The national body representing over 60 accredited English language schools has warned the move could lead to mass cancellations, reputational damage to Ireland, and loss of key emerging markets that have helped rebuild the sector post-pandemic.
Starting from 30 June 2025, students from countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico will be asked to show €6,665 in available funds to study in Ireland for eight months – a 120% increase on the 2023 threshold of €3,000.
“This change has come without consultation, justification, or notice. It is difficult to see how a 120% increase in two years can be considered proportionate when the cost of living has risen just 2% annually,” said Lorcan O’Connor Lloyd, CEO of EEI.
The affected students are legally permitted to work part-time in Ireland, yet are now being required to show financial backing as if they were not, argued O’Connor Lloyd, who said the policy “undermines the entire work-study visa model that Ireland has in place”.
It is difficult to see how a 120% increase in two years can be considered proportionate when the cost of living has risen just 2% annually Lorcan O’Connor Lloyd, English Education Ireland
Stakeholders have also raised concerns around the short period of notice of just over 90 days, which means that students who have already paid, booked flights, and made arrangements will be forced to find an extra €2,000 or risk losing their place.
EEI is therefore calling for an immediate pause and review of the policy, a transition period to protect students who have already booked, and a full consultation with the education sector moving forward.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The House Committee on Education and Workforce voted Wednesday to advance a bill that would require colleges to report gifts and contracts valued at $50,000 or more from most foreign countries.
That would lower the requirement from the current threshold of $250,000. Republicans argued that the bill, called the Deterrent Act, is needed to prevent foreign influence in higher education.
The bill would also lower the reporting threshold to $0 for the “countries of concern” as determined by the U.S. Code or the secretary of education, which include China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. The proposal would bar colleges from entering into contracts with those countries unless the secretary of education issues them a waiver and renews it each year.
Dive Insight:
The Deterrent Act would amend Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, which oversees foreign gift and contract reporting requirements for colleges. Republicans on the education committee argued the measure is needed to provide more transparency.
A fact sheet on the bill included concerns about foreign adversaries stealing secrets from American universities and influencing student behavior.
The fact sheet also referenced a 2024 congressional report that accused two high-profile research institutions — University of California, Berkeley and Georgia Institute of Technology — of failing to meet the current reporting requirements through their partnerships with Chinese universities.
“Higher education is one of the jewels of American society,” said Rep. Michael Baumgartner, a Washington Republican who co-sponsored the bill, on Wednesday. “Unfortunately, it’s also an area that is often under attack and used by malign influences to subvert American interests.”
Under the bill, colleges would face fines and the loss of their Title IV federal student aid funding if they didn’t comply with the reporting requirements.
Democrats largely voiced opposition to the measure.
However, they focused many of their complaints Wednesday on the Trump administration’s recent moves that have sparked outcry in the higher education sector,including cuts to the National Institutes of Health’sfunding for indirect research costs. A judge temporarily blocked the cuts earlier this week.
“I understand and I do appreciate the intent behind the Deterrent Act, but if House Republicans and the president truly want to lead in America, and they want America to lead, they must permanently reverse the cuts to the National Institutes of Health,” said Rep. Lucy McBath, a Democrat from Georgia. “It’s not enough for us just to wait outside for the lawsuits to protect folks back home from damaging and possibly illegal orders like these.”
Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the top-ranking Democrat on the committee, struck a similar tone, referencing the Trump administration’s goal of eliminating the U.S. Department of Education.
He noted that the authors of Project 2025 — a wide-ranging conservative policy blueprint for the Republican administration — aim to dismantle the Education Department with the stated goal of having the federal government be less involved in schools.
“The argument rests on the perception that the federal government is too involved in our schools, and here we are marking up bills that would give the Department of Education more responsibility to impose unfunded mandates and interfere with local schools,” Scott said.
The House committee advanced several other bills Wednesday, including those that would allow schools to serve whole milk and aim to end Chinese influence in K-12 education.
House lawmakers previously passed the Deterrent Act in 2023, though it was never put to a vote in the Senate.At the time, the American Council on Education and other higher ed groups opposed the bill, objecting in part to the large fines colleges could face for noncompliance.
The Republican-backed bill may face better odds in this congressional session, now that the GOP also controls the Senate and the White House.
On September 11, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in Mayfield v. U.S. Department of Labor that upholds DOL’s authority to implement a minimum salary threshold to determine exempt status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay requirements. While the ruling does not answer how other lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s rule will be decided, the ruling is significant and could help other federal judges determine whether or not to strike down the Biden administration’s increased minimum salary thresholds.
Background
The case’s plaintiff, Robert Mayfield, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration’s overtime rule in August 2022. In his lawsuit, he argued that the FLSA language on overtime exemptions only mentions a worker’s job-related duties and that implementing a salary threshold to determine exempt status exceeds DOL’s statutory authority. The Western District Court of Texas, a lower court where the lawsuit was originally filed, sided with DOL, stating that the agency has the statutory authority to implement the FLSA overtime minimum salary threshold. Mayfield appealed the decision to the 5th Circuit soon after.
The Decision
In its decision that sides with the Department of Labor, the 5th Circuit Court held that DOL may use a minimum salary requirement as part of its test for determining whether or not an employee qualifies as an executive, administrative and professional (EAP) employee exempt from the FLSA overtime pay requirements. Notably, the 5th Circuit Court argued that DOL does have statutory authority under the FLSA to use a salary threshold to “define and delimit the terms of exemption.”
Though the decision allows for DOL to use a minimum salary threshold, the 5th Circuit Court did state that there is a limit to the power granted to DOL to do so. Specifically, the decision states that DOL may only use the minimum salary requirement to the extent that the salary threshold established in the regulations is a reasonable proxy for who is and who is not an EAP employee. They argued that DOL’s power to rely on proxy is not “unbounded” and that the agency “cannot enact rules that replace or swallow the meaning” of the FLSA’s terms that they seek to define.
Looking Ahead
Outside of the Mayfield case, there are three pending lawsuits in the Eastern District Court of Texas to challenge the Biden administration’s overtime final rule. That rule implements a two-phase approach to increasing the minimum salary threshold under the FLSA. The first increase took effect on July 1, increasing the minimum salary threshold from the current level of $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $844 per week ($43,888 per year), and the second increase is set to take effect on January 1, 2025, increasing the minimum salary threshold again to $1,128 per week ($58,656 per year).
The decision from the 5th Circuit does not have an immediate impact on the lawsuits challenging the Biden administration’s overtime rule, nor does it provide a definitive answer on how lower courts decide in those legal challenges. As such, the Biden administration’s July 1 salary threshold continues to be in effect,* and the second increase to the salary threshold is still set to take effect on January 1, 2025. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of additional updates related to the FLSA overtime pay regulations.
*A preliminary injunction to block DOL from enforcing the overtime final rule was placed for public employees in the state of Texas. Private institutions in Texas and all other institutions outside of Texas need to be in compliance with the July 1 salary threshold.
On April 23, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued the highly anticipated final rule to alter the overtime pay regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The rule increases the minimum salary threshold to $43,888 on July 1, 2024, and then to $58,656 on January 1, 2025. The rule also implements automatic updates to the threshold that will occur every three years. Institutions will need to make all necessary adjustments by July 1, 2024, in order to be in compliance with the final rule.
The department clarified that the first increase updates the minimum salary threshold using the department’s current methodology, which was used in the 2019 Trump-era overtime rulemaking to set the current standard of $35,568. The second increase then implements the department’s new preferred methodology, which sets the minimum salary threshold to the 35th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest wage census region. This phased-in implementation will likely impact how litigation challenging the rule is both pursued and decided over the next six months.
In September 2023, DOL issued its proposed rule to update the minimum salary threshold, which sought to increase the threshold from its current level of $35,568 annually to $60,209 — a nearly 70% increase. The proposed rule also sought to implement triennial automatic updates based on the 35th percentile.
CUPA-HR submitted comments in response to the proposed rule and participated in a meeting with DOL and officials from the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to express our concerns with the proposal. In both the comments and OIRA meeting, CUPA-HR made the four following recommendations for DOL to consider before issuing their final rule:
DOL should not update the salary threshold at this time.
DOL should lower the proposed minimum salary threshold and account for room and board.
DOL should not implement automatic updates to the salary threshold.
DOL should extend the effective date of any final rule implementing a higher salary threshold.
Lawsuits challenging the final rule are forthcoming. In the meantime, CUPA-HR will be hosting a webinar on May 8 covering the provisions of the final rule and its impact on higher education. Registration is open and free to all.
