Advocates Sound Alarms That Linda McMahon Will Act as “Rubber Stamp” for Trump’s Project 2025 Agenda (Student Borrower Protection Center)

February 13, 2025 | WASHINGTON, D.C. — Following today’s Senate HELP Committee’s confirmation hearing to consider Linda McMahon to serve as Secretary of Education, the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) issued the following statement:

Statement from Aissa Canchola Bañez, Policy Director of SBPC:

“Linda McMahon’s testimony was nothing more than two hours worth of gaslighting. McMahon had the opportunity to state clearly and unequivocally that she will protect students, borrowers, and working families across the nation from the chaos that has already ensued as a result of President Trump and Elon Musk’s work to make their Project 2025 agenda the law of the land. She did not.

“When asked whether she would abide by a directive by President Trump that breaks a law, her nonanswer spoke volumes. It is clear that Linda McMahon’s blind loyalty to President Trump will guide her decision-making should she be confirmed to serve as the nation’s highest education official—and our students and communities will pay the price.

“Now more than ever, students, borrowers, and working families need an Education Secretary who will protect their interests, not the interests of private entities seeking to line their pockets off of our public education system. It is clear that Linda McMahon will not be that Education Secretary. We call on Senators to stand with students, educators, and working families across the nation and reject her nomination.”

Since the announcement of Linda McMahon’s nomination, the SBPC has consistently sounded the alarm that McMahon’s longtime loyalty to President Trump would make her a “rubber stamp” on the most harmful aspects of the Project 2025 agenda. SBPC also submitted a letter of opposition to Linda McMahon’s nomination, which was submitted into the Congressional record during the hearing.

Further Reading

SBPC letter to the Senate HELP Committee opposing Linda McMahon’s nomination: See Here

SBPC blog listing out 20 questions for HELP to ask Linda McMahon in her nomination hearing: 20 Questions for Linda McMahon After the Trump White House Blocks All Federal Agency Grants and Loans

SBPC blog outlining concerns with critical Trump cabinet nominees: Critical Trump Administration Nominees Should Raise Major Red Flags for Working Families with Student Debt

SBPC, Data for Progress, Groundwork Collaborative polling showing wide opposition to gutting student borrower protections: NEW POLL: Overwhelming, Bipartisan Majority Reject Cuts to the Student Loan Safety Net and Financial Aid Students and Families Rely On

Initial release of poll results showing voters oppose abolishing the U.S. Department of Education: New Poll Confirms: Trump’s Plan to Abolish Department of Education is Extremely Unpopular Among Voters

About Student Borrower Protection Center

Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) is a nonprofit organization focused on eliminating the burden of student debt for millions of Americans. We engage in advocacy, policymaking, and litigation strategy to rein in industry abuses, protect borrowers’ rights, and advance racial and economic justice.

Learn more at protectborrowers.org or follow SBPC on Twitter @theSBPC.

Linda McMahon Poised to Be Next Secretary of Education (Forbes)

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee has advanced Linda McMahon's nomination for Secretary of the US Department of Education (ED). The HELP panel voted 12-11 to approve McMahon, former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment and co-founder of the America First Policy Institute. According to the Hill, McMahon is almost certain to be confirmed by the Senate. President Trump has directed McMahon to dismantle ED, which includes funding for poor school districts and children with disabilities, in addition to holding a student loan portfolio estimated to be worth $1.6 Trillion. A number of civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, oppose the nomination. DOGE already fired dozens of workers from the small agency. 

States, Suing Trump Over Gutting of Education Dept., Cite Threat of Predatory College Abuses (David Halperin)

Twenty-one Democratic state attorneys general sued President Trump and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon today, 48 hours after the Department of Education announced it was firing more than 1,300 employees, which, combined with previously Trump-Musk efforts to cull the staff, reduced the employee roster to less than half of the 4000+ person team that was working as of January.

