Tag: Democrats

  • Empowered Virginia Democrats Move Fast to Reshape Higher Ed

    Empowered Virginia Democrats Move Fast to Reshape Higher Ed

    When Virginia’s new Democratic leaders took control of the governor’s office and attorney general position last week, they wasted no time overhauling higher ed.

    Abigail Spanberger, the new governor, immediately appointed more than two dozen members to the governing boards of the Virginia Military Institute, George Mason University and the University of Virginia, meaning she’s already appointed the majority of members on the George Mason and UVA boards. Her Republican predecessor, Glenn Youngkin, stocked university boards with conservatives who cracked down on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. UVA went through high-profile controversies under its Youngkin-era board, including the resignation of former president Jim Ryan under pressure.

    Now, Spanberger’s appointees—at least 13 of whom donated to her gubernatorial campaign—are expected to lead universities in a different direction. Spanberger also signed an executive order Saturday directing her education secretary to assess the board member appointment process and recommend legislative changes, including possible modifications to term lengths, term starts and reappointments. In the order, Spanberger wrote that the Trump administration’s actions necessitate this review.

    “Virginia colleges and universities have faced unprecedented challenges from shifts in federal policy to attacks on institutional autonomy and mission,” Spanberger said. “These pressures underscore the urgent need for the Commonwealth to reevaluate how governing boards are appointed, ensuring they are composed of individuals dedicated to upholding the quality, independence, and reputation of our institutions.”

    The new attorney general, Jay Jones, also moved swiftly. He fired GMU’s university counsel K. Anne Gambrill Gentry and associate counsel Eli Schlam, leaving the institution with two remaining in-house lawyers, the university said. Jones also ousted VMI general counsel Patrick O’Leary; a spokesperson for the institution said O’Leary “notified us that he received a letter late last week informing him that his services were no longer required.”

    Furthermore, on Tuesday, Jones’s office withdrew his Republican predecessor’s agreement with the Justice Department to disregard a state law that provides in-state tuition rates to undocumented students. The department sued the state Dec. 29, seeking to invalidate the law, and the next day—on his way out of office—former Virginia attorney general Jason Miyares concurred in a court filing that the law was unconstitutional.

    In a news release on the reversal, Jones said, “On day one, I promised Virginians I would fight back against the Trump Administration’s attacks on our Commonwealth, our institutions of higher education, and most importantly—our students.”

    And Democrat General Assembly members—who control both legislative chambers, including a supermajority in the House for the first time since the 1980s—have already expressed interest in higher ed changes. Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell filed a bill in the current legislative session that would, among other things, lengthen governing board members’ terms from four to six years and add one faculty, one staff and one student voting member to each board.

    Furthermore, House member Dan Helmer filed a resolution to create a task force to determine whether VMI—where the Youngkin-era board last year rejected a contract extension for the university’s top leader—should no longer be a public university that receives public funding. If the resolution passes, the task force will explore “expanding programs at other public institutions of higher education to replace the role of VMI” in training commissioned military officers.

    Among other things, the resolution calls for the group to audit whether the university responded to a report to the 2021 State Council of Higher Education for Virginia detailing discrimination by initiating “any substantial changes” to “reduce acts within their student body that could be perceived or classified as racist, sexist, or misogynistic or as an act of sexual harassment or sexual assault,” and whether the university “possesses the capacity as an institution to end celebration of the Confederacy.”

    In an email to Inside Higher Ed, a VMI spokesperson said, “We are reviewing many pieces of legislation, including Del. Helmer’s, and plan to work with our elected officials to demonstrate VMI’s progress.”

    Altogether, the moves show state Democrats’ willingness to act quickly to counteract the rapid changes to higher ed that Republicans—at both the state and federal level—rushed into place last year. Democratic leaders don’t appear afraid of attracting the ire of the Trump administration after its interventions in 2025, including the Justice Department’s demand that Ryan step down from leading UVA and Justice and Education Department investigations into George Mason that observers feared would oust the president there.

    But Surovell’s bill, and Spanberger’s recent statements to the General Assembly, also suggest that Democrats are seeking more than to bask in their newfound, but likely fleeting, power; they’re aiming to insulate higher ed decision-making from future political turnovers.

    “Virginia has some of the finest colleges and universities in the world,” Spanberger told lawmakers in a Monday address. “And yet, news story after news story isn’t about their successes—it’s about them becoming political battlegrounds.”

