Tag: Biden

  • Trump appoints Biden critic Nicholas Kent as undersecretary

    Trump appoints Biden critic Nicholas Kent as undersecretary

    The announcement was leaked Tuesday evening.

    J. David Ake/Getty Images

    A vocal critic of the Biden administration will oversee the nation’s colleges and universities, according to a document obtained by Inside Higher Ed. 

    The president appears set to pick Nicholas Kent, Virginia’s former deputy secretary of education, to be under secretary at the federal education department—one of several appointees included on the document. Also on the list is Kimberly Richey, senior chancellor of the Florida Department of Education, who will be appointed assistant secretary for civil rights. (The White House has yet to make an official announcement, but sources say the list of appointees should be transmitted to the Senate soon.)

    Kent, who previously worked for a trade association representing for-profit colleges, will have to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Currently, James Bergeron is serving as acting under secretary. During his first term, Trump didn’t appoint an under secretary, so the pick is the latest signal that his team is more prepared and more focused on higher education this time around. 

    “Nicholas Kent is one of the most knowledgeable higher education experts, possessing extensive technical expertise and a profound understanding of the complexities of education policy,” Jason Altmire, president of Career Education Colleges and Universities, said in a statement Tuesday night. “He is eminently qualified for the role of Under Secretary and will work on behalf of schools and students across all sectors of higher education.”

    The batch of appointees comes a day before Trump’s pick to lead the Education Department, Linda McMahon, will appear before a senate committee for her confirmation hearing.

    Kent has worked in Virginia since August 2023, overseeing the state’s postsecondary strategy. Before that, he was the chief policy officer at CECU, which represents for-profit colleges. In his role at CECU, Kent pushed back against several of the Biden administration’s policies. Now, he’ll likely be an influential voice on higher education in the Trump administration. 

    Trump’s first three weeks in office have rocked higher education as he’s moved quickly to target diversity, equity and inclusion programs at colleges and elsewhere in the private sector and the promotion of “gender ideology.” His administration temporarily paused grant reviews at the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. That pause and other moves in the last three weeks have created much uncertainty for colleges. 

    Kent will be a key figure in carrying out Trump’s orders and translating the president’s vision into policy. He’ll also bring more policy experience to the leadership team at the Education Department. Trumps’ president-elect’s nominee for education secretary, Linda McMahon has limited experience in the world of education policy, but is seen as a loyal Trump lieutenant and business mogul.

    In Virginia, Kent has worked under Gov. Glenn Youngkin, whom some have described as a Trump surrogate. Younkgin has made it a clear priority to increase the government’s influence and oversight of higher education institutions, disallow diversity, equity and inclusion programs and combat antisemitism and “anti-religious bigotry.” 

    Before that, Kent worked for for-profit colleges, advocating for cutting the red tape found in several key policies of the Biden administration.

    “The Higher Education Act specifically limits the authority of the department to pierce the corporate veil and hold individuals financially responsible,” Kent told Inside Higher Ed in April 2023. “[The Biden] administration proposes to exceed this authority through new regulations and subjective guidance.” 

    The deputy also holds a master’s degree in higher ed administration from George Washington University and has worked as both director of policy at the D.C. state superintendent of education’s office and a staff member at Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools. He is quite familiar with the Education Department’s complex rulemaking process and policy issues that frequently cross the desks of department officials, including Title IX, student loan repayment, accreditation and online education.

    Kent has also indirectly voiced support for Trump’s idea of abolishing the education department, or at least significantly whittling down the scope of its influence.

    “Congress established @usedgov 43 years ago today,” he wrote in a post on X. “I can’t help but wonder if lawmakers who voted for the Department of Education Organization Act envisioned a massive Federal takeover of K-12 and postsecondary education.”

    Richey, the appointee set to lead the Office for Civil Rights, also spent time in Virginia, serving as deputy superintendent overseeing the division of School Quality, Instruction and Performance at the Virginia Department of Education before she left for Florida. Prior to that, she worked in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights during Trump’s first term. 

    Richey has spoken out against critical race theory, the Tallahassee Democrat reported. 

