you have a Corinthian story to share. Justice demands it be told.

Higher Education FOIA Requests to US Department of Education

The Higher Education Inquirer has made a number of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the US Department of Education.  Here's our current list.  

 

23-01436-F 

The Higher Education Inquirer is requesting copies of the current contracts between the US Department of Education and Maximus (including but not limited to subsidiaries such as AidVantage). If this is not possible we would like the reported dollar amount for each contract. This request is part of a larger effort to assess the student loan debt portfolio. (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2010 To 04/03/2023)

23-01426-F  

The Higher Education Inquirer is requesting the dollar amount of student loan funds issued to for-profit colleges each year from 1972 to 2021.  We will accept interim or partial data.  (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/1973 To 04/03/2022)

23-01369-F  

 

The Higher Education Inquirer is requesting an estimate of the number of student loans in the student loan portfolio that originated (1) before 1978, (2) before 1983, (3) before 1988, and (4) before 1993.  This is part of a larger effort to understand the estimated $674B in unrecoverable student loan debt.   (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2023 To 03/28/2023)

23-01324-F  

 

The Higher Education Inquirer is requesting a count of the number of Borrower Defense to Repayment claims against South University and the Art Institutes, in the Consumer Engagement Management System (CEMS) up to January 1, 2023.  We would also like to know if their parent company, Education Principle Foundation (EPF), is listed as the owner of both schools in the CEMS computer database.   (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2023 To 03/22/2023)

23-01263-F

 

The Higher Education Inquirer is requesting a list of all the variables/categories in the Consumer Engagement Management System (CEMS).  CEMS is mentioned in FOIA 22-01683F filed by the National Student Legal Defense Network.   (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2023 To 03/16/2023)

23-00865-F 

 

We are requesting an accounting of US Department of Education Borrower Defense to Repayment (BD) claims against the University of Phoenix.  Specifically, we are asking for the (1) number of BD claims, (2) the number processed, and (3) the number approved.  The date range is from February 20, 2016 to January 26, 2023. If there is a reasonable way to estimate the total dollar amount in a timely manner, we would also like that.  This request is similar to FOIA request 22-03203-F, and is a result of discovering that the University of Arkansas System has been in negotiations to acquire University of Phoenix through a nonprofit organization.   (Date Range for Record Search: From 02/20/2016 To 01/26/2023)

 

Related links:

 

Borrower Defense Claims Surpass 750,000. Consumers Empowered. Subprime Colleges and Programs Threatened. 

 

I Went on Strike to Cancel My Student Debt and Won. Every Debtor Deserves the Same. (Ann Bowers 

 

More Transparency About the Student Debt Portfolio Is Needed: Student Debt By Institution 

 
Erica Gallagher Speaks Out About 2U's Shady Practices at Department of Education Virtual Listening Meeting  

 
An Email of Concern to the People of Arkansas about the University of Phoenix (Tarah Gramza)