    She touted her review of the appointments process but added that she “will also work with this General Assembly to pursue reforms that prevent any future governor—Democrat or Republican—from imposing an ideological agenda on our universities. As governor, I have and will appoint serious, mission-driven individuals to our Boards of Visitors—people whose allegiance is to the institutions they serve, not to any political agenda.”

    The state’s Republican Party didn’t respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

    A Question of Stability

    Walt Heinecke, past president of UVA’s American Association of University Professors chapter and a current member of the Virginia state AAUP conference’s executive committee, opposed Ryan’s ouster from UVA and the Youngkin-era board’s appointment of a new president on their way out the door.

    “This has just been a mess for a year, and it’s important for us to clean house,” Heinecke said.

    He said Democrats “realized that, since last January, there’s been an attempt to basically take over universities with the Trump agenda, and I think they’re sick and tired of the moves that have been made.”

    Jon Becker, a tenured associate professor of educational leadership at Virginia Commonwealth University, said the speed with which Spanberger moved to appoint new board members was “no surprise.” Starting last year, Democrats blocked several of Youngkin’s board appointments, and those boards needed people.

    “At UVA, they were effectively without a board,” Becker said, adding that George Mason’s board similarly lacked the required number of members to conduct business. He said it was “fairly urgent” for Spanberger to appoint members to allow those boards to function again.

    Going forward, Becker said, “I would expect the focus on board reform to continue.”

    “A good, thorough review would show that there are practices in other states that might bring better governance to higher education in Virginia,” he said, such as requiring geographic diversity on boards and other ways of making them more representative of the state. He said, “Board members are mostly … kind of wealthier people, and they really should be more representative of the citizens.”

    But he also sees the Democratic moves as an attempt to tell the federal government to keep its hands off the state’s universities. And he said he thinks Virginia is indicative of what other states will do regarding higher ed when a single party takes control and realizes it needs to move fast to make change.

    Alex Keena, a tenured associate professor of political science at Virginia Commonwealth, said, “I think what we’ve seen here in Virginia is a reflection of national trends, where national party politics is starting to influence how things are done at the state level.”

    “You have positions in government that used to be insulated from partisan politics that are now like the latest battlegrounds,” Keena said. In certain cases, he said, Youngkin’s board appointments were “antagonistic to the whole project” of higher ed, or “had very extreme ideas about the future of higher ed.”

    Now, Keena said, Democrats seem to be reacting to what the Youngkin and Trump administrations did last year, “which is this politicization of these boards that we really hadn’t seen in Virginia.” While Democrats will probably offer some stability for universities, he said, “it doesn’t really change the big picture—that you have this very hostile approach from the federal government.”

    Keena said he wonders how Spanberger will respond to attacks from the Trump administration.

    “How will she deal with that friction?” he said. “It’s a lot of uncertainty.”

    Source link

  • Connecticut Democrats pitch plan for state-level graduate loan program

    Connecticut Democrats pitch plan for state-level graduate loan program

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Democratic leaders in Connecticut are proposing a new state graduate student loan program to fill a vacuum created by the federal lending pullback built into Republicans’ massive spending bill. 
    • That plan would expand the reach of the Connecticut Higher Education Supplemental Loan Authority, using up to $20 million of its funds to create the loan program, according to a press release. It also calls for $10 million in state funding. 
    • The program could reach over 2,000 students in its initial phase, a CHESLA official said at a press conference Wednesday. The chairs of the General Assembly’s education committee plan to introduce and push for the proposal in the upcoming session.

    Dive Insight:

    The federal bill set to take effect in July, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, will bring sweeping changes to the federal student loan system, with the largest impacts landing on graduate students and programs. 

    The new law sunsets the Grad PLUS loan program, which allows graduate students to borrow up to the cost of attendance. When it launched 20 years ago, Grad PLUS was the largest new student aid program in decades. 

    Along with the program’s end, OBBBA sets new caps on annual and total borrowing. Federal loans will max out at $100,000 for graduate students and double that for professional students.

    Just who is considered a graduate or professional student is no small financial matter, and one that regulators are mulling. The U.S. Department of Education plans to propose regulations that would exclude some health professionsincluding nursing, occupational therapy and physician associates — from the definition of “professional” that carries a higher loan cap. 

    Much uncertainty hangs over the federal loan changes and could put pressure on states to engineer their own solutions, as Connecticut is considering. 

    “We can ensure that students have the ability to become a doctor or scientist or a nurse or an educator and have their career choice determined by their drive and their talent — not the size of their bank account,” Rep. Gregg Haddad, co-chair of the state House’s Higher Education and Employment Advancement Committee, said at a press conference Wednesday. 