    “The teaching of CRT’s core tenets can be destructive and have a deep impact on students,” she wrote in 2021. “No child is defined by the color of their skin. Moreover, the teaching of these devastating principles violates the basic religious tenets many of these schools claim to uphold.”

    If confirmed by the Senate, Richey will play a key role in the Trump administration’s crackdown on transgender athletes. In the last few weeks, Trump has banned transgender athletes from women’s sports, and the Office for Civil Rights has opened up several investigations related to that policy change. 

    Richey supported the administration’s position during the first term, arguing in September 2020 that transgender girls who play on the sports team that corresponds with their gender identity discriminated against female-student athletes.

    Source link

  • Trump blames Biden, DEI for D.C. plane crash (Washington Post)

    Trump blames Biden, DEI for D.C. plane crash (Washington Post)

    Source link

  • Joe Biden Commutes Life Sentence of Indigenous Activist Leonard Peltier (APTN News)

    Joe Biden Commutes Life Sentence of Indigenous Activist Leonard Peltier (APTN News)

    From Minnesota Public Radio News

    In one of his last official acts before leaving the White House, President Joe Biden released Leonard Peltier from prison. The action is an extraordinary move that ends a decades-long push by Indigenous activists, international religious leaders, human rights organizations who argued that the 80-year-old Native American activist was wrongly convicted.

    Source link

  • Biden Issues Historic Posthumous Pardon to Civil Rights Leader Marcus Garvey

    Biden Issues Historic Posthumous Pardon to Civil Rights Leader Marcus Garvey

    In one of his final acts as president, Joe Biden granted a posthumous pardon to Marcus Mosiah Garvey Jr., the influential civil rights leader and founder of the UniversalMarcus Garvey Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), clearing his name of a 1923 mail fraud conviction that many have long viewed as unjust.

    The pardon, announced just before the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, came after years of advocacy from Howard University School of Law professors and students, led by Professor Justin Hansford, who worked closely with Garvey’s son, Dr. Julius Garvey.

    “In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Marcus Garvey was ‘the first man of color in the history of the United States to lead and develop a mass movement,’” said Hansford, who published Jailing a Rainbow: The Unjust Trial and Conviction of Marcus Garvey last year. “He was convicted of mail fraud in a trial widely recognized as a miscarriage of justice.”

    The pardon effort gained significant support from 21 members of Congress, primarily from the Congressional Black Caucus, who urged Biden to “honor his work for the Black community, remove the shadow of an unjust conviction, and further your administration’s promise to advance racial justice.” Last year, Diverse featured a podcast on the subject. 

    Garvey, Jamaica’s first national hero, was convicted in 1923 on one count of mail fraud related to his role as president of the Black Star Line shipping company. He received the maximum sentence of five years imprisonment and a $1,000 fine.

    The UNIA founder was a pioneering advocate for human rights and Pan-Africanism, building a movement that reached 6 million members across 40 countries.

    The presidential pardon marks the end of a century-long struggle to clear Garvey’s name. Previous attempts included congressional hearings in 1987 led by Representatives John Conyers and Charlie Rangel, who introduced resolutions to exonerate him.

    The exoneration comes 84 years after Garvey’s death in 1940, affirming his innocence and recognizing his significant contributions to civil rights and human rights advocacy worldwide.

    Source link

  • Biden administration opened ‘new chapter’ on college financing, Kvaal says

    Biden administration opened ‘new chapter’ on college financing, Kvaal says

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    James Kvaal is the outgoing U.S. under secretary of education. His tenure ends with the inauguration of Donald Trump on Jan. 20.

    After decades of an accelerating student debt crisis, Joe Biden is the first president to use every available tool to alleviate the burden of borrowing for college. He will be remembered for turning the page on the worst consequences of the country’s failed experiment with debt-financed college and beginning a new chapter on how to pay for higher education.

    For the past two generations, increasing reliance on student debt seemed like an easy solution to paying for college. Loan terms were set at no cost to the government, and students were expected to easily earn enough to pay the loans back following graduation.

