Karan Kuppa-Apte is a rising junior and Edan Kauer is a sophomore. Both are FIRE summer interns.
In American courtrooms today, song lyrics are being treated as confessions and fiction is being read as fact.
On July 24, Reps. Hank Johnson (GA-04) and Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37) reintroduced the Restoring Artistic Protection (RAP) Act, a bill aimed at reining in a surreal injustice in the American legal system — using artists’ creative fiction as evidence against them at trial.
This is not a hypothetical. As of June of this year, courts have seen over 820 cases where lyrics and other artistic work were presented as supposed proof of guilt. That number doesn’t include what’s buried in sealed records or never covered by the press. These aren’t smoking guns either — they’re lines from songs.
Through their creations, artists depict their struggles and bear their souls. And under the First Amendment, such creative expression is protected. Yet it is repeatedlyusedagainst artists in court.
In a press conference celebrating the Act’s reintroduction, Johnson and Kamlager-Dove were joined by groups such as the Recording Academy, the Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC), PEN America, and FIRE.
Johnson pointed to the importance of this legislation in protecting “artists of color who disproportionately face scrutiny and unjust consequences stemming from their creative work.”
But the problem of treating art as evidence is not limited to rap or hip-hop. This affects all creative mediums, including film and literature.
“Unfortunately, it has become a growing problem where artistic expression is used against artists,” said Greg Gonzalez, legislative counsel at FIRE. “Their art is distorted, misconstrued, and presented as fact in court.” He added, “But these works of fiction aren’t confessions — they are creations.”
Left to right: Willie “Prophet” Stiggers, co-founder and CEO of Black Music Action Coalition; Jen Jacobsen, executive director of the Artist Rights Alliance; Greg Gonzalez, FIRE legislative counsel; Rep. Hank Johnson (GA-04); Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37); Chelsea Green, chair of the Recording Academy’s board of trustees
Also at the press conference was Erik Nielson, professor of liberal arts at the University of Richmond and co-author of the book Rap on Trial: Race, Lyrics, and Guilt in America, which cites nearly 700 cases in which prosecutors used rap lyrics as evidence against artists. Describing his research, Nielson said he “was shocked that this could happen in a country with the First Amendment” and lauded the RAP Act as “an important first step in protecting art, regardless of who the artist is.”
Under the RAP Act, artistic works can only be used as evidence against the artist if they relate to “specific facts” alleged in the crime or complaint that cannot be supported by other evidence.
This means that in order to use artwork as evidence in court, the government must prove that the artist intended for it to have “a literal meaning, rather than figurative or fictional meaning.” In other words, unless the art contains things like information that only the perpetrator would know, it cannot be taken as fact and must remain out of the courtroom.
This issue extends beyond ideological differences, and similar legislation has passed in both the Republican-led statehouse of Louisiana and the Democratic-led legislature in California. Willie “Prophet” Stiggers, president and CEO of BMAC, summed it up perfectly: “It’s not a partisan issue. It’s a constitutional one.”
We’re hopeful this bipartisan momentum will continue at the federal level. No artist should fear their work being used against them as evidence for crimes they didn’t commit. No artist should have to self-censor to avoid intense legal scrutiny. Indeed, without such freedom, many of the greatest works of American art would never have come into being.
“When creative expression is treated as criminal evidence,” said Gonzalez, “artists begin to self-censor. They hold back. They stop taking risks. And when that happens, we all lose.”
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The University of Nebraska-Lincolnplans to cut $27.5 million from its budget — possibly including eliminating or merging academic programs — by the end of the yearto address an ongoing structural deficit.
“Despite our best efforts to live within our means, our revenue has not kept pace with expenses,” UNL Chancellor Rodney Bennett said in a campus message on Monday. He attributed the shortfall to insufficient state funding and declining net tuition revenue combined with high inflation.
The flagship university is among the many higher education institutions cutting their budgets amid an uncertain financial landscape. UNL will also extend its hiring freeze for at least the second time and likely offer employees a voluntary separation package this fall, Bennett said.
Dive Insight:
A planning committee composed of administrators, faculty and student representatives plans to discuss potential budget cuts this week.Bennett will then take the committee’s recommendations and propose a final budget plan to the head of the University of Nebraska system by the end of October, he said.
The plan may recommend degree program cuts or mergers that will allow UNL to capitalize on its “existing strengths,” the chancellor said.
Moving forward, the university will prioritize growing extramural grants and contracts and increasing tuition revenue through higher enrollment and student retention, he said.
UNL officials also hope to see additional revenue from a tuition hike approved by the University of Nebraska system’s board in June.
In-state undergraduate tuition at UNL will increase from $277 to $291 per credit hour for the 2025-26 academic year.For out-of-state students, the cost will rise from $888 to $932.
Like Bennett, the system board cited “a legislative session in which the university received modest funding increases that do not fully cover inflationary pressures, rising employee benefit costs or strategic investments.”