    Haddad and others estimate Connecticut graduate students currently receive $90 million in Grad PLUS loans, leaving a large financing gap in the state once the program ends. 

    The plan to create a state-level loan program would use CHESLA’s existing infrastructure and bond authority, while state funding could make loans more affordable, said Josh Hurlock, deputy director of CHESLA, at the press conference. 

    “The plan is not to just replace the Grad PLUS program,” Hurlock said. “The goal is to provide a more affordable financing option for Connecticut graduate students.” 

    Democrats control both chambers of Connecticut’s legislature as well as the state’s executive branch. 

    Where states don’t create their own lending programs, graduate students could be forced into the private lending market to make up shortfalls in federal loans. 

    Currently, private lenders play a “minimal” role in the market, researchers with the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia’s Consumer Finance Institute said in a recent analysis. 

    The study found that 28% of graduate student borrowers in recent years took out loans over the cap levels set by OBBBA. Of those, 38% had either subprime credit scores or no score at all, meaning they would struggle to borrow in the private sector without a co-signer. 

    Those students could also face higher interest rates and less generous terms from private lenders compared to loans from the federal government, the researchers pointed out. 

    Connecticut officials alluded to this possibility when announcing their proposal. 

    “These arbitrary ceilings do not reflect the reality of rising tuition, and they’ll force students to turn to a predatory private market for lenders that will impose higher interest rates with fewer protections,” Haddad said.

    Source link

  • Republicans say sports could stem school, gun violence as Democrats push back

    Republicans say sports could stem school, gun violence as Democrats push back

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

    Federal Republican lawmakers on Tuesday suggested that increasing students’ access and participation in sports could help stem school and gun violence, as Democrats pushed back on whether that’s a viable solution. The disagreement came on the heels of a fatal mass shooting at Brown University that occurred on the eve of Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre’s 13th anniversary. 

    “This is a hearing on school safety,” said House Education and Workforce Committee Chair Tim Walberg, R-Mich. Walberg spoke during a hearing titled “Benched: The Crisis in American Youth Sports and Its Cost to Our Future,” held by the subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee. Walberg chairs the full committee. 

    “If we did this right again, we would have less violence in schools,” Walberg said. “These are the types of things that will change [the] perspective of kids and what they do in life itself. So this is a hearing on gun violence.” 

    While Democrats and witnesses agreed that access and affordability are barriers to youth sports participation,they disagreed with Republicans over its potential to address school shootings. Studies have shown that youth sports participation is linked to better attendance, graduation rates, and academic performance.

    “As important as sports participation is for kids, there is a much more pressing crisis at hand that the majority needs to recognize,” said subcommittee ranking member Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore. “We know what happened over the weekend.” 

    Saturday’s shooting at Brown University killed two students and injured nine others. In K-12, there have been 230 school shootings in 2025 as of Dec 16, according to the K-12 School Shooting Database, which tracks anytime a weapon is brandished with intent to harm on school grounds. 

    That number puts this year on track to fall well below last year’s 330 school shootings. Last year became the first year since 2020 that school shootings hadn’t broken a record high. Still, however, the 330 school shootings recorded in 2024 marked the second-highest number since 1966 and fell only 19 below the all-time high of 349 recorded in 2023.

    “This subcommittee has held several hearings this year, but we have not had a single hearing related to gun violence,” nor has the committee marked up a bill this year on school gun violence, said Bonamici. “We can talk about the other issues as much as we want — reading, math, CTE, screentime, student privacy, sports. None of that matters if children are shot and killed.” 

    Witnesses at the hearing, however, stressed that better access to school sports could help improve student mental health, academics and outcomes. They reported anecdotes of students being less likely to engage in violence or commit crimes when after-school time is filled with sports activities. 

    “If you can calm yourself down when you’re in an anxious state, you’re a better athlete. If you can calm your anger down when you’re hypercompetitive, you’re a better athlete,” said Steve Boyle, co-founder and executive director of 2-4-1 Care, Inc., a nonprofit organization that partners with school districts to provide sports opportunities. 

    John O’Sullivan, another witness and founder and CEO of the Changing the Game Project, said, “We have to keep as many kids as possible, as long as possible, in the best environment possible. ” His organization advocates for parents and coaches to become better participants in kids’ sports. 

    Democrats remained doubtful and pushed for a hearing specifically on gun violence. 

    “While sports are important for school safety, we have to have a hearing on this committee to address school shootings and the safety of our children in American schools,” said Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn. “I know that my constituents expect something more than to just normalize school shootings and teach our children how to shelter in place.” 

    Hayes and other lawmakers on Sept. 12 sent a letter to Walberg and full committee ranking member Bobby Scott, D-Va., seeking a hearing before the end of the year on school shootings, and she said she received a response saying her concerns were “noted.” The letter was sent in wake of shootings at a Catholic school in Minnesota and a Colorado high school.

    Source link

  • Most Americans Believe in the Effectiveness of Childhood Vaccines — But There’s a Catch – The 74

    Most Americans Believe in the Effectiveness of Childhood Vaccines — But There’s a Catch – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    This story was originally reported by Barbara Rodriguez of The 19th. Meet Barbara and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

    Although a majority of Americans are confident that childhood vaccines are highly effective against serious illness, Republicans’ trust in vaccine safety and support of school requirements is dropping, according to new polling from Pew Research Center.

    Sixty-three percent of Americans are extremely or very confident in the effectiveness of childhood vaccines, according to a survey published Tuesday. But Democrats and those who lean Democrat are much more likely than Republicans and Republican-leaners to hold that view — 80 percent versus 48 percent.

    And while the majority of Americans believe in the safety of vaccines — 53 percent believe childhood vaccines have been tested enough for safety and 51 percent agree that the childhood vaccine schedule is safe — there is significantly more uncertainty among Republicans. For Democrats, 74 percent show high confidence in the safety testing of vaccines and 71 percent believe the childhood vaccine schedule is safe. For Republicans, those numbers are 35 percent and 32 percent, respectively.

    “Both things can be true, that people believe in vaccines’ effectiveness overall and the confidence is a little softer on safety,” said Eileen Yam, director of science and society research at Pew who was part of the primary research team. “But writ large, that’s been pretty stable to see confidence in vaccines. But at the same time, when it comes to things like school requirements, or ‘telling me what to do,’ or requiring me to do something — that’s where you see the bristling on the Republican side.”

    Americans have become more skeptical of requiring that children get the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine to attend public school. Sixty-nine percent support it, a decline from 82 percent in 2016. Most of the drop can be attributed to Republicans — with just 52 percent believing in the requirement, compared to 79 percent in 2016. For Democrats, that support was 83 percent in 2016 and actually climbed to 86 percent this year.

    This all comes amid a major measles outbreak in the United States that started in Texas and has spread to multiple other states. And while students are required in each state to get the MMR vaccine to attend public school, officials in Florida have indicated a willingness to drop that requirement.

    Pew found broad and consistent support for the MMR vaccine: 84 percent believe its benefits outweigh its risks (of which there are minor side effects). When Pew first started asking about this in 2016, support was at 88 percent. Yam said the findings show some agreement on the benefits of the MMR vaccine. While 92 percent of Democrats believe the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks, 78 percent of Republicans do, too.

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, an anti-vaccine activist who has revamped a key panel that helps decide vaccine policy, has questioned the safety of the MMR vaccine without evidence. He has the backing of President Donald Trump, who has perpetuated misinformation this year about childhood vaccines.

    Pew surveyed parents and found a majority with minor children (57 percent) say they are extremely or very confident in childhood vaccines’ effectiveness. Republican parents are far less likely than Democratic parents to have that confidence (45 percent versus 71 percent), belief in safety testing (29 percent versus 63 percent) and the childhood vaccine schedule (27 percent versus 58 percent).

    Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say medical scientists should have a major role in decisions about childhood vaccines (85 percent vs. 62 percent). There are more partisan fissures on the role of parents: 71 percent of Republicans say that parents of young children should have a major role in policy decisions about childhood vaccines. For Democrats, it’s 46 percent.

    “That speaks to just a divergence in trust in science that we’ve been tracking since before the pandemic,” Yam said. “Just Republicans since the pandemic, their confidence in scientists, the way they look at the CDC has just dropped off much more than on the Democrat side. Democrats have had fairly stable views on scientists and on the CDC, in contrast to Republicans.”

    Pew also examined how recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations have influenced Americans’ decisions around getting a COVID-19 shot. The agency recently agreed with Kennedy’s new vaccine panel to stop recommending the shot to everyone and to instead leave the choice up to people. Forty-four percent say they have heard nothing at all about the CDC’s changes to recommendations. Among those who have heard at least a little, 63 percent say it has had no influence on whether they got an updated vaccine.

    “The one big takeaway there is that policies really can’t influence behaviors if people haven’t heard about the policies or the recommendations,” Yam said. “And in this case, a lot of people haven’t heard about it, and some when they have, their minds were made up. They’ve already kind of decided, and it really didn’t influence their behavior one way or the other.”

    This story was originally published on The 19th.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Have Democrats Lost Voters’ Trust on Education? Not According to Most Polls – The 74

    Have Democrats Lost Voters’ Trust on Education? Not According to Most Polls – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Chalkbeat Ideas is a new section featuring reported columns on the big ideas and debates shaping American schools. Sign up for the Ideas newsletter to follow our work.

    Democrats are in disarray on education — according to a growing chorus of Democrats.

    A variety of left-leaning journalists, politicians, and advocates have all recently claimed that voters have become disillusioned with the party’s approach to schools. Often, these commentators cite anger over pandemic-era closures and argue that Democrats need to embrace tougher academic standards or school choice.

    “For decades, when pollsters asked voters which party they trusted more on education, Democrats maintained, on average, a 14-point advantage. More recently that gap closed, then flipped to favor Republicans,” wrote former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel last month.

    Is this emerging conventional wisdom true, though? This assertion has typically relied on one or two surveys, rather than a comprehensive look at the data. So I compiled all publicly available polls I could find that asked voters which party they preferred on education.

    The verdict was clear: In more than a dozen surveys conducted this year by eight different organizations, all but one showed Democrats with an edge on education. This ranged from 4 to 15 points. Among all 14 polls, the median advantage was 9 points. Although Democrats appear to have briefly lost this edge a few years ago, voters again now tend to trust Democrats on the issue of education, broadly defined.

    The narrative that Republicans had wrested the issue of education from Democrats emerged in 2021, after Virginia’s Glenn Youngkin won a come-from-behind victory in the governor’s race after campaigning on parents’ rights.

    Long-running data from the Winston Group, a political consulting firm, showed that in late 2021 and early 2022 Republicans really had eroded Democrats’ lead on education. The parties were even briefly tied for the first time since the early 2000s, when former President George W. Bush was championing No Child Left Behind. Polling commissioned in 2022 and 2023 by Democrats for Education Reform, a group that backs charter schools and vouchers, also showed Democrats falling behind on education.

    Since then, though, Democrats appear to have regained their edge. In the run-up to the 2024 presidential election, the party held at least a 10-point lead, according to Winston Group. Other polls from last year also found that more voters preferred Democrats’ approach on education, even as the party lost the presidency.

    Emanuel pointed me to polling from 2022. “Democrats have not gained ground as much as Trump has cost GOP gains they have made,” he says when asked about the more recent surveys.

    This year in Virginia, Democrat Abigail Spanberger easily won in her bid to replace Youngkin. Education was one of her stronger issues, according to a Washington Post survey.

    Some argue that these election results disprove the idea that Democrats are losing on schools. “That’s not what panned out at all,” says Jennifer Berkshire, a progressive author who writes and teaches about education. She notes that the Republican governor candidate in New Jersey also tried to make schools an issue and lost badly.

    The Winston poll shows Democrats’ advantage is currently below its peak between 2006 and 2009 but is comparable to many other periods, including the tail end of the Obama administration and part of the first Trump administration.

    Keep in mind: These surveys ask about education broadly, not just K-12 schools. When given the option, a good chunk of voters don’t endorse either party’s approach. For instance, a YouGov survey found Democrats up 39%-32% on education with another 29% saying they weren’t sure or that the parties were about the same.

    The one public poll in which Democrats did not have an advantage came from Blue Rose Research, a Democratic-aligned firm. Ali Mortell, its head of research, says different survey methodologies can lead to different results.

    Regardless, she wants to see Democratic politicians lean into the issue more. “Say they do have that trust advantage right now, [education] is still not something that they’re really talking about a lot,” Mortell says.

    One of the top messages that resonates with voters focuses on addressing teachers’ concerns about stagnant pay and large class sizes, Blue Rose polling finds.

    Democrats’ lead on education doesn’t appear to have grown much over the last year, according to surveys from Winston, YouGov, and Ipsos. That’s somewhat surprising since Trump’s approval has sunk generally and is low on education specifically.

    Jorge Elorza, the CEO of Democrats for Education Reform, points to a survey it commissioned showing the two parties tied when it comes to making sure schools emphasize academic achievement. “Democrats should be focused on delivering results,” he says. “When we ask voters about that, it’s a toss up.” A separate DFER poll found the party with only a 1-point lead on who voters trust to ensure “students are prepared for success after high school.”