The 53-page complaint, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, alleges that the staff reductions are illegal and unconstitutional, because they are “equivalent to incapacitating key, statutorily-mandated functions of the Department.” The AGs say that although McMahon has authority from Congress to restructure the Department, she is “not permitted to eliminate or disrupt functions required by statute, nor can she transfer the department’s responsibilities to another agency outside of its statutory authorization.”

Among the federal statutes that the state AGs contend will be undermined by this week’s staff cuts are those covering higher education, including the Department’s obligations to ensure that federal student grants and loans may be used only at colleges and universities that provide quality educations and comply with the law. The complaint notes that the Department is charged with ensuring that colleges receiving federal aid are financially responsible, that they submit to financial audits, and that they provide adequate counseling to students concerning debt management.

The AGs also note that the Department is required to review and approve private college accrediting agencies, because under the law only schools approved by Department-recognized accreditors are eligible for federal student aid. Without that process, the AGs warn, “institutions of higher education may engage in profit-seeking behaviors without relating any educational benefits to students.”

The AGs might have added that the cuts will undermine the capacity of the Department to directly investigate colleges that engage in predatory and deceptive behavior. Data released by the Department shows the largest number of layoffs — 326 people — were at the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), which oversees student lending and school compliance with legal obligations not to mislead and abuse students.

The Department of Education’s higher education accountability efforts over decades have often been half-hearted and ineffectual; despite the scores of staff assigned to overseeing colleges, many students, and hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars, have been directed to deceptive, poor-quality schools that have left many students worse off than when they started. But gutting these efforts to the degree suggested by this week’s staff reductions would make matters much worse. And the first-term higher education record of President Trump, guided by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her aide Diane Auer Jones, was heavily skewed in favor of slashing accountability rules and enforcement, providing no reason to be optimistic that an aim of slashing the staff this year is to improve accountability.

The cuts would also undermine core Department responsibilities in K-12 education, civil rights, disability rights, privacy rights, campus safety, and the student loan portfolio.

Secretary McMahon is publicly insisting that everything will be fine and more efficient with the reduced and reorganized staff. But, as the new lawsuit from the attorneys general notes, McMahon said on Tuesday that the firing are the “first step” on the road to a “total shutdown” of the Department.

The attorneys general who filed the complaint are from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, Wisconsin, Vermont and the District of Columbia.

Former Department officials and education advocates plan to rally Friday morning at 8 am outside Department of Education headquarters in Washington to protest the mass firings and plans to shut down the agency.

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

US K-12 Education: Still the "Shame of the Nation"

In 2005, Jonathan Kozol’s The Shame of the Nation powerfully critiqued the deeply entrenched educational inequalities that have disproportionately harmed Black, Latino, and low-income students. Kozol exposed the systemic racial and economic segregation that has continued to plague American schools, and his analysis remains deeply relevant today. However, the future of U.S. public education is at risk of becoming even bleaker under the Trump administration, especially as the federal government's role in education continues to be weakened.

The K-12 Pipeline: A Growing Divide

The K-12 pipeline to higher education—the path students follow from early childhood through to high school—is increasingly segmented, with disparities in the quality of education between wealthy and low-income districts widening. Kozol’s focus on how underfunded urban schools limit students' opportunities remains central today. A new Trump administration, with Linda McMahon potentially leading the Department of Education, threatens to exacerbate these existing divides.

McMahon, with little background in public education, will champion policies that reduce federal oversight, resulting in less accountability for schools, particularly those in marginalized communities. The federal funding that historically helped level the playing field, particularly through programs like Title I, could be slashed, further undermining schools in low-income neighborhoods. As a result, these schools would continue to fall behind, denying their students the resources and opportunities needed to succeed in higher education.

The Impact of Charter Schools and Privatization

The Trump administration's push to expand charter schools is another major policy shift that could further fragment the education system. Charter schools, while often touted as innovative solutions for struggling students, have been criticized for contributing to the already entrenched inequality that Kozol highlighted. Although some charter schools provide high-quality education, many are selective, serving predominantly higher-income students. By draining resources away from traditional public schools, charter schools perpetuate the educational divide, leaving students in underfunded public schools without the same opportunities.