The University of Nebraska relies heavily on state funding. In the fiscal 2024-25 year, a fifth of the system’s operating budget — just under $700 million — came from state appropriations.
However, recent increases to the state’s higher education funding have been nominal and have not kept pace with inflation.
Earlier this year, Nebraska’s Legislature raised the University of Nebraska’s state funding by 1.25% over the next two years.The bump fell well short of inflation and the system’s requested increase of 3.5%.
But that’s still a significant improvement over Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen’s initial proposal. Pillen, who served as a system regent for a decade,sought to cut the system’s funding by 2%, which would have amounted to a loss of $14.3 million.
On Wednesday, Bennett referenced the series of austerity measures the university has undertaken in recent years and expressed hope that the next round of cuts could help UNL achieve operational stability.
“I want to realize a future for UNL in which faculty and staff are not repeatedly asked to do the same quality and amount of work with fewer resources — but rather are provided the support and opportunity to excel beyond current levels of success,” he said
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
This fall, an Alabama initiative will begin offering interested high school students direct admissions to 16 of the state’sfour-year institutions and 23 of its community colleges based on their transcripts.
Under the newly announced Alabama Direct Admission Initiative,high school seniors mustupload their transcripts to an online portal to receive automatic admissions offers. The process will neither charge students application fees nor require them to upload additional materials like essays or recommendation letters.
States have increasingly turned to direct admissions as a way to reach out to students who may not have considered higher education or don’t view themselves as college material.
Dive Insight:
The direct admissions portal is set to open to students on Aug. 26. To participate in the first round of offers, interested students must upload their transcripts by Sept. 23 to receive their acceptances by Oct. 6.
The participating colleges are primarily public institutions, like Alabama State University,the University of Montevallo and the state’s community colleges.The list also includes some historically Black institutions, such as Alabama A&M University and the private Tuskegee University. The University of Alabama, the state’s flagship, and Auburn University are not participating.
Many participating colleges will include merit-based scholarships with their offers, according to the initiative’s website.
“The goal is to make college more affordable from the start,” it said.
Students will also have the opportunity to indicate interest in acceptance notifications from out-of-state institutions, per the website. Those offers would come later in October, it said.
In a Thursday statement, Alabama Gov. Kay Iveycalled the initiative “a smart, student-centered solution” that demonstrates the state’s focus on educational opportunities and workforce readiness.
Alabama Possible,a nonprofit that’s focused on educational attainment and economic opportunity in the state, is leading the direct admissions initiative in partnership with the Alabama Department of Education and the state community college system. The student-college matching software, Appily Match, is a product of education company EAB.
Chandra Scott, executive director of Alabama Possible,said Thursday that direct admissions supports thestate’s workforce and economic mobility goals.
“Direct admissions eliminates uncertainty and sends a clear message to Alabama students: you are college-ready and you belong,” Scott said in a statement.
One of the earliest statewide direct admissions programs, started by Idaho in 2015, raised first-time undergraduate enrollment by a little over 8%, according to a 2022 study.
Since Idaho, several other states have pursued direct admissions programs to both boost college attendance among residents and increase enrollment at public institutions.
One of Alabama’s neighbors similarly invested in direct admissions this summer. Last month, Tennessee announced it would launch a direct admissions pilot this November, automatically offering college acceptance to students based on their academic records and their completion of the Tennessee Promise application.
The Tennessee pilot, which includes students from a randomly selected pool of high schools, will also provide roughly half of the recipients with personalized financial aid information to see if that increases their chances of enrolling in college.
Last year, The Common Application expanded its direct admissions program to send automatic acceptance letters from 116 colleges to first-generation and low- and middle-income students.
And Utah launched a similar acceptance program last year, offering the state’s high school students guaranteed admissions to at least one of its public colleges.While direct admissions offers students college acceptances without an application, guaranteed admissions promises eligible students that they will be accepted if they apply.
The sudden disappearance of updated economic series from ShadowStats.com in late 2023 represents a significant loss for those seeking alternative metrics on inflation, unemployment, GDP, and money supply. For nearly two decades, John Williams offered alternative calculations using older methodologies—like pre-1997 CPI and the pre-1993 U-6 unemployment series—that pushed back against official narratives from Washington.
As of mid-2023, Williams had announced server transitions and communication delays. But since then, there have been no new numbers. The ShadowStats homepage now feels like a ghost town—quiet in a moment when alternative data is arguably more vital than ever.
A Counterpoint to Politicized Official Data
In early August 2025, President Donald Trump fired Erika McEntarfer, the Biden-appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, following a disappointing July jobs report and significant downward revisions to previous months. McEntarfer was accused, without evidence, of manipulating the numbers. The move alarmed economists across the political spectrum and cast new doubts on the independence of federal data reporting.
