Tag: Trump

  • Trump administration’s reasons for detaining Mahmoud Khalil threaten free speech

    Trump administration’s reasons for detaining Mahmoud Khalil threaten free speech

    It’s been three days since the government arrested and detained Mahmoud Khalil for deportation. This afternoon, the administration finally stated the basis for its actions. Its explanation threatens the free speech of millions of people.

    Yesterday, an administration official told The Free Press, “The allegation here is not that [Khalil] was breaking the law.” This was confirmed today by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who announced Khalil is being targeted under a law that she characterized as allowing the secretary of state to personally deem individuals “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States of America.”

    Leavitt said Khalil “sid[ed] with terrorists,” “organized group protests” that “disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish American students and made them feel unsafe,” and distributed “pro-Hamas propaganda.” She also said the Department of Homeland Security is trying to track down “other individuals who have engaged in pro-Hamas activity” at Columbia University.

    The law Leavitt appears to be citing requires the secretary of state to have “reasonable ground to believe” the person’s “presence or activities in the United States . . . would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

    The administration is wielding this standard — deportation for people whose activities could cause “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” — to arrest and detain an individual graduate student. In explaining how he met this standard, the administration did not allege Khalil committed a crime. But it did explicitly cite the content of his speech,  characterizing it as “anti-American” and “pro-Hamas.” Protesting government policy is protected by the First Amendment, as is rhetorical support for a terrorist group (if not directly coordinated with it, which the government has not alleged here).

    Disrupting college classes and harassing students is not protected expression, to be sure, and Leavitt stated that Khalil organized protests that may have done so. But the administration has not detailed Khalil’s specific actions with respect to those protests, so it remains unclear whether Khalil himself violated any campus rules against discriminatory harassment. Whether any such violation justifies detention and deportation is a separate question. In either adjudication, Khalil must be afforded due process. 

    There are millions of people lawfully present in the United States without citizenship. The administration’s actions will cause them to self-censor rather than risk government retaliation. Lawful permanent residents and students on visas will fear a knock on the door simply for speaking their minds. 

    If constitutionally protected speech may render someone deportable by the secretary of state, the administration has free rein to arrest and detain any non-citizen whose speech the government dislikes. The inherent vagueness of the “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests” standard does not provide notice as to what speech is or is not prohibited. The administration’s use of it will foster a culture of self-censorship and fear. 

    This is America. We don’t throw people in detention centers because of their politics. Doing so betrays our national commitment to freedom of speech.

    FIRE social media post about the government’s detention of Mahmoud Khalil, March 10, 2025.

    Source link

  • Trump doesn’t rule out recession as tariffs roil market (ABC News)

    Trump doesn’t rule out recession as tariffs roil market (ABC News)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Trump doesn’t rule out recession as tariffs roil market (ABC News)




    Source link

  • FIRE demands answers from Trump admin officials on arrest of Mahmoud Khalil

    FIRE demands answers from Trump admin officials on arrest of Mahmoud Khalil

    FIRE Letter to Trump Administration Officials on Detention of Mahmoud Khalil

    March 10, 2025

    The Honorable Marco Rubio
    Secretary of State
    U.S. Department of State
    2201 C St., NW
    Washington, DC 20520

    The Honorable Kristi Noem
    Secretary of Homeland Security
    U.S. Department of Homeland Security
    Office of the Executive Secretary 
    Mail Stop 0525  
    Washington, DC 20528 

    The Honorable Pamela Bondi
    Attorney General
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
    Washington, DC 20530

    Mr. Todd Lyons
    Acting Director, ICE Leadership
    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    500 12th St., SW 
    Washington, DC 20536

    Dear Secretary Rubio, Attorney General Bondi, Secretary Noem, and Acting Director Lyons:

    On March 8, agents from the Department of Homeland Security arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the United States who has been involved in activism related to the current conflict in Gaza.[1] According to Mr. Khalil’s attorney, the agents who arrested him initially said his visa had been revoked.[2] Upon being informed that Mr. Khalil is a lawful permanent resident, whose status therefore cannot be revoked by unilateral DHS action, the agents arrested him anyway. When Mr. Khalil’s attorney asked to see a warrant for his arrest, DHS declined to produce one.[3] As of this writing, Mr. Khalil remains in DHS detention.