The rise in charter schools often leads to an increase in school segregation, as wealthier families gain access to better-funded charter schools while lower-income students remain trapped in poorly funded public schools. This trend is especially harmful to Black, Latino, and low-income students, whose educational outcomes are already significantly worse than those of their wealthier peers. The expansion of charter schools under the Trump administration, combined with a decrease in public school funding, could result in further neglect for students in the most vulnerable communities.

Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education

Under Linda McMahon, the federal government’s role in ensuring educational equity will diminish drastically. The department has long played a critical role in enforcing civil rights protections and promoting equal access to education for all students, especially those from historically marginalized communities. Under McMahon’s leadership, however, the department may reduce its oversight, weakening protections for disadvantaged students and further deregulating education standards.

Dismantling the Department of Education will severely impact funding for some of the most vital programs for disadvantaged students, particularly those from low-income families and students with disabilities. Title I, which provides essential funding to help poor schools close achievement gaps, could be gutted or eliminated, leaving millions of students without the resources they need to succeed. Schools in high-poverty areas rely on Title I funds to provide tutoring, after-school programs, and other support services that directly address educational inequality. Similarly, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which mandates funding for special education programs, could face significant cuts or be poorly managed if oversight is moved to less equipped agencies. Students with disabilities, who rely on specialized services and accommodations to succeed in school, would be at greatest risk of losing access to the tailored support they need. Without these protections, both vulnerable children and their schools could face a future where educational opportunities are increasingly limited, further entrenching inequality and leaving these children behind.

With fewer safeguards in place, the privatization of education could become the norm, as more school services, including special education and after-school programs, are outsourced to private companies. This would leave the most vulnerable students without the necessary support to succeed, particularly in crucial areas like literacy and numeracy. 

The Growing Literacy Crisis: Math and Reading Inequality

The persistent gaps in math and reading literacy are among the most pressing challenges in American education. Despite efforts to improve educational outcomes, a significant disparity remains in the proficiency levels of students based on race and socioeconomic status. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only about 35% of Black and Latino 4th-graders are proficient in reading, compared to 50% of White students. Similarly, in math, only 25% of Black and Latino 8th-graders reach proficiency, compared to nearly 45% of White students.

These gaps are not merely statistical—they represent the unequal opportunities that students in underserved schools face. When underfunded schools struggle to attract and retain qualified teachers, or fail to provide students with essential learning resources, these disparities deepen. In a system where wealthy districts receive far more funding and resources, these gaps are perpetuated.

Under the Trump administration’s proposed policies, which prioritize charter schools and private sector involvement, students in public schools—especially those in impoverished areas—could see even fewer resources dedicated to addressing these literacy gaps. Charter schools, with their selective nature, may be able to provide higher-quality instruction in some cases, but this further isolates students who remain in traditional public schools with large class sizes and inadequate materials.

Making US Schools Less Accountable

The dismantling of the Department of Education would also jeopardize critical data collection and national testing systems that are vital for understanding and addressing the state of education in the United States. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which operates under the Department of Education, is the primary source of reliable, comprehensive data on student performance, educational attainment, and resource allocation across the country. Without the NCES, efforts to assess educational disparities, track progress over time, and formulate evidence-based policies would be severely hindered. Additionally, national testing programs like the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often referred to as the "Nation’s Report Card," provide valuable insights into student achievement and educational trends at the national and state levels. These assessments help inform policy decisions and highlight areas in need of intervention. Without these data-gathering tools, policymakers and educators would be left without a clear picture of how schools are performing, making it far more difficult to address systemic inequities or improve educational outcomes nationwide. The loss of these resources would leave the U.S. education system flying blind, unable to measure success or pinpoint areas for improvement.

Social Promotion: Masking the Problem Until It’s Too Late

One of the most damaging practices exacerbating the literacy crisis in American schools is social promotion—the practice of advancing students to the next grade level, despite their failure to meet basic academic standards. Social promotion is often used to avoid the stigma of holding students back, but in reality, it perpetuates the cycle of educational inequity by masking deep-rooted academic struggles.