ShadowStats long operated in this shadowy realm—challenging official statistics not just for technical flaws but for what Williams saw as systemic obfuscation. Critics often scoffed at his high inflation numbers and methodology, but many respected the necessity of an outsider audit, especially as trust in federal institutions wanes.
Now, with McEntarfer gone and the BLS under renewed political pressure, the absence of ShadowStats leaves a void for watchdogs, skeptics, and independent researchers. Whatever one thought of Williams’ conclusions, his presence forced a more honest conversation.
Independent Scrutiny, Silenced
ShadowStats wasn’t perfect. Economists questioned its internal consistency, and some warned that it exaggerated inflation by double-counting or overestimating price pressures. But Williams’ work was never meant to replace the BLS—it existed to question it. Without that challenge, what’s left?
The timing of the silence is especially troubling. As jobs reports become politicized, as inflation is gamed to manage perception and investor sentiment, as federal agencies come under threat of dissolution or reorganization, the independent mirrors held up to power are fading.
And make no mistake: even flawed mirrors can reflect uncomfortable truths.
Where Do We Go from Here?
The disappearance of ShadowStats doesn’t just affect monetary theorists or Austrian school economists. It matters to ordinary Americans who sense that the numbers don’t match their lived experiences—at the pump, in the grocery store, in their paychecks. It matters to working-class families whose struggles are minimized by rosy job reports. And it matters to journalists, educators, and activists who rely on independent data to inform the public honestly.
If ShadowStats doesn’t return, its legacy will still endure as a case study in resistance—however imperfect—against technocratic opacity. But the need for independent, adversarial data has not gone away. It’s only grown louder.
We shouldn’t have to wait for another fired statistician—or another economic crisis—to demand better numbers and more transparency. The silence of ShadowStats should be a warning. Independent oversight must be rebuilt, or we’ll be flying blind into the next storm.
Nicholas Kent, a career higher education policy expert and now the Department of Education’s under secretary, has made his priorities for American colleges and universities clear—controlling student debt, building public trust and ensuring students experience a positive return on investment.
“If colleges and other postsecondary institutions merit taxpayer investment, it is because they equip American citizens with the skills and knowledge needed to thrive in this rapidly-evolving economy,” he said in his first letter to the department’s staff. “The ‘higher education industrial complex’ must be shaken up by competition, accountability, and a future-focused mindset.”
The letter was Kent’s first statement since being confirmed late Friday and sworn in early Monday morning. It is one of few times he has discussed what he plans to prioritize since President Trump nominated him to be the most senior official focused on postsecondary education in February.
Over all, Kent’s missive elicited praise and caution from higher education experts.
Some say his years of experience, combined with his resistance to the status quo, make him a prime appointee. Others worry that despite his promises of accountability and workforce development, he will focus more on the vitality of the market and less on consumer protection. Others still are encouraged simply by the fact that he’s focused on constructive regulation, not culture war–focused litigation.
“I feel a little bit like a broken record, because I keep coming back to it, but it’s so refreshing to be talking about things like accountability, outcomes, value and career-aligned education pathways, compared to what we have been talking about for the last six months with this administration,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations at the American Council on Education. “Hopefully the confirmation of Nicholas Kent will help reorient the Trump administration toward productive policy outcomes.”
A first-generation college student and Pell Grant recipient, Kent has spent the entirety of his career in higher education. Most recently, he served as deputy education secretary for Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin. But before that he advocated primarily for private institutions, working with both Career Education Colleges and Universities, which represents some for-profit colleges, and Education Affiliates, a for-profit college company that faced public scrutiny in 2013 after a whistleblower accused the company of fraud.
Critics say Kent’s ties to for-profit colleges, which they see as predatory, should have disqualified him from the job. But Education Secretary Linda McMahon voiced confidence in him.
His “technical expertise and vast experience in higher education will serve as an invaluable asset to the Department of Education team,” McMahon said in a statement Monday. “Not only will he work to fulfill President Trump’s vision for accreditation, accountability reforms, and more, but he will also be a great benefit to current and aspiring postsecondary students, faculty, and staff.”
In his letter to department staff, Kent provided little granular detail, though he’s expected to say more at several upcoming rule-making sessions. He did speak generally on a few topics, like increasing access to alternative postsecondary pathways, protecting campus free speech and helping students feel empowered by their postsecondary options.
“President Trump has entrusted me with a weighty task: to restore the greatness of American higher education and ensure that our taxpayer-supported colleges, universities, vocational schools, and other postsecondary programs are genuinely helping young Americans,” he wrote. “High school graduates should enter college with a clear direction. The taxpayer money spent on their education should have a direct impact on their ability to contribute to the workforce. [And] the federal government should be less focused on making legacy institutions ‘too big to fail’ and making students skilled enough to succeed.”
Kent also reiterated a point which Trump and McMahon have been making since the earliest days of the chief’s second term in office: The Department of Education and its Office of Federal Student Aid are failing to properly manage student loans.