    Democrats’ overall polling advantage on education does not necessarily speak to the substantive merits of their policies, however. One analysis found that Democratic-leaning states have seen bigger declines in student test scores in recent years. At a national level, Democrats have not offered a particularly clear message on K-12 education, unlike Trump.

    “For the last six years there’s [been] no proactive agenda for Democrats on educational excellence,” says Emanuel.

    The party’s approach to schools has clearly lost a segment of America’s political tastemakers including center-left nonprofit executives, political strategists, and even some Democratic politicians. Yet, despite insistent assertions otherwise, regular voters don’t seem to share this view, at least at the moment.

    I relied on the following polls from this year, with Democrats’ lead in parentheses: Blue Rose Research (February, tied); Fox News (July +15); Ipsos (February +6, April +4, October +7); Napolitan News Service (August +9, October +6); Navigator (August +9); Strength in Numbers (May +11, October +15); YouGov (May +7); Winston (April +15, June +14, August/September +11). To find these surveys, I conducted my own search and asked a variety of large pollsters, as well as a number of advocates. Differences in results between polls can come from random error, as well as differences in sampling and question wording. Although the precise wording varied, each poll asked voters which party they preferred on education.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Democrats warn feds against selling student loans to private market

    Democrats warn feds against selling student loans to private market

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Over 40 Democratic lawmakers have called on the Trump administration to abandon reported talks about the possibility of selling off a chunk of the federal government’s $1.6 million student loan portfolio to the private market.
    • In a Sunday letter to U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the federal lawmakers warned transferring student debt ownership to the private sector could strip borrowers of legal protections and violate the law if the loans are sold at a loss to taxpayers.
    • “The federal government cannot simply eliminate its legal obligations to borrowers,” the members of Congress said. “Federal law requires that the protections guaranteed in the original terms of a borrower’s loan must be honored even if the Department of Education proceeds with a sale.”

    Dive Insight:

    The letter from Democrats — signed by U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal and Ron Wyden, among others — follows an October report from Politico about talks in the Trump administration that centered on a partial sale of the government’s student loans. 

    According to Politico, senior officials in the U.S. departments of Education and Treasury have recently discussed selling high-performing student loan debt to the private sector. 

    The administration has also broached the possibility with finance executives, among them potential buyers of the loans, and is considering bringing in consultants or banks to review the portfolio, the news outlet reported.

    In addition to calling for the Trump administration to cease any talks, the lawmakers requested detailed information on any potential plan and the names of those who have participated in any discussions. The Education and Treasury departments did not respond to requests for comment by publication time on Tuesday. 

    The Education Department’s Federal Student Aid office oversees the loan portfolio and contracts out servicing to private entities. Student loan receivables represent one of the largest assets on the nation’s balance sheet. 

    A 1998 law allows the government to sell student loan assets — so long as it is done at no cost to the government — which could be why no such sale has taken place to date. The Sunday letter said the first Trump administration mulled the possibility but never pursued it, pointing to Wall Street Journal reporting that the agency hired the consultancy McKinsey & Co. at the time to review the portfolio..

    The Democratic lawmakers and others have argued the no-cost provision means the government could not sell the loans for less than what it would collect if it kept them on the public balance sheet. 

    In 2024, FSA estimated the net value of the government’s student loan portfolio at about $1.1 trillion. However, a 2025 analysis from the Project on Predatory Student Lending argues this figure “is almost certainly wrong,” based on data and assumptions that “have proven wildly off-base.”

    That figure represents the government’s own valuation of the loan portfolio. In the case of a sale, the relevant figure would be the price a private sector buyer would be willing to pay. 

    The student lending project said the government has several advantages as a lender over private companies, including unlimited time to collect, the ability to withhold federal payments such as tax refunds to offset loan defaults, and immunity from legal liability for loan servicing failures. All of that means student loans are likely worth more to the government than to the private sector, according to PPSL. 

    Along with a potential loss to taxpayers, the Democratic lawmakers warned of the possible impact to student borrowers from transferring loan assets. 

    “By selling parts of the federal student loan portfolio, the Trump Administration may seek to unlawfully strip borrowers of their legally guaranteed protections,” they wrote. 

    The lawmakers pointed to protections such as income-driven repayment, public service loan forgiveness, disability and death discharges, and debt relief for those determined to have been defrauded by predatory colleges. 

    “Private lenders typically do not guarantee these kinds of borrower rights,” they wrote. “Profits would likely come at the expense of the borrower via fewer protections and less generous benefits. However, the federal government cannot simply eliminate its legal obligations to borrowers.”

    PPSL argued in its analysis that removing provisions for borrowers could make the loan portfolio more valuable to private buyers, but those loan provisions in contracts with the federal government represent property protected by the Fifth Amendment. 

    “Any law stripping repayment rights or other favorable terms from student loan contracts would potentially trigger an obligation to compensate student loan borrowers for the loss of those terms,” the organization said.

    Source link

  • Senate Democrats hold a press conference on Trump admin’s funding of SNAP benefits

    Senate Democrats hold a press conference on Trump admin’s funding of SNAP benefits

    Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) will hold a press conference to “discuss the Trump administration’s refusal to use a $5 billion emergency Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) fund.”

    Source link

  • Virginia Democrats Accuse GMU Rector of Conflict of Interest

    Virginia Democrats Accuse GMU Rector of Conflict of Interest

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Robert Knopes/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images | Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post/Getty Images

    Virginia Democrats want George Mason University board rector Charles Stimson to recuse himself from federal investigations into the university as well as discussions about the university president’s future, saying that his role at the Heritage Foundation, which recently released a report critical of GMU, presents a conflict of interest.

    The letter comes almost two weeks after a state Senate committee blocked 14 gubernatorial appointments to university boards, including six at GMU, which left the Board of Visitors without a quorum. The letter also follows the Heritage report that accused GMU of attempting to hide diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Stimson has had several jobs at Heritage, where he’s currently deputy director of the organization’s legal and judicial studies center.

    The Trump administration has accused GMU of engaging in discriminatory hiring practices and implementing “unlawful DEI policies” and has opened several investigations into the university.

    However, GMU president Gregory Washington has stood his ground, arguing that the federal government rushed the investigation and disputing its findings while rejecting calls to personally apologize. Now, as GMU’s Board of Visitors is stuck without a quorum while a legal challenge over the appointments plays out, state Democrats are seeking to neutralize Stimson in his role as rector.

    A Call for Recusal

    Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell and other top Democrats in the Senate, L. Louise Lucas and Mamie E. Locke, specifically took issue with the Heritage report’s call to “withhold federal taxpayer funds from universities that violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” which the Education Department accused GMU of doing. State Democrats argued that Stimson’s employer is essentially seeking to harm the university.

    “This creates an untenable ethical conflict where your employer’s published position is diametrically opposed to your duties as Rector,” the lawmakers wrote to Stimson.

    (Stimson is one of multiple university board members appointed by Republican governor Glenn Youngkin with distinctly right-wing profiles, including some with ties to conservative think tanks, the Trump administration, GOP megadonors and former Republican politicians, Inside Higher Ed found earlier this year.)

    State Democrats also raised concerns over how he became rector.

    “The appearance of impropriety is compounded by the fact that your selection as Rector reportedly occurred only after direct intervention by Governor Youngkin, raising questions about whether your Heritage Foundation affiliation influenced that appointment,” the Democrats wrote.

    Given what they view as a conflict of interest, the three Democratic leaders called on Stimson to recuse himself “from all Board of Visitors deliberations, discussions, and votes” involving Washington’s employment status or performance evaluations, GMU responses to federal DEI investigations or compliance concerns, GMU funding strategies and university DEI policies.

    “If you cannot commit to this recusal, I believe the appropriate course would be your resignation as Rector to eliminate this conflict entirely,” Surovell and the other Democrats wrote to Stimson while calling on him to respond “outlining the specific steps you will take to address this conflict.”

    Neither GMU officials nor Stimson responded to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Youngkin accused Democrats of trying to undermine university boards.

    “Virginia’s progressive left elected officials are trying to paralyze the governing boards of Virginia’s colleges and universities by using despicable bullying and intimidation tactics,” Youngkin wrote in a post on X.

    Faculty Support

    As Washington, GMU’s first Black president, has found himself in the Trump administration’s cross hairs and fighting back, board support has been a constant question. Rumors of Washington’s expected firing swirled in July, but the Board of Visitors kept him on the job.

    George Mason faculty have also rallied around the embattled president, with dozens of professors, students and others protesting outside the July meeting. GMU’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors applauded the senators’ letter on Tuesday.