For students in underfunded schools—particularly those in low-income neighborhoods—social promotion delays crucial interventions. Students who are promoted without mastering basic literacy and numeracy skills are allowed to move forward with significant gaps in their knowledge. By the time they reach high school, it is often too late to catch up, and many of these students find themselves unprepared for the rigors of higher education or the workforce.

Social promotion is particularly harmful for students of color, who are already more likely to attend schools with fewer resources and less experienced teachers. When these students are promoted despite not having the foundational skills needed for success, they are set up for failure. This delayed intervention further widens the achievement gap and reduces their chances of succeeding in higher education.

As the Trump administration’s policies could continue to reduce federal oversight and place more control in the hands of state and local governments, the problem of social promotion could go unchecked. Without a strong, federally mandated system of accountability, more students may be left behind, and the opportunity to fix the systemic issues before it’s too late will be missed.

The Danger of Increasing Segregation: School Discipline and the School-to-Prison Pipeline

In addition to the academic challenges, discipline policies in schools have long contributed to the inequities Kozol highlighted. The school-to-prison pipeline, which disproportionately impacts Black and Latino students, has resulted in higher rates of suspension, expulsion, and even criminal justice involvement for students of color. Under the Trump administration, this pipeline could be exacerbated by loosening federal regulations and reducing accountability for discriminatory disciplinary practices.

The expansion of charter schools could further isolate students of color, as these schools often have less stringent rules for discipline and may screen out students who are considered high-risk. This leaves public schools, especially in poorer neighborhoods, dealing with the fallout of disproportionate discipline practices, which can lead to higher dropout rates, decreased academic engagement, and fewer opportunities for college readiness.

The Path Forward: A Deepening Crisis or Hope for Reform?

While the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education and the increased push for charter schools under the Trump administration threaten to deepen the educational crisis, there is still hope. Advocacy for stronger public education, equitable funding, and systemic reform must continue to be at the forefront of the national conversation. Kozol’s work serves as a powerful reminder of the devastating consequences of neglecting America’s most vulnerable students. Without urgent action to address the disparities in educational resources, teacher quality, and funding, the gaps in math and reading literacy will only grow wider, and the K-12 pipeline to higher education will become more fragmented.

Efforts to combat these inequities could include increased investment in early childhood education, improved access to social-emotional learning programs, and a renewed commitment to ensuring that all students, regardless of race or background, have access to the same opportunities for success. However, this can only happen if the federal government plays a strong role in holding schools accountable and ensuring equitable access to resources.

Ultimately, as Kozol’s critique has shown, the educational divide in America will continue to grow unless systemic changes are made. If the focus shifts away from equity and toward privatization and deregulation, the cycle of educational inequality will continue to harm the students who need help the most, leaving them without the tools they need to succeed in higher education and beyond.

Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v Cardona) hearing will premiere on Thursday, June 26, 2025 at 2pm EST / 11am PST (r/BorrowerDefense)

The next episode of Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v. Cardona), "THE CLOCK IS TICKING," will premiere on Thursday, June 26, 2025. 

Judge Alsup is BACK. He wants updates. He wants answers. And he’s asking one thing — will the deadlines be met? Join in for the next drama episode in this six-year battle for justice!

Deets Below: 

Sweet v. McMahon: The Clock Is Ticking
Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025
Time: 2:00 PM ET / 11:00 AM PT

Zoom Courtroom – (https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1605814655...

) Passcode: 791667 

Cue Law & Order Theme (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz4-aEGvqQM

). 

Borrowers are still waiting. Judge Alsup wants answers. The DOE is back in court. Will justice finally be delivered? Tune in. Speak up. This hearing will be fire!