“By no means should this Department administer a $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio—the fifth largest financial servicer in the country—that is 25 percent in default,” he said.
Unlike McMahon and Trump, however, Kent did not explicitly reference moving loan services to a different agency or department, like the Small Business Administration or Treasury. That said, the tone of his letter made it clear he thinks that the current system must change.
“Colleges should not be increasing their tuition each year, enabled by generous federal loan subsidies, without having to answer for their students’ outcomes,” Kent wrote.
Some policy experts like Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said they were “thrilled” to see Kent confirmed and characterized his letter as “right on the mark.”
Others, like Fansmith from ACE, weren’t quite as enthusiastic but still remained hopeful. He noted that while he likely won’t always agree with Kent on how to solve a problem, at least they will start on the same page and agree there is a problem that policy should be used to address.
“Maybe my expectations are too high,” Fansmith said. But “the letter, in a lot of ways, is a positive sign in terms of what we have repeatedly wanted from this administration—which is engagement and working with the community around matters of policy to reform and improve the higher education system.”
But Wesley Whistle, a project director for student success and affordability at New America, a left-leaning think tank, called the new under secretary’s view of public doubt in higher ed too narrow, his concerns about free speech unlicensed and his emphasis on accountability just rhetorical.
“I respect that Mr. Kent brings personal experience as a first-generation Pell recipient. But will that truly guide his approach?” Whistle said. “They’ve gone after Harvard, Columbia and other elite schools and have launched investigations into many public colleges over DEI, but where has their oversight been in terms of protecting students from fraud and poor outcomes?”
If the Trump administration really cares about improving student outcomes and holding colleges accountable, “they should make sure there is sufficient staff to properly oversee higher education and protect students and taxpayers,” he added. “It’s what students deserve and Americans want.”
First-generation students can often feel alone or isolated on their college campuses, but a new initiative at the University of Texas, San Antonio, seeks to put first-generation student athletes in the spotlight.
Starting this fall, UTSA competitive athletes will be given special patches to place on their uniforms, recognizing their unique identity as a first-gen learner.
“We’ve been really intentional about telling the stories of our student athletes and sharing their personal stories that extend far beyond the fields and courts of competition,” said Lisa Campos, vice president for intercollegiate athletics and athletic director.
Approximately 45 percent of UTSA’s student population are the first in their families to attend college, and over one-third of student athletes (or 113 students) are also first-gen learners. So far, a majority of student athletes have opted to wear the patch—which displays the campus mascot, a roadrunner, and the words “first gen”—on their uniforms for the upcoming year, Campos said.
First gen in context: While NCAA student athletes are more likely to report thriving while in college, according to a study by Gallup, first-generation students are less likely to be engaged and connected on campus.
A 2023 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and College Pulse found 37 percent of first-gen students spent zero hours per week engaging in extracurricular activities, while just 25 percent of continuing-generation students reported spending no time participating in activities on campus.
Navigating institutional processes and the hidden curriculum of higher education can also be barriers to first-generation student success, because these students are less likely to ask for help or use campus resources.
“First-gen students need a lot of support and a lot of education about what the college experience is like because, unlike other students, there’s not someone in their household who can answer all of the questions they may have,” Campos said.
Past research shows, when given academic and emotional support, first-generation student athletes feel more driven and capable of graduating from their college or university.
Students on display: The patch is just one piece of how the university seeks to celebrate first-generation students’ identities. UTSA’s athletic department is in the middle of a campaign that highlights stories of first-generation students, coaches and staff, recognizing their unique experiences. The department is also creating a resource hub on its website for first-gen student athletes.
As a first-gen student herself, Campos said attending and graduating from college is a major accomplishment for these students because of how new and unfamiliar the experience can be. “It’s important to us to recognize those student athletes who every day are changing the trajectory of their families for generations to come.”
Many of UTSA’s athletic staff members, including those on the leadership team or senior staff, are also first-generation college graduates, which Campos said provides them a better understanding of how to support student athletes.
Across the university, first-generation students can participate in a mentorship program and other special programming from the First-Generation and Transfer Student division.
How does your campus celebrate first-generation student identities? Tell us about it.
Western New Mexico University is looking to claw back $1.9 million in severance already paid to former president Joseph Shepard, who stepped down in January following a spending scandal.
Shepard, who led the university for nearly 14 years, resigned late last year in the aftermath of media reports that found he spent university funds to upgrade the president’s house with lavish furniture. Critics also raised questions about costly recruiting trips to Greece, Spain and Zambia that yielded very few enrollments from those countries. The Office of the State Auditor determined in November that Shepard “engaged in the waste of public funds” and found instances where his travel appeared to be “unrelated to official university business.”