    “We believe that Mr. Stimson has failed to fulfill his fiduciary duties and has repeatedly exceeded his proper authority as Rector of the Board of Visitors. His conflicting leadership role at the Heritage Foundation and his repeated attempts to overreach his authority threaten the foundation of Virginia’s largest public university, endangering its governance, stability, and future,” the GMU-AAUP Executive Committee wrote in an email to members.

    The local AAUP chapter struck a sharper tone than Virginia’s Senate leadership, alleging that Stimson has “usurped GMU President Gregory Washington’s authority to manage the university’s responses to federal investigations, contrary to the president’s delegated authority established in the [Board of Visitors’] Bylaws.”

    GMU-AAUP also echoed the call for Stimson to recuse himself from certain board duties.

    “If Rector Stimson cannot commit to this recusal, we join Senators Surovell, Lucas, and Locke in calling for his resignation as Rector to eliminate this conflict entirely,” the organization wrote. “The independence, integrity, and future of George Mason University depend on nothing less.”

    The group previously voted no confidence in the Board of Visitors in July.

    Source link

  • House Democrats push for Education Department closure transparency

    House Democrats push for Education Department closure transparency

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Democrats on the House Education and Workforce Committee introduced a resolution on Friday calling for transparency and information from the Trump administration and U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon on their efforts to shutter the U.S. Department of Education.
    • Specifically, the resolution requests unredacted copies of all documents from the administration that refer to the Education Department’s closure, including decisions around workforce reductions and those that could affect the agency’s ability to carry out education laws like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
    • The resolution will be taken to the House floor for a vote if the Education and Workforce Committee, led by Chair Tim Walberg, R-Mich., does not adopt it within 14 legislative days.

    Dive Insight:

    The resolution’s introduction comes one day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing McMahon to close the Education Department to the “maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

    “Abolishing a federal agency requires an Act of Congress,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., ranking member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, in a Friday statement. “President Trump’s executive order has little regard for the irreparable harm it will cause to students, educators, our future workforce, and parents, who are already struggling.”

    After the Trump administration announced massive layoffs that cut the Education Department’s workforce in half earlier this month, the agency has denied that its key functions would be impacted.

    “Closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them — we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs,” said McMahon in a Thursday statement praising the executive order.

    Additionally, Trump said before signing Thursday’s executive order that he plans to redistribute the department’s primary responsibilities to other parts of the government. That includes Pell Grants, Title I funding and resources for students with disabilities, he said. 

    The resolution introduced Friday appears to be part of a broader effort by Democrats in the House and Senate to challenge and seek more information over the slew of changes being made to the Education Department. 

    On March 17, leading Democrats on the congressional appropriations committees demanded details on the Education Department’s mass layoffs in a letter to the agency. The requested information included details on the number of staff terminated in each office and the expected savings from the staffing cuts.

    Source link

  • Democrats Blast McMahon Over Education Department Cuts

    Democrats Blast McMahon Over Education Department Cuts

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member of the Senate committee that oversees education policy, and 37 Democrats blasted Education Secretary Linda McMahon in a letter Monday, expressing “outrage” and arguing that the “reckless” cuts to her department’s staff last week will be “nothing short of devastating” for America’s students, schools and communities.

    “At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, when 60 percent of people live paycheck to paycheck, millions of Americans cannot afford higher education, and 40 percent of our nation’s 4th graders and 33 percent of 8th graders read below basic proficiency, it is a national disgrace that the Trump Administration is attempting to illegally abolish the Department of Education and thus, undermine a high-quality education for our students,” Sanders wrote.

    The letter noted that less than 24 hours after the reduction was announced, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid temporarily shut down; Education Department workers responsible for fixing it had reportedly been fired.

    Education Department spokesperson Madi Biedermann told the Associated Press that the layoffs didn’t affect employees working on the FAFSA or student loan servicing.

    “They are strategic, internal-facing cuts that will not directly impact students and families,” Biedermann said.

    But top Democratic appropriators, including Sen. Patty Murray of Washington State and ranking member of the House committee Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, disagreed. In their own letter Monday, they argued that the cuts would impact students’ daily lives and demanded to know how McMahon will uphold the law with a decimated staff.

    “Firing the people that ensure states, school districts, and institutions of higher education live up to their legal obligations is neither efficient nor accountable,” the lawmakers wrote. “The President’s disregard for appropriations and other laws and the need for stability and productivity in government creates an imperative for the Department to provide accurate, timely responses on its use and planned use of taxpayer resources provided by the laws passed by Congress.”

    Source link