#SweetJustice #LoanDischarge #TheClockIsTicking 

Report issues for class/post-class members to sweet@ed.gov and CC PPSL at info@ppsl.org 

IMPORTANT INFO for Sweet v Cardona (now Sweet v McMahon) CLASS - DECISION GROUPS and POST-CLASS Folks (Posted on July 8, 2025) (r/Borrower Defense)

Just dropping this IMPORTANT INFO from the DOE for Sweet v Cardona (now Sweet v McMahon) peeps who are CLASS - DECISION GROUPS and POST-CLASS.

Edited To Add

Decisions Class are streamlined R and R submissions.

Post-class denials MUST ask the DOE for a reconsideration, which allows you to add additional evidence.

Orginial Post:

For REVISE and RESUBMITS (R and R) notices, the DOE is now saying that they WILL "disregard R and R*"* submissions if you EMAIL additional supporting documents or material. You CANNOT email the R and R back.

You MUST submit a NEW BDTR APPLICATION and INCLUDE your previous BDTR application number which can be fund on the Denial letter.

YOU HAVE 6 MONTHS TO RE-SUBMIT FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE R AND NOTICE (Here: https://studentaid.gov/borrower-defense**/

**)

The DOE states, "If you email supplemental information to the DOE or attempt to update your existing application, you will be treated as having failed to Revise and Resubmit".

ALSO, If you are still trying to add more evidence to your BDTR application this late in the game, you may want to wait for the decision letter to come out. We are reaching Group 5 Decision deadline, and Post-Class is 6 months after that. If you feel uneasy about your evidence, START collecting it now!

Follow all DIRECTIONS on anything you get from the DOE relating to BDTR (except demanding payment, they can pound sand LOL).

In Solidarity!!!

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Scheduled for ASU+GSV Summit, April 8, 2025

On April 8, 2025, US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon will give a fireside chat at ASU+GSV, an edtech conference held in San Diego, California.  

President Trump has tasked McMahon with dismantling the federal agency that oversees federally funded K-12 and higher education programs. In less than two weeks she has done just that.  

Half of ED's staff have already been fired or taken a payout, and the $1.7T student loan portfolio is likely to be transferred to the US Treasury. 

There is no word yet on whether there will be demonstrators at the conference, but we expect some form of vocal nonviolent resistance.  AFT President Randi Weingarten is also scheduled to appear.  

See the Sweet v McMahon Borrower Defense Case Tomorrow Live

 The next episode of Sweet v. McMahon (formerly Sweet v. Cardona), "THE CLOCK IS TICKING," will premiere on Thursday, June 26, 2025. 

Judge Alsup is BACK. He wants updates. He wants answers. And he’s asking one thing — will the deadlines be met? Join in for the next drama episode in this six-year battle for justice!

Deets Below: 

Sweet v. McMahon: The Clock Is Ticking
Date: Thursday, June 26, 2025
Time: 2:00 PM ET / 11:00 AM PT

Zoom Courtroom – (https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1605814655...

) Passcode: 791667 

Cue Law & Order Theme (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xz4-aEGvqQM

). 

Borrowers are still waiting. Judge Alsup wants answers. The DOE is back in court. Will justice finally be delivered? Tune in. Speak up. This hearing will be fire!

#SweetJustice #LoanDischarge #TheClockIsTicking 

Report issues for class/post-class members to sweet@ed.gov and CC PPSL at info@ppsl.org 

ED Office for Civil Rights initiates Title VI investigations of 45 universities. Here's the List. (US Department of Education)

[Editor's note: The Trump-McMahon Department of Education continues to launch investigations of major universities in its war on US higher education. This strategy is similar to that used in Hungary and other less democratic nations.]

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened investigations into 45 universities under Title VI following OCR’s February 14 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) that reiterated schools’ civil rights obligations to end the use of racial preferences and stereotypes in education programs and activities. The investigations come amid allegations that these institutions have violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964) by partnering with “The Ph.D. Project,” an organization that purports to provide doctoral students with insights into obtaining a Ph.D. and networking opportunities, but limits eligibility based on the race of participants.  

OCR is also investigating six universities for allegedly awarding impermissible race-based scholarships and one university for allegedly administering a program that segregates students on the basis of race.  