But in December, after the damning details came to light, board members—some of whom had joined the president on international trips—gave Shepard nearly $2 million in severance, plus additional fringe benefits and a five-year faculty contract that required him to teach six credit hours a year, though he had the option to do so online. Shepard’s annual faculty salary is set at $200,000, down from the base salary of $365,000 he was making as president.
The agreement prompted outrage at WNMU, which is located in one of the nation’s poorest states and has many low-income students. Democratic governor Michelle Lujan Grisham subsequently demanded the resignation of the board, who complied, and has since appointed new members.
Last week, the new board voided Shepard’s separation agreement and terminated his teaching contract, arguing that the regents who struck the deal did so improperly and in violation of New Mexico’s Open Meetings Act. State officials have made similar arguments in a related lawsuit.
A Board Reversal
WNMU regents took up Shepard’s contract and separation agreement at a Thursday meeting.
John V. Wertheim, one of the new regents appointed by the governor in recent months, argued that the prior board failed to provide proper notice of the action items at the December meeting where they approved Shepard’s contract. Given the alleged failure of compliance with New Mexico’s Open Meetings Act, Wertheim argued that the board’s approval of the deal was invalid.
In two separate motions, the board unanimously agreed to invalidate the deal and terminate Shepard’s teaching contract. Board Chair Steven Neville said the agreement is now “in limbo.”
Wertheim noted that while WNMU’s board hired special counsel to advise them on the matter, there are outstanding questions, many of which he said regents would not be able to answer immediately due to both the legal complexity of the issue and because it is a personnel matter.
“I’m sure both the press and the public are going to have a lot of questions, and all I ask is that there be patience … because all of these detailed questions, we don’t necessarily have the answers today to give everyone, but we will, in due course,” Wertheim said at the meeting.
Following the vote, Shepard accused WNMU in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed of orchestrating a smear campaign against him.
“After serving 14 exemplary years of advancing the university, it’s troubling that this new, Governor-appointed Board has chosen this path. This is a matter before the courts. The Board’s desire to attempt to circumvent the legal process is telling in that they know they can’t win where facts matter and are doing all they can to prevent the truth from being shared,” Shepard wrote, calling the move an effort to destroy his reputation and career.
But the state’s governor praised the board’s decisions as the “right thing.”
“They recognized that public dollars must serve the public good, not pad executive pockets during difficult transitions,” Lujan Grisham wrote on social media. “This decision represents exactly the kind of fiscal responsibility and accountability New Mexicans deserve from their public institutions. Our students and their families work too hard and sacrifice too much to see their tuition dollars and taxpayer investments squandered on excessive golden parachutes.”
What’s Next?
WNMU declined to provide a comment to Inside Higher Ed, noting the situation was a personnel matter. But according to board members’ remarks, a legal fight with Shepard is expected and a settlement remains a possibility.
Complicating the matter are two lawsuits brought by the state.
New Mexico attorney general Raúl Torrez filed a lawsuit earlier this year in an effort to void the contract and recover severance payments. Torrez argued regents breached their fiduciary duty by approving the costly agreement and violated open meeting laws at December’s meeting.
Torrez brought the initial complaint in January and amended it in February. While he initially attempted to block the payment, that effort was unsuccessful, as the funds had already been disbursed. The legal fight in that case is ongoing.
Then, in late June, the New Mexico State Ethics Commission also sued Shepard, accusing him of violating the Governmental Conduct Act, which applies to state employees. In addition to the prior complaints of lavish spending, the commission accused him of diverting $177,404 intended for an ADA-compliant walkway and ramp to instead construct a walkway and patio “for the purpose of hosting events related to his daughter’s wedding” held on campus.
(Shepard has denied that university funds were used to help pay for his daughter’s wedding.)
The lawsuit also alleges that as president, “Shepard had a practice of authorizing university expenditures from which he benefited that were only loosely connected to university purposes.”
The commission is seeking financial penalties and for Shepard to reimburse WNMU for the construction of the originally planned ADA-compliant ramp and walkway, which were not built.
Back at the university, board members say they are open to some financial compensation for the former president. Had Shepard been fired for cause, he would have received no severance. Had he been fired without cause, he would have received less than $600,000, per the contract he previously negotiated with the board in 2022.
Wertheim indicated at Thursday’s meeting a desire to reach a settlement.
“The best resolution for everyone is to get this in front of a retired judge or justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court to hammer out a fair, negotiated settlement,” he said at the meeting.
Before Thursday’s vote, Shepard was reportedly scheduled to teach two online classes this fall, including one on business ethics. However, Interim president Chris Maples told The Silver City Daily Press that he and other officials plan to meet to determine what will happen with those courses. And with the semester starting Aug. 15, they’ll need to make a decision soon.
“Whatever we do, we’ll do the best job we possibly can for our students,” he told the newspaper.
International student enrollment is projected to decline this fall, based on projections from NAFSA using publicly available federal data.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Getty Images
New international enrollments in the U.S. could drop by as many as 150,000 students in the next year, according to scenario modeling by NAFSA, the association of international educators, and JB International.