    But it didn’t work out that way. One in three borrowers don’t graduate, leaving them with debt but no degree. Because interest piles up so fast, more than 20 million people owe more than they borrowed. Before the pandemic, more than a million people default on their college loans every year.

    Some critics say that student debt affects borrowers of all income levels equally. But hair stylists, massage therapists and other workers earning modest wages often went into debt to get the training, certificates or degrees needed for their jobs. And debt is not just a problem for the roughly 43 million people with student loans. It hurts their families and communities because it stands in the way of economic security, homeownership and potential new businesses.

    .

    James Kvaal, the U.S. under secretary of education under President Joe Biden

    Permission granted by U.S. Department of Education

     

    Others say we should eliminate student debt altogether. But until Congress and states invest in lower tuitions and larger scholarships — as President Biden has proposed — loans will remain essential for many low-income and middle-class students.

    The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated these festering problems. Nearly 3 of every 5 students lacked adequate access to food or housing during the pandemic, putting them at risk of dropping out. And most borrowers of modest means expected they couldn’t afford loan payments.

    By pausing payments and interest on federal loans, the administration saved the average borrower in repayment more than $3,800 and helped them persevere through the national emergency. President Biden also fought partisan opponents in court for up to $20,000 in one-time relief for borrowers — all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    While the pause gave borrowers a break, the U.S. Department of Education worked on long-term solutions.

    First, we focused on people who were owed forgiveness but were blocked by bureaucracy.

    For example, only 7,000 people had ever received Public Service Loan Forgiveness from the program’s creation in 2007 to when President Biden took office in 2021. Many public servants planned their careers around this benefit only to learn too late that they had the wrong type of loan or had spent years in the wrong repayment plan. Now, more than 1 million borrowers have received the relief they earned.

    We also kept promises to borrowers with permanent disabilities and those who were cheated by colleges. In total, we have approved more than 5 million people for loan relief. Many more borrowers are set to benefit in the years to come.

    I’ve heard countless stories about what this life-changing relief has meant for Americans. They say they are finally able to plan for retirement, pay off medical expenses, or even have more children.

    At the same time, not all of our efforts succeeded. Some 40 million borrowers and their families continue to feel the weight of both the Supreme Court decision to deny one-time relief and litigation hindering our ability to help borrowers experiencing hardship.

    Second, to help people with low incomes and high debts, the Biden administration created Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE — an income-driven repayment plan that could cut monthly payments in half for eligible borrowers. People making payments would finally see their balances going down, instead of up due to ballooning interest.

    SAVE served almost 8 million people before partisan lawsuits held it up, and it’s now under judicial review. The SAVE plan is similar to other repayment plans the department has created over the past 30 years, and we continue to defend it in court.

    Source link

  • Biden administration discharges $4.5B in loans for Ashford students

    Biden administration discharges $4.5B in loans for Ashford students

    The Education Department is discharging any remaining loans for more than 260,000 borrowers who attended Ashford University and will move to bar a key executive at Ashford’s former parent company from the federal financial aid system, the agency announced Wednesday.

    The agency’s action, totaling $4.5 billion, builds on an August 2023 decision to forgive $72 million in loans for 2,300 former Ashford students after finding that the college repeatedly lied to them about the cost, time requirement and value of its degree program. The discharges through the department’s borrower-defense program are among the largest in the program’s history. Wiping out the loans for Corinthian College students cost the department $5.8 billion, while the discharges for former ITT Technical Institute students totaled $3.9 billion.

    The University of Arizona acquired the predominantly online institution Ashford in 2020 and rebranded it as the University of Arizona Global Campus. At first, the university partnered with Zovio Inc., a publicly traded company that owned Ashford, to run the rebranded entity but decided in 2022 to buy Zovio’s assets. The University of Arizona has since moved to completely absorb the online campus.

    Borrowers who attended Ashford from March 1, 2009, through April 30, 2020, are eligible for relief.

    “Numerous federal and state investigations have documented the deceptive recruiting tactics frequently used by Ashford University,” said U.S. under secretary of education James Kvaal in a statement. “In reality, 90 percent of Ashford students never graduated, and the few who did were often left with large debts and low incomes. Today’s announcement will finally provide relief to many students who were harmed by Ashford’s illegal actions.”