“The Department is working to reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination. The agency has already launched Title VI investigations into institutions where widespread antisemitic harassment has been reported and Title IX investigations into entities which allegedly continue to allow sex discrimination; today’s announcement expands our efforts to ensure universities are not discriminating against their students based on race and race stereotypes,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Students must be assessed according to merit and accomplishment, not prejudged by the color of their skin. We will not yield on this commitment.” 

The universities now under investigation for allegedly engaging in race-exclusionary practices in their graduate programs include: 

• Arizona State University – Main Campus  
• Boise State University  
• Cal Poly Humboldt  
• California State University – San Bernadino  
• Carnegie Mellon University  
• Clemson University  
• Cornell University  
• Duke University  
• Emory University  
• George Mason University  
• Georgetown University  
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)  
• Montana State University-Bozeman   
• New York University (NYU)  
• Rice University  
• Rutgers University  
• The Ohio State University – Main Campus  
• Towson University  
• Tulane University  
• University of Arkansas – Fayetteville   
• University of California-Berkeley  
• University of Chicago  
• University of Cincinnati – Main Campus  
• University of Colorado – Colorado Springs
• University of Delaware  
• University of Kansas  
• University of Kentucky  
• University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 
• University of Minnesota-Twin Cities  
• University of Nebraska at Omaha  
• University of New Mexico – Main Campus  
• University of North Dakota – Main Campus  
• University of North Texas – Denton   
• University of Notre Dame  
• University of NV – Las Vegas  
• University of Oregon  
• University of Rhode Island  
• University of Utah  
• University of Washington-Seattle  
• University of Wisconsin-Madison  
• University of Wyoming  
• Vanderbilt University  
• Washington State University 
• Washington University in St. Louis  
• Yale University 

The schools under investigation for alleged impermissible race-based scholarships and race-based segregation are:  

• Grand Valley State University   
• Ithaca College  
• New England College of Optometry   
• University of Alabama  
• University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 
• University of South Florida  
• University of Oklahoma, Tulsa School of Community Medicine 

Background: 

On February 14, OCR sent a Dear Colleague Letter to educational institutions receiving federal funding clarifying that, pursuant to federal antidiscrimination law, they must cease using race preferences and stereotypes as a factor in their admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, sanctions, discipline, and other programs and activities. On March 1, the Department released FAQs to anticipate and answer questions that may have arisen in response to the DCL. 

These OCR investigations are being conducted pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in education programs and activities receiving federal funding. Institutions’ violation of Title VI can result in loss of federal funds. 

Trump’s Education Department is Closing. And Also Starting A Long Rulemaking Process. (David Halperin)

Although President Donald J. Trump last month signed an executive order directing Secretary of Education Linda McMahon “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education,” and although DOGE efforts and layoffs have cut the Department staff by half, the Department announced today that it will embark on an extensive round of meetings to draft new regulations governing student financial aid.

Unlike most federal agencies, the Department is generally required to engage in an elaborate process called negotiated rulemaking before it can issue or cancel regulations. This has meant — on issues from campus sexual assault to performance standards guarding against predatory college abuses — years of public hearings, formal convenings of rulemaking panels, written public comments and meetings on draft regulations, and more. It also has produced a decades-long ping pong match of final regulations made by one party and overwritten by the other, from the Obama to Trump I to Biden, followed by years of court challenges.

The first Trump administration staffed its higher education jobs with former executives of predatory for-profit colleges, and they eliminated both regulations and enforcement efforts aimed at protecting students and holding predatory schools accountable.

Today’s notice, signed by James P. Bergeron, Acting Under Secretary of Education, says the first round of Trump II negotiated rulemaking will likely include consideration of Public Service Loan Forgiveness and other loan repayment programs “or other topics that would streamline current federal student financial assistance programs.”