Based on a 30 to 40 percent decline in new students, the research projects that colleges and universities could see a 15 percent drop in overall international student enrollments in the next academic year, resulting in $7 billion in lost revenue and 60,000 fewer jobs.
“This analysis … should serve as a clarion call to the State Department that it must act to ensure international students and scholars are able to arrive on U.S. campuses this fall,” said Fanta Aw, executive director and CEO of NAFSA, in a press release. “For the United States to succeed in the global economy, we must keep our doors open to students from around the world.”
The modeling is based on data from the Department of Homeland Security’s SEVIS By the Numbers and State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs Annual J-1 Exchange Visitor Report, as well as State’s Monthly Nonimmigrant Visa Issuance Statistics, available through May 2025.
NAFSA attributes the projected decline to recent changes to international student visa processing under the Trump administration.
NAFSA member institutions have also reported there are limited or no appointments available for their international students in China, India, Japan and Nigeria, which are among the top countries of origin for international students studying in the U.S.
On June 4, President Trump signed an executive order restricting visitors from 19 countries, but visa issuances for students from those countries had already begun to drop. F-1 visa issuances declined 150 percent and J-1 issuances declined 105 percent in May compared to last year, according to an Inside Higher Ed analysis of State Department data.
Over all, F-1 and J-1 visa issuance dropped 12 percent from January to April 2025 and an additional 22 percent year over year in May. NASFA’s report estimates that June 2025 F-1 visa issuances will decline as much as 90 percent under the new policies.
NAFSA is urging Congress to direct the State Department to provide expedited visa appointments for F-1, M-1 and J-1 visa applicants as well as exempt international students from travel restrictions.
The projection does not reflect increasing anxieties among international students interested in studying in the U.S.; a May survey by Study Portals reported student interest in studying in the U.S. has dropped to its lowest point since COVID-19, with students considering other English-speaking nations like the U.K. or Australia instead.
Current visa projections only account for fall 2025 enrollment. In a July interview with Inside Higher Ed, Rachel Banks, senior director of public policy and legislative strategy at NAFSA, noted some colleges and universities are anticipating international students will be unable to make the start of classes in the fall but may be able to come to campus later in the term or in the winter.
We have a long history of working with Scott Jeffe during his time as the VP of research at RNL. Recently, Scott moved on from RNL to begin working as an independent higher ed market research consultant and adviser to universities. To learn more about the work that Scott does and to hopefully gain some insight into where things may be going with online and graduate programs, we asked Scott the following questions.
Q: Tell us about what it means to be an independent higher ed market researcher. What sort of projects do you work on? How does what you do for universities differ from the services available from traditional consulting firms?
A: In higher education, the best market research means more than just gathering data—it means showing up as a consultant. That’s something I’ve really learned throughout my career. Too often, I see research reports that are, frankly, hard to interpret or apply. The data might be sound, but it’s overly complex, the visualizations are unclear or the recommendations are disconnected from the realities of how colleges and universities actually operate.
I’ve had those moments—looking at a data visualization and spending several minutes just trying to figure out what it’s supposed to say. And I know that no dean, provost or president has the time to do that. I’ve also read plenty of conclusions that are technically accurate but completely impractical in the real-world context of higher ed. That’s the kind of disconnect that leads campus leaders to quietly shelve the report, walk away and think, “Well, that was a waste of money.”
That is exactly what my work today seeks to avoid. My research and consulting prioritize being more direct, actionable and grounded in higher ed’s current challenges. My work now spans both institutional consulting and national research, and I think that balance is part of what makes my approach effective. For example, I’ve recently completed national studies on graduate student expectations and mentorship, which give me insight into broader trends that I can then bring into highly tailored campus-level work.
Over the past six months, I’ve developed four core services designed specifically for this moment in higher ed—politically, economically and culturally. They’re affordable, practical and fast to implement. I don’t believe in one-size-fits-all solutions, but I do believe institutions deserve work that respects their time, their context and their need to move quickly on what matters.
That’s ultimately the difference between what I offer and what many vendors often provide. I’m not just delivering a report—I’m helping institutions make real decisions, grounded in both the data and the dynamics of higher ed today.
Q: What are the most significant challenges and opportunities for universities wanting to grow graduate and/or online enrollment today?
A: At the graduate level, one of the biggest looming challenges is the likely decline in international enrollment, which has quietly propped up graduate enrollment growth for the past several years. Under the Biden administration, we saw international graduate enrollment rise by more than 117,000 students—reaching over 500,000 total. Just last year, international students made up a full one-third of new graduate enrollments in the U.S., and over 200 institutions reported that international students represented more than 30 percent of their total graduate population.
But we have to be clear-eyed: Not only is that level of growth not sustainable, but decline is coming. Whether due to shifting geopolitics, visa policy changes or growing global competition, institutions will need to refocus their efforts on the domestic graduate market—and fast.
That said, there’s opportunity in the challenge. In fact, the current job market will likely nudge more adults to consider graduate study as a buffer or springboard during economic uncertainty. The catch? Institutions are now facing unprecedented competition. By some counts, we’re adding 800 new master’s programs each year. To grow—or even maintain—enrollment, institutions must have an acute understanding of what today’s graduate students expect. That means building a blueprint rooted in student preferences and behaviors and then aligning everything—program design, marketing, recruitment and support—around those insights.
That’s where much of my work comes in. Over the last two decades, I’ve helped institutions do exactly this through tools like my Scorecard and Playbook and the Audience Alignment Study, which zero in on how to position programs for today’s increasingly selective learners.
Now, on the online education side, the landscape is a bit more favorable at the moment—particularly due to the regulatory environment calming down. The Biden administration’s push to more heavily regulate online programs—particularly around OPMs and state reciprocity—has largely been shelved. That’s good news for smaller institutions, where online offerings often represent the best path to enrollment stability or growth. Interestingly, one of the unintended effects of that regulatory scrutiny is that OPM contract terms are now much more favorable than they were a few years ago. Institutions have more leverage.
In terms of opportunity, there are two major areas I’m watching closely. First, the long-discussed but rarely well-executed effort to serve the 30 to 40 million U.S. adults with some college and no credential is almost entirely an online opportunity. However, most institutions struggle to fully serve this group. The barriers tend to fall into three key areas: restrictive credit transfer policies, pricing models that remain out of reach and a misplaced assumption that these students will return to campus for their courses. Institutions that succeed here build fully online programs with wraparound support—advising, tech help, financial aid guidance—specifically designed for students who haven’t set foot on a campus in years. And when they do that, it doesn’t just help this population—it improves online education quality for everyone.
The second opportunity is more subtle but just as important: the increased demand from traditional undergraduates for access to online courses. While this isn’t online program growth in the classic sense, it presents a major advantage. A robust online course infrastructure doesn’t just support distance learners—it makes the entire campus experience more flexible, more attractive and more resilient. For institutions, that’s a strategic win across multiple audiences.
Q: How can universities better choose which programs to start and invest in and then grow enrollments to financially sustainable numbers?
A: At all levels, I think most institutions are doing a much better job now of integrating market data into their program decision-making. There’s a pretty direct line between the era when those insights were missing and the wave of program cuts we’re seeing now. For instance, Inside Higher Ed recently reported that Indiana’s public institutions have combined or eliminated over 400 programs that weren’t meeting fairly modest graduation thresholds. That’s a clear example of the consequences of earlier decisions made without solid market alignment.
When I work with institutions on program strategy, my role is really to facilitate a conversation that balances market data and institutional strengths. I bring the external perspective—labor market demand, competitor analysis, growth trends—and they bring the internal knowledge of what they’re truly good at. The goal isn’t just to chase hot programs, but to find areas where there’s strong or emerging market demand and where the institution already has expertise, capacity and visibility. That combination is where real opportunity lives.
Why take that approach? Because institutions need quick wins. We’re often working with limited time and resources and pressure to show results. If you can build momentum by improving or reconfiguring an existing program—something that already has a foundation—you get to impact faster and more cost-effectively. In fact, across dozens of program prioritization studies I’ve been involved in, I’ve rarely seen a proposed new program with more short- or midterm market potential than several underperforming existing ones. That’s why I usually recommend a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 investment ratio favoring existing programs over net-new launches.
Once we identify the right programs to focus on, differentiation becomes key—especially in the online space, where commodification is a real concern. Institutions need detailed competitor intelligence, not just high-level benchmarking. We’re looking at how programs are positioned, how they’re structured and what messages they’re putting in front of students. That kind of granularity allows us to develop a true blueprint for differentiation—one that goes beyond clichés like “small class sizes” or “personalized attention” and speaks to what really sets a program apart.
And finally, with federal regulations increasingly focused on graduate outcomes and return on investment, it’s more important than ever to bake those metrics—job openings, wage growth, projected earnings—into the program planning process from the beginning. We’re entering a new phase where programs will be judged not just on academic merit or enrollment numbers, but on how they impact students’ long-term economic success.
So to me, the smartest institutions are those that align their strengths with market needs, invest in what they already do well and differentiate with purpose—grounded in real data.
We have become accustomed to generative artificial intelligence in the past couple of years. That will not go away, but increasingly, it will serve in support of agents.
“Where generative AI creates, agentic AI acts.” That’s how my trusted assistant, Gemini 2.5 Pro deep research, describes the difference. By the way, I commonly use Gemini 2.5 Pro as one of my research tools, as I have in this column, however, it is I who writes the column.