    The Biden administration has forgiven $34 billion via borrower defense for 1.9 million borrowers, the department said.

    But forgiving loans for Ashford students isn’t enough for the department. Officials proposed a governmentwide debarment of Andrew Clark, who in 2004 founded Bridgepoint Education, which later became Zovio. He stepped down in March 2021.

    The debarment would mean Clark could no longer be employed in any role at any institution that receives funding from Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which authorizes federal financial aid programs, for at least three years.

    “The conduct of Ashford can be imputed to Mr. Clark because he participated in, knew, or had reason to know of Ashford’s misrepresentations,” the department said in a news release. “Mr. Clark not only supervised the unlawful conduct, he personally participated in it, driving some of the worst aspects of the boiler-room-style recruiting culture.”

    The department’s Office of Hearings and Appeals has final say on whether to debar Clark, who can contest the decision.

    Source link

  • Mixed reactions after Biden nixed TRIO for undocumented students

    Mixed reactions after Biden nixed TRIO for undocumented students

    Advocates for undocumented students have their hands full as they prepare for President-elect Donald Trump to take office later this month.

    They’re fielding questions from nervous students fearful of Trump’s promises of mass deportations and advising college staff members seeking to support these students within legal bounds. But then, the Biden administration dropped a fresh disappointment on top of their heaping pile of concerns when it pulled back on a proposal to make undocumented students eligible for some TRIO programs.

    The decision—tucked into a set of finalized rules released at the end of the year—was met with mixed emotions from advocates who have long pushed to give undocumented students access to the federal college prep programs designed to help disadvantaged students enroll and persist in college. Some mourned the chance to secure a win for undocumented students before Trump took office. Others saw the decision as a painful but pragmatic response to the incoming administration, which may have barred undocumented students from these programs anyway or penalized TRIO programs for serving them. Proponents of the dead proposal expect it’ll be years before the opportunity to open up these programs presents itself again.

    Magin Sanchez, higher education policy analyst at UnidosUS, a Latino civil rights organization, said undocumented students would have a lot to gain from TRIO programs, given that they already face major hurdles to enrolling in college, like a lack of access to federal financial aid. He believes the extra academic support and college counseling these programs offer could put these students on a more level playing field with their peers.

    “Higher education is one of the surest pathways to economic mobility and prosperity,” Sanchez said. “There are significant barriers for this population, students that just want to have access to a better life, like any college student.”

    A former board member at the Council for Opportunity in Education told Inside Higher Ed that they didn’t know how to feel about the Biden administration’s decision. The organization, which supports low-income and first-generation students and students with disabilities, was among those that pushed for the change.

    “With the new administration coming in, we want to do everything to protect our students, so in that sense, I kind of understood why,” said the former board member, who asked to remain anonymous in order to avoid speaking for their current employer. “My other reaction was, man, we’re doing this again? We’re bringing up students’ hopes again? We bring up their hopes only to shoot them down again and again.”

    What Happened

    The Education Department initially proposed that noncitizen students be eligible for three TRIO programs—Upward Bound, Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers—if students enrolled in or planned to enroll in high schools in the United States, its territories or Freely Associated States and met other eligibility criteria. Those programs were selected because they serve students in public K-12 schools, which are open to all students, regardless of immigration status.

    But in finalized rules released Dec. 30, the department decided against it.

    Department officials wrote that, after reviewing public comment, they believed the proposal was “too narrow,” because it didn’t include the Student Support Services program, which offers academic support to college students, or the McNair Scholars program, which prepares students for graduate education. Officials also concluded that opening only some programs to undocumented students would “cause confusion” and “increase administrative burden.”

    Department officials also argued that the Higher Education Act, the federal law that governs how federal higher ed programs are administered, doesn’t explicitly bar noncitizens from participating in TRIO programs.

    So, the department scrapped the proposal altogether “to reconsider how best to ensure that the TRIO programs are able to reach all populations of disadvantaged students, irrespective of immigration status,” officials wrote.

    Pushback, Parsing and Planning

    Some advocates don’t buy the department’s explanations.

    The former COE board member said TRIO directors already have to parse regulatory differences between different programs, so the idea that opening up only some programs to undocumented students would prove too confusing “didn’t fly too well with me.”

    “I get it, it’s a political explanation, but at the same time, it doesn’t help the community with that messaging,” they said.

    Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education, said as far as he’s concerned, “This really seems like a classic case of elections have consequences. Had we been talking about an incoming Harris administration, I don’t know that the department would have pulled back the regulation.”

    At the same time, the Biden administration seems to have left the door open a crack. The language of the finalized rules implies TRIO directors could interpret the Higher Education Act as not explicitly forbidding undocumented students from participating in TRIO programs.

    “I think you can certainly read that as offering up an interpretation of existing statute that might provide some flexibility—certainly the idea that if it’s not delineated, that doesn’t necessarily preclude it,” Fansmith said. So, the Biden administration may be “indicating where schools could go, but frankly, stopping short of something they know would be quickly reversed by the incoming administration.” Still, that’s “certainly not as clear as formally regulating on it.”

    Now in a gray area, it remains to be seen whether TRIO directors will use that latitude to serve students regardless of citizenship or if they’ll continue to bar undocumented students, given the Trump administration is unlikely to interpret the law in this way. Their choices could prove risky. A year ago, some school and college administrators were already worried that, if undocumented students were granted access to these programs, TRIO programs could face Republican backlash and funding cuts. This summer, six Republicans in Congress, including former chair of the House education committee Virginia Foxx, opposed the proposal in a letter to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona.

    Education department officials wrote in the finalized rules that the department “may reconsider TRIO student eligibility through future rulemaking efforts.” But the proposal’s proponents believe there’s a slim to none chance of that during Trump’s term, given his rhetoric against undocumented immigrants.

    “We’re going to have to wait at least four years again,” Fansmith said.

    Nonetheless, some remain hopeful that undocumented students will benefit from TRIO programs in the future. Sanchez said he still thinks it’s going to happen, even if this “window of opportunity” has passed.

    “We’ll keep fighting,” Sanchez said. “We’ll keep advocating, because we may not have gotten it right now, but we’ll get it eventually.”

    Source link

  • Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Administration’s Title IX Rule

    Federal Judge Strikes Down Biden Administration’s Title IX Rule

    by CUPA-HR | January 9, 2025

    On January 9, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky Court vacated the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations. The order strikes down the regulations nationwide, reverting enforcement back to the 2019 Title IX regulations set by the Trump administration.

    Background

    The Biden administration’s Title IX final rule was released in April 2024 and was set to take effect on August 1, 2024. Soon after the rule was published, several states filed legal challenges against it, resulting in preliminary injunctions that blocked the rule from taking effect in 26 states and hundreds of schools in other states that did not challenge the regulations.

    The Biden administration appealed the preliminary injunctions to the Supreme Court, requesting that the court limit the scope of the preliminary injunctions placed by the lower courts to block only those provisions that related to gender identity. They argued that the lower courts’ decisions to grant the preliminary injunctions were based on concerns with the expanded protections for transgender students and that other provisions like the new grievance procedures and training requirements set forth by the final rule should be able to take effect. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the Biden administration’s request, arguing that the gender identity provisions were “intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule.”

    District Court Judge’s Ruling

    In the ruling that vacates the rule nationwide, the federal judge stated that the Biden administration’s Title IX rule is unlawful because Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination does not include the scope laid out in the regulations, which include expanded protections for pregnancy or related conditions, gender identity and sexual orientation. The order also states that the rule violates the First Amendment and that it is “arbitrary and capricious.”

    Looking Ahead

    The judge’s order almost certainly ends any hopes for the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations to take effect nationwide. The Biden administration may decide to appeal the decision to a higher court, but efforts to reinstate the rule will likely be unsuccessful given the few days they have left in office and the incoming Trump administration’s unwillingness to defend the rule in court. Alternatively, the Trump administration may seek to update their 2019 Title IX regulations, though any urgency to do so may be diminished now that the 2019 regulations are back in place.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for Title IX updates and keep members apprised via Washington Insider Alert emails and the blog.