    Mr. Khalil recently received a graduate degree from Columbia University, where he has participated in student protests intended to express opposition to policies of the U.S. and Israeli governments. On March 9, DHS stated that Mr. Khalil’s arrest was made “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism,” and that “Khalil led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”[4] Secretary Rubio, alluding to Mr. Khalil’s arrest, stated, “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”[5] On March 10, President Trump remarked on Mr. Khalil’s arrest, noting that the government intends to seek removal of any foreign students who engage in “pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity.”[6]

    Demonstrations occurring on Columbia’s campus since Oct. 7, 2023, have included both constitutionally protected speech and unlawful conduct, but the government has not made clear the factual or legal basis for Mr. Khalil’s arrest. The statements the government has released suggest its decision may be based on his constitutionally protected speech. This lack of clarity is chilling protected expression, as other permanent residents cannot know whether their lawful speech could be deemed to “align to” a terrorist organization and jeopardize their immigration status.

    The federal government must not use immigration enforcement to punish and filter out ideas disfavored by the administration. It must also afford due process to anyone facing arrest and detention, and must be clear and transparent about the basis for its actions, to avoid chilling protected speech. To that end, we request answers to the following questions: 

    • What was the specific legal and factual basis for Mr. Khalil’s arrest on March 8?
    • What is the specific legal and factual basis for Mr. Khalil’s detention?
    • What is the specific legal and factual basis on which you are seeking revocation of Mr. Khalil’s green card?
    • Will Mr. Khalil be afforded the due process protections required by U.S. law?
    • Is it your intention to seek the revocation of lawful immigration status on the basis of speech protected by the First Amendment?[7]

    We request a substantive response to this letter no later than close of business on Tuesday, March 11, 2025. Any delay in resolving these questions risks further chilling protected speech.

    Sincerely,

    Carolyn Iodice
    Legislative and Policy Director
    Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    Notes

    [1] Ginger Adams Otis, ICE Arrests Columbia Student Who Helped Lead Pro-Palestinian Protests, Wall St. J. (March 9, 2025, 10:07 pm), https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/dhs-detains-columbia-student-who-helped-lead-pro-palestinian-protests-fbbd8196.

    [2] Eliza Shapiro, Immigration Authorities Arrest Pro-Palestinian Activist at Columbia, N.Y. Times (March 9, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/09/nyregion/ice-arrests-palestinian-activist-columbia-protests.html.

    [3] Canada’s New Leader, ICE Arrest Columbia Student, Congress and The Budget, NPR (March 10, 2025, 6:05 AM), https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1237260282.

    [4] Homeland Security (@DHSgov), X (March 9, 2025, 9:29PM), https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1898908955675357314.

    [5] Marco Rubio (@marcorubio), X (March 9, 6:10PM), https://x.com/marcorubio/status/1898858967532441945.

    [6] Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (March 10, 2025, 1:05PM), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114139222625284782.

    [7] Note there is no categorical exception to the First Amendment for speech that “aligns to” or even expresses explicit support for a foreign terrorist organization.

    Source link

  • Trump Budget Will Reveal How Extensive ED is Dismantled in 2025

    Trump Budget Will Reveal How Extensive ED is Dismantled in 2025

    Some time this March, President Trump’s US Budget proposal will be submitted. It would not be out of the realm of possibility that budget cuts to the US Department of Education exceed 70 percent if the $1.7 Trillion Student Loan Portfolio is transferred to the US Treasury. President Biden’s 2024 Budget for the US Department of Education was published March 11, 2024. This is what the proposal typically looks like.  

    Source link

  • Trump order restricts PSLF eligibility for certain nