Student loans are among the areas overseen by the U.S. Department of Education and since President Donald Trump has followed through on his threat to gut the agency, questions are mounting about the fate of loan services.

The president signed an order Thursday he said begins the process of dismantling the department, even as questions mount about the limitations of executive power for this move.

A White House official said the skeleton agency will continue to run student loan programs and Pell grants but higher education advocates worry about borrowers running into issues.

Mike Pierce, cofounder and executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, feels the system was already broken.

"We expect that things will only get harder for working people with student debt and for families that are trying to pay for college," Pierce projected.

Pierce explained he hears from borrowers who have waited on the phone for several hours to talk with private companies the government contracts with. He predicted longer delays. There is also concern about updating eligibility for income-driven repayment plans. The Center said if you have service issues, contact your local member of Congress and submit what is called "casework," so a staffer can help. The White House said its actions can drastically improve program implementation in higher education.

Consumer advocates encouraged families to see if their state has a Student Loan Ombudsman, who could provide critical information. The executive order comes after the administration recently cut 50% of the Education Department's staff.

Pierce argued creating even more chaos and confusion could undercut the higher-education path for students coming from disadvantaged households.

"When these programs are run poorly, families that wouldn't otherwise be able to go to college, they're the first to miss out," Pierce contended.

The department is tasked with keeping for-profit colleges in check. Pierce noted there has been a lot of progress in weeding out problematic schools but he worries Trump's actions will lead to a resurgence of institutions engaging in predatory tactics.

Groups like Lumina Foundation have echoed similar concerns about the agency's fate and the effects on student loans and financial aid.

Support for this reporting was provided by Lumina Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

An attorney for a small, rural Michigan college said she expected lawsuits over the "Dear Colleague" letter schools received last month from the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.

The American Federation of Teachers and American Sociological Association filed one of the first lawsuits to challenge the agency's threat to withhold federal funding from schools that teach about systemic racism or diversity-related topics.

Karen Bennett, legal counsel for Alpena Community College, shared her prediction with the school's Board of Trustees at a recent meeting.

"I think colleges around the country are gathering their thoughts about what actions to take and I'm sure we'll see lots of development in this area, in litigation," Bennett explained. "This is all subject to ongoing litigation."

The letter was issued on Feb. 14 with a Feb. 28 deadline to comply. Bennett advised Alpena's Board to take no action, stating it does not apply to them because the school has no admissions policies other than accepting individuals who apply.

Bennett pointed out she has found only one DEI reference on a college website. Ironically, it was a 2020 Trump-era policy which required schools to post DEI and sexual misconduct training information. The school was told it was no longer necessary after amendments in 2024, however, Bennett said the policy must now be reinstated as a requirement.

"It's impossible to meet or keep up with these, in my opinion, ridiculous edicts that are coming out on almost a daily basis," Bennett contended. "I don't see how we can possibly completely comply, because they're mutually contradictory."

The federal government maintains discrimination based on race, color or national origin is illegal for federally funded institutions and claims DEI policies have discriminated against white and Asian students. Other lawsuits have also been filed challenging the policy change.


get more stories like this via email

A new report says North Dakota's five tribal colleges contribute nearly $170 million to the state's economy. But any positive news is overshadowed by the Trump administration's budget-cutting tone and the potential harm to campuses. The data was issued this week by the North Dakota Tribal College System, which says between 2022 and 2023, North Dakotans saw added tax revenue and public-sector savings of more than $30 million because of daily operations at these schools.

Tracey Bauer, North Dakota Tribal College System executive director, said alumni add even more economic activity when they work in their communities after graduation. But she warns a lot might change if federal cuts reach them.

"It's going to possibly lead to staff layoffs, increases in tuition - to kind of make up some of that lost funding, [and] even campus program closures," she said.

Bauer said tribal colleges are largely funded by federal grants. In addition to freezing a range of federal aid, President Donald Trump wants to eliminate the Department of Education, which administers programs that support campuses in Native communities. Among other things, he claims higher education is overtaken by a "woke" agenda. But some of his budget-cutting actions are being challenged in court or face other constitutional hurdles.

The American Indian College Fund stresses that tribal colleges should be exempt from executive orders due to treaty and trust obligations of the federal government.

Cheryl Crazy Bull, president and CEO of the American Indian College Fund, said as the uncertainty unfolds, organizations like hers are preparing to help these schools adjust.

"Providing resources for institutions to hire adjunct faculty, or helping students with transfer programming," she said.

These leaders say colleges and universities serving Native populations were set up to provide a more cultural and welcoming learning environment, while giving students flexibility to overcome barriers to enrolling. Bauer says these campuses are still in their "infancy" stage compared with mainstream higher-ed institutions, and the sudden budget shift might derail progress.

"It wasn't until the late [19]60s and early '70s that we were able to get tribal colleges established across the country. And so, not having that opportunity to provide education for our young people would be devastating," Bauer added.

And it's not just young adults, with Bauer noting they also serve a lot of working parents who might not be able to travel to another school if their campus shuts down.


get more stories like this via email

Ohio Senate Bill 1 is drawing strong reactions across the state, particularly from students in higher education. The bill, which its supporters say aims to promote institutional neutrality, has been met with vocal opposition from students and faculty who argue it threatens academic freedom.

Clara Conover, lead organizer at the Ohio Student Association, points to the overwhelming response against the bill.

"There has not been one single public university student testifying for this bill or openly supporting it. And I think that that goes a really long way to represent how harmful Senate Bill 1 would be for higher ed," she explained.

Despite strong student opposition, proponents of SB 1 argue that the legislation is necessary to ensure political neutrality in classrooms and prevent ideological bias. The bill, introduced by Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Columbus, would restrict diversity-related programs and require universities to remain neutral on controversial topics.

As the debate over SB 1 continues, students have been actively protesting its progression through the Legislature. The Ohio Student Association recently staged a silent protest at the Statehouse, symbolizing what they describe as grief over the bill's potential impact. Conover emphasized the broader implications of this legislation.

"This bill would make our universities ... like, it would drive students out of Ohio and then it would make sure that no one else came here for college 'cause no one wants to go to the Jim Crow state, the modern one where you can't learn what everyone else around you is learning in different states," he said.

SB 1 remains under consideration in the Ohio Senate despite strong opposition. Wednesday's committee vote followed more than eight and a half hours of testimony, with more than 800 pieces of opponent testimony submitted.


get more stories like this via email