Other language in the notice suggests the Department may go deep, perhaps working to cancel the Biden rules creating performance standards for for-profit and career college programs (the gainful employment rule) and providing debt relief for students scammed by their colleges and government recoupment of funds from dishonest schools (the borrower defense rule). The notice opines that current regulations “may be inhibiting innovation and contributing to rising college costs” and that it wants to “streamline” the rules “while maintaining or improving program integrity and institutional quality.” “Innovation,” while a great thing for education when it can really happen, has been a buzzword used by the for-profit college industry to fight against rules aimed at protecting against predatory programs. Gutting the Biden rules would increase the vulnerability of both students and taxpayers to billions in waste, fraud, and abuse from deceptive, poor quality schools — even though the stated purpose of DOGE is to halt government excess.

When pro-student Democratic members of the House of Representatives  held a press conference outside the Department headquarters yesterday after they met with McMahon to discuss such concerns, she followed them. But she quickly fled when Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) asked her when she would shut down the building.

The Department’s rulemaking process begins with public hearings on April 29 and May 1, the first in-person at Department headquarters and the second online. Advocates for students and taxpayers should register to speak and show up to make their voices heard.

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

 

Potential Title IV Disruption Catastrophic (Glen McGhee)

Impact of Department of Education Dismantlement on Higher Education Act Programs

On March 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to begin dismantling the Department of Education, a move that threatens to create significant upheaval across higher education's federal support system. While the order cannot immediately eliminate the department without congressional approval, it has already resulted in substantial workforce reductions and signals major changes ahead for the administration of federal education programs 1.

Title IV: The Most Vulnerable and Consequential Program

Among all eight titles of the Higher Education Act (HEA), Title IV federal student aid programs would create the most severe upheaval for the higher education sector if destabilized through the Department of Education's dismantling. Title IV represents the foundation of federal financial support for higher education, administering approximately $111.6 billion in financial assistance to 9.8 million students in FY202211. This massive program encompasses Pell Grants, federal student loans, and work-study opportunities that directly enable student access and persistence.

Financial Impact Scale

The sheer financial magnitude of Title IV makes its disruption particularly consequential. In 2021 alone, 10.5 million students received $125 billion in federal student aid through the Department of Education15. Title IV's Office of Federal Student Aid received the largest departmental budget allocation - over $68 billion, with $20 billion promised for distribution during 20254. This represents the largest financial relationship between the federal government and higher education institutions.

Enrollment Consequences Already Evident

Even small disruptions to Title IV administration have already demonstrated severe enrollment impacts. Recent problems with the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) system implementation led to measurable enrollment declines:

• 43% of private institutions reported smaller freshman classes
• 27% noted fewer financial aid recipients
• 18% reported decreased racial or ethnic diversity in incoming students2

These enrollment impacts disproportionately affect disadvantaged student populations. The FAFSA completion rates dropped nearly 10%, showing how administrative dysfunction can directly reduce educational access2.

Complex Regulatory Framework

Title IV administration involves an extraordinarily complex regulatory structure that would be challenging to transfer or maintain during a departmental transition. The program includes more than 300 pages of regulations, with significant compliance requirements for institutions6. Recent rule changes have created new financial responsibility, administrative capability and certification requirements applicable to institutions participating in Title IV programs7.

Presidential Assurances vs. Implementation Reality

While President Trump has indicated that essential functions like Pell Grants, Title I funding, and programs for students with disabilities would be "fully maintained and redistributed to various other agencies and departments," the implementation details remain unclear18. The executive order instructs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to "undertake all necessary actions to facilitate the dissolution" while ensuring continuous provision of services8.

However, the Department's workforce has already been reduced from over 4,000 to approximately 2,000 employees through layoffs and voluntary resignations14. This reduction in administrative capacity raises serious questions about the continuity of Title IV program implementation.

Other HEA Titles: Significant but Less Catastrophic Impact

While all HEA titles would face disruption through departmental dismantling, Title IV's combination of massive funding scale, direct impact on enrollments, and regulatory complexity makes its destabilization particularly consequential.