    Source link

  • Biden Administration Releases Final Regulatory Agenda of Their Term

    Biden Administration Releases Final Regulatory Agenda of Their Term

    by CUPA-HR | January 7, 2025

    On December 13, the Biden administration issued their Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda, which provides insights on regulatory and deregulatory activity under development across more than 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions. The Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda is the second agenda published this year, following the Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda released in July.

    Given the upcoming change in administration, the Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda is the last that will be released by the Biden administration. The Trump administration will seek to change many regulatory priorities after taking office, meaning that regulations intended to be released after the Biden administration leaves office will change or be withdrawn altogether. As such, the regulations and target dates highlighted below are not final and subject to change once the Trump administration takes office.

    Department of Labor

    Heat Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings

    The Biden administration’s regulatory agenda reminds interested stakeholders of the Department of Labor (DOL) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)’s notice of proposed rulemaking on heat injury and illness prevention measures for both indoor and outdoor work settings. The comment period is open through January 14, 2025.

    If finalized, the rule would impact all workplace settings under OSHA’s jurisdiction where employees are exposed to heat indexes that equal or exceed 80 degrees, regardless of whether the work is performed in an indoor or outdoor setting. All covered employers would need to circulate heat injury and illness prevention plans (HIIPPs), implement measures for providing breaks and water to employees exposed to high heat, and train employees on heat-related risks and illness prevention, among other provisions.

    Given the comment period’s closing date, the incoming Trump administration will be tasked with next steps for the heat rule upon taking office. Trump nominated Lori Chavez-DeRemer to serve as DOL secretary, where she will oversee future actions taken with respect to heat injury and illness regulations. While she has not publicly weighed in on the current proposal, she co-led a report during her time in Congress that recommended the creation of a federal heat standard for nonimmigrant agricultural workers. She is also from Oregon, which has already implemented its own state heat illness prevention standard. As such, she may be responsive to moving forward with a heat injury and illness rule if confirmed as DOL secretary, though what those regulations may include remains to be seen.

    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

    Recordkeeping Requirements for PWFA Charge-Related Records

    The regulatory agenda includes a reminder that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a notice of proposed rulemaking to extend existing recordkeeping requirements under EEO law to include charges under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The NPRM was published on November 21, 2024, and the comment period runs through January 21, 2025.

    The PWFA was signed into law in December 2022, and the EEOC subsequently finalized implementing regulations for the PWFA in April 2024. The lengthy regulations provide guidance to employers and workers on people covered under the law and regulations, the types of limitations and medical conditions covered, and how to request reasonable accommodations.

    According to the regulatory agenda, the new notice of proposed rulemaking sets out recordkeeping requirements for institutions of higher education relating to PWFA charges. The regulations do not require the creation of any records, but they do require that all covered entities (including higher ed institutions) maintain all employment and personnel records they make or keep in the regular course of business for a period of one year and all records relevant to a PWFA charge. These requirements are identical to the recordkeeping requirements related to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) charges.

    Federal Acquisition Regulation

    Pay Equity and Transparency in Federal Contracting

    In January 2025, the Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and NASA anticipate releasing a final rule to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation on pay equity and transparency in federal contracting.

    The joint agencies published a pay equity and transparency notice of proposed rulemaking  in January 2024, in which the agencies propose to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to implement a government-wide policy that would:

    1. prohibit contractors and subcontractors from seeking and considering job applicants’ previous compensation when making employment decisions about personnel working on or in connection with a government contract (“salary history ban”), and
    2. require these contractors and subcontractors to disclose the compensation to be offered on job announcements (“compensation disclosure” or “pay transparency”).

    Although the agencies are targeting January 2025 for release, the final rule has not yet been sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review prior to publication. All regulations are required to be reviewed by OIRA before they are published for the public, and review typically lasts 30-60 days after the regulation is received. Given the short time left, it appears unlikely that the rule will be published before the end of the Biden administration’s term. It is unknown if the Trump administration will move forward with this rule or seek to withdraw it.

    Department of Homeland Security

    Modernizing H-1B Requirements and Oversight and Providing Flexibility in the F-1 Program

    The Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda shows that the Department of Homeland Security aimed for a December 2024 release of additional regulations to modernize the H-1B program. DHS met this timeline, publishing a final rule on December 18.

    The final rule included several noteworthy provisions that addressed concerns raised by CUPA-HR in comments responding to the October 2023 proposed rule, including a modification of the definition and criteria for H-1B specialty occupations.

    The rule also codifies DHS’s current policy to give deference to prior determinations when adjudicating petitions involving the same party and facts (known as the “deference policy”), eliminates the itinerary requirement in the Form I-129, expands the H-1B cap exemptions for nonprofit and governmental research organizations, enhances cap-gap protections for F-1 students transitioning to H-1B status, and strengthens the USCIS site-visit program.

    The final rule takes effect on January 17, 2025, just days before the next presidential inauguration. While it is unclear if the incoming Trump administration will seek to modify or roll back the rule, the codification of key provisions, such as the deference policy, makes them more difficult to rescind without formal rulemaking.

    Department of Education

    Discrimination Based on Shared Ancestry or Ethnicity

    Keeping with the date set in the Spring 2024 Regulatory Agenda, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) originally targeted December 2024 for the release of a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and OCR’s enforcement responsibilities for cases involving discrimination based on shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. OCR is issuing this in response to a 2019 Trump executive order and a 2021 Biden executive order.

    The proposed rulemaking has become a higher priority for OCR, given the recent political activity on campus related to the Israel-Hamas war and related scrutiny from Congressional Republicans of higher education’s response to protests on campus. OCR explains the need for this rulemaking by stating that they have “received complaints of harassment and assaults directed at Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and other students based on their shared ancestry or ethnicity.”

    OCR missed the December target date, and the rule has not yet been sent to OIRA for review prior to publication. Given the short amount of time the Biden administration has before the end of its term, it seems unlikely that this rule will be published before the Trump administration takes office. It is unknown if and how the Trump administration would move forward with regulations on the same issue, though they may seek to publish a proposal given the first Trump administration’s 2019 executive order on combatting antisemitism.

    Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance: Sex-Related Eligibility Criteria for Male and Female Athletic Teams

    In the Fall 2024 Regulatory Agenda, OCR kept its rule to finalize Title IX requirements related to transgender students’ participation in athletic programs to its “long-term actions” list, but the Biden administration subsequently withdrew it on December 20, 2024, halting all efforts to finalize the rule.

    As a reminder, the April 2023 proposed rule recommended language that would prohibit schools receiving federal funding from adopting or applying a one-size-fits-all ban on transgender student participation on teams consistent with their gender identity.

    The Trump administration is likely to reverse the Biden administration’s Title IX regulations that expand protections to individuals facing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Trump and Republicans also spoke of bans on transgender women’s participation in women’s sports during the 2024 election campaign. As such, the Trump administration could choose to issue a separate Title IX rule regarding transgender students’ participation in athletic programs, though it remains to be seen if they will do so.

    Looking Ahead

    As mentioned above, the target dates and regulations themselves are likely to change once the Trump administration takes office. The public will not have insight into the anticipated regulatory and deregulatory activity under the Trump administration until the Spring 2025 Regulatory Agenda is released, which will likely be sometime in late spring or early summer 2025. CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of all relevant regulatory activity as it develops throughout the year.



    Source link

  • Biden administration finalizes distance ed, TRIO rules

    Biden administration finalizes distance ed, TRIO rules

    The Biden administration’s regulations changing how colleges are held accountable and adding new requirements for institutions to access federal financial aid are now in place, though legal challenges loom. 

    Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post/Getty Images

    Colleges will have to submit to the federal government new data on their distance education programs under a batch of new rules the Biden administration finalized Monday.

    The rules, which will take effect July 1, 2026, will likely be the president’s last package of new regulations for colleges and universities before Trump takes office Jan. 20.

    The new regulations carry out Biden’s plan to increase federal oversight of online programs, but the final version doesn’t go as far as the president initially intended After receiving significant pushback from online education lobbyists, the Education Department conceded, backing off a plan to  disallow asynchronous options for clock-hour courses or require colleges to take attendance in online classes.

    The package does, however, still include rules that require colleges to report more data on enrollment in distance education classes, which include those offered online or via correspondence. Higher ed institutions won’t have to begin submitting the data until July 1, 2027.

    “Online learning can reach more students and sometimes at a lower cost to students, but what we know about the outcomes of online education compared to traditional in-person instruction is woefully inadequate,” Under Secretary James Kvaal said in the release. “The new reporting in this final rule will help the department and the public better assess student outcomes at online programs and help students make informed choices.”

    The final rule also included technical changes to federal college prep programs known as TRIO. But the department decided not to move forward with a plan to open eligibility to some TRIO programs to undocumented students—a long-sought goal of some TRIO directors and advocates, as well as higher education associations. 

    Distance Education

    But one of the most controversial parts of the rule for colleges and universities was whether Biden would decide to end any asynchronous options for students in online clock-hour programs, which are typically short-term workforce training programs that lead to a certificate.

    A Trump-era rule allowed asynchronous learning activities—such as watching a prerecorded video—to count toward the required number of credits in short-term clock-hour programs. But the department said in its proposal that because of the hand-on nature of many clock-hour programs, the change often results in a “substandard education” that “puts students and taxpayers at risk.” 

    Hundreds of professors and higher education groups disagreed. Some, particularly those representing for-profit programs, argued in public comments that the proposal exceeded the department’s authority and would burden institutions. Others said the new rules reflected an antiquated mindset about college modality, arguing that disallowing asynchronous options could limit access for students who benefit from the flexibility that online education provides.

    While the department decided not to end asynchronous distance ed programs, the agency intends to keep a close eye on the courses. 

    “The department refined these final rules based upon extensive public comment on a notice of proposed rulemaking published over the summer,” department officials said in a news release. “However, we remind institutions that asynchronous clock hours cannot be used for homework and that there must be robust verification of regular and substantive interaction with an instructor.”  

    No Expanded TRIO

    Although the decision not to expand eligibility for TRIO has fewer implications for colleges, the move is a blow for the TRIO directors and immigration equity advocates who have been working for years to open up the program.

    Miriam Feldblum, executive director of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, told Inside Higher Ed that nearly 100,000 undocumented students graduate from high school each year, many of whom could benefit from TRIO services. 

    But Republicans opposed the idea. Six GOP members of Congress, including Virginia Foxx, a North Carolinian and former chair of the House education committee, blasted the concept in a letter to Secretary Miguel Cardona in August.

    “The proposed expansion is a blatant attempt to provide additional taxpayer-funded services to those not seeking citizenship in the name of reducing ‘burden.’ The department’s proposed expansion will stretch funding thin and risk those currently eligible for TRIO,” they wrote.

    Some college administrators and TRIO directors in red states are worried about the potential political backlash Biden’s new regulation could cause for their programs.

    “The fighter in me thinks that this is a tough time to go to battle and have an unforced error or a target on our backs and [on] TRIO, given the contentious nature of immigration policy right now,” Geoffrey Garner, a TRIO program director from Oregon, said in at January 2024 advisory committee meeting. “We just think right now is not the best time for this proposal, as much as it breaks my heart to say that out loud.”

    That advisory committee ended up backing the changes to expand some TRIO programs to undocumented students.

    Education Department officials said its decision wasn’t due to political tensions. Rather, they said the proposal “was too narrow … in scope of additional populations to be served.”

    Under the department’s proposed rule, high school students who aren’t citizens or permanent residents could qualify for Upward Bound, Talent Search and Educational Opportunity Centers but not Student Support Services or the McNair Scholars Program.

    “An expansion of student eligibility under only certain TRIO programs would create confusion, as many grantees administer grants under more than one TRIO program,” officials wrote in the final rule. “Eligibility for only certain TRIO programs would increase administrative burden by requiring grantees to deny similarly situated noncitizens from participating under certain TRIO programs, but not others.”

    Source link