Agents, unlike generative tools, create and perform multistep goals with minimal human supervision. The essential difference is found in its proactive nature. Rather than waiting for a specific, step-by-step command, agentic systems take a high-level objective and independently create and execute a plan to achieve that goal. This triggers a continuous, iterative workflow that is much like a cognitive loop. The typical agentic process involves six key steps, as described by Nvidia:
User or Machine Request
The LLM: Understanding the Task
The LLM acts as the brain of the AI agent. It interprets the user’s prompt to understand the task requirements.
Planning Module: Task Breakdown
The planning module divides the task into specific actions.
Memory Module: Providing Context
The memory module ensures context is preserved for efficient task execution.
Tool Integration: Performing the Task
The agent core orchestrates external tools to complete each step.
Reasoning and Reflection: Improving Outcomes
Throughout the process, the agent applies reasoning to refine its workflow and enhance accuracy.
An early version of a general agent was released last week by OpenAI to their paid subscribers of ChatGPT. The message accompanying the release explains the potential for power and productivity as well as the care one must take to ensure privacy:
“ChatGPT agent allows ChatGPT to complete complex online tasks on your behalf. It seamlessly switches between reasoning and action—conducting in-depth research across public websites, uploaded files, and connected third-party sources (like email and document repositories), and performing actions such as filling out forms and editing spreadsheets—all while keeping you in control. To use ChatGPT agent, select ‘Agent mode’ from the tools menu or type /agent in the composer. Once enabled, just describe the task you’d like completed, and the agent will begin executing it. It will pause to request clarification or confirmation whenever needed. You can also interrupt the model at any time to provide additional instructions … When you sign ChatGPT agent into websites or enable connectors, it will be able to access sensitive data from those sources, such as emails, files, or account information. Additionally, it will be able to take actions as you on these sites, such as sharing files or modifying account settings. This can put your data and privacy at risk due to the existence of ‘prompt injection’ attacks online.”
I tried the new agent for an update on an ongoing research project I have been conducting this year. It was faster than the ChatGPT-o3 deep research product I have used previously. The report was more concise but included all the data I expected for my weekly update. It also condensed and formatted relevant material in tables. I was careful with the way in which I handled sharing personal information with the agent. Over time, I am confident that more secure ways will be found to protect users and their privacy.
Inherently, the agentic AI is different from the generative AI. Generative AI is like a brilliant but rather passive research assistant that requires constant, explicit direction. You must provide a series of precise, individual prompts to get it to complete your real objective. Agentic AI, on the other hand, functions more like an experienced project leader. You provide it with a high-level, strategic objective such as “Prepare a report for the provost that outlines the potential of offering a number of relevant new online AI certificate programs this fall targeted to large regional corporations.”
The agent then autonomously deconstructs this goal into a multistep workflow. It will search for relevant topics and targets, identify potential programs, compare and contrast current and potential offerings with those at competing institutions, generate a ROI over time analysis, synthesize the findings, draft the briefing document, access the provost’s calendar, identify available meeting times, and send a calendar invitation with the briefing attached.
That’s just one example. Agentic AI will be useful in many aspects of the university operation. It will promote efficiency, accuracy and save significant money through its round-the-clock productivity. Here are some key areas where agentic AI may be useful in the year ahead.
Student recruitment, admissions and support: We are already seeing agentic AI transforming recruitment from a high-volume, nonpersonalized process into a deeply individualized and proactive process. Engaging prospective students 24-7 across multiple communication channels, agents tailor their outreach with the promise of personalized learning that has been a central goal of educational technology. Agentic AI is poised to make this vision a reality at scale.
Teaching and learning: At last, agentic AI can personalize the learning process. These systems function as autonomous, 24-7 AI tutors that adapt to each student’s unique learning pace and style. The agentic tutor can assess a student’s understanding of a concept, identify any knowledge gaps and adapt the materials for each learner to create a personalized learning path. By employing techniques such as Socratic questioning, an agent can guide a student through a problem-solving process, adapting to the learner’s understanding of the topic and prompting them to think critically, rather than simply providing the correct answer. This can lead to mastery learning, where all learners master the key concepts of a class before they are awarded credit. No learner is left behind.
Administrative support: Agentic AI can create enhanced, annotated grade books and continuously updated, enhanced course plans for faculty; predictive analytic reports for deans and directors; individualized retention and advancement recommendations; marketing and public relations materials and plans; library recommendations for acquisitions and student engagement; and many more functions across the spectrum of administration.
AI agents will offer the next level of artificial intelligence to higher education. We can anticipate embodied agents becoming available in a year or so. Meanwhile, I encourage us all to experiment with agentic AI as it becomes available. In doing so, we can begin to create our own personalized, proactive, professional assistant that can anticipate our needs and implement our preferences.
Who at your university is leading the move to agentic AI? Perhaps you may be in a position to model the efficiency and professionalism of AI agents.