Other HEA titles, while important, would not create the same level of immediate financial and enrollment chaos:

• Title I: Provides general provisions and administrative requirements, but lacks direct funding mechanisms
• Title II: Supports teacher preparation programs, but with significantly smaller funding scales
• Title III: Provides institutional aid for minority-serving institutions, representing important but more targeted support
• Titles V-VIII: Offer specialized program support for specific institutional types or educational priorities

Conclusion

The dismantling of the Department of Education threatens all federal higher education programs, but Title IV student aid programs represent the most consequential area for potential upheaval. The scale of financial support, direct impact on enrollment and access, complexity of administration, and early evidence from FAFSA disruptions all indicate that Title IV destabilization would produce the most severe consequences for higher education institutions and students.

While the administration has promised to maintain essential functions, the mechanisms for doing so remain unclear, and the significant reduction in departmental workforce suggests potential administrative challenges ahead. The higher education community must closely monitor this transition to ensure that critical student financial support systems remain functional during this unprecedented departmental restructuring.

Citations:

1. https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5179987-trump-executive-order-department-of-education-linda-mcmahon/
2. https://www.insightintodiversity.com/fafsa-issues-led-to-decreased-enrollment/
3. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IF12780.html
4. https://onwardstate.com/2025/03/20/how-the-dismantling-of-the-department-of-education-will-affect-college-students-across-the-nation/
5. https://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/rpr_2_6.pdf
6. https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-crisis-and-politics-of-higher-education/
7. https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2024/2/significant-new-financial-responsibility-administrative-capability-and-certification-requirements-loom-ahead-for-title-iv-institutions
8. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/education-department-trump-what-is-next-student-loans-fafsa-rcna197302
9. https://www.startribune.com/trump-orders-a-plan-to-dismantle-the-education-department-while-keeping-some-core-functions/601240066
10. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/dozens-colleges-see-fafsa-turmoils-impact-freshman-classes-rcna167342
11. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43351.pdf
12. https://www.asugsvsummit.com/video/preview-of-the-great-upheaval-higher-educations-past-present-and-uncertain-future
13. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/20/politics/dismantling-department-of-education-trump/index.html
14. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2024/11/04/what-abolishing-education-department-could-mean
15. https://campuscafesoftware.com/title-iv-student-financial-aid-guide/
16. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2025/03/13/how-education-department-layoffs-could-affect-higher
17. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2024/11/14/future-financial-aid-under-trump
18. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-03-19/trump-to-order-a-plan-to-shut-down-the-us-education-department
19. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2024/10/23/after-fafsa-issues-steep-drop-first-year-enrollment
20. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/fsa-handbook/2020-2021/appendices/appx-g-higher-education-act-1965-table-contents-august-26-2020
21. https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/35894/Trump_Signs_Executive_Order_Seeking_to_Dismantle_ED
22. https://www.nasfaa.org/news-item/35508/ED_Title_IV_Student_Aid_Exempt_From_White_House_Pause_on_Federal_Grants_and_Loans
23. https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/how-dismantling-department-education-would-harm-students
24. https://www.carnegiehighered.com/blog/fafsa-delays-impact-2024-enrollment/
25. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/functional-area/Overview%20of%20Title%20IV
26. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2025/02/07/five-ways-education-department-impacts-higher-ed
27. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/12/education-department-cuts-student-loan-fafsa-iep-impact/82310137007/
28. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-fafsa-student-loans-what-does-the-department-of-education-do/
29. https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/dallas-cowboys-free-agency-draft-2025
30. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/06/22/gen-z-millennials-debt-inflation/
31. https://help.studentclearinghouse.org/compliancecentral/knowledge-base/gainful-employment-financial-value-transparency-faqs/
32. https://19thnews.org/2025/03/trump-executive-order-department-of-education/
33. https://www.ctpost.com/news/education/article/bridgeport-school-superintendent-search-20230032.php
34. https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/electronic-announcements/2024-06-20/implementation-gainful-employment-funding-metric-requirements-institutions-under-administrative-capability-and-financial-responsibility
35. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43159
36. https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/trump-wants-to-end-education-department-what-does-that-mean-for-financial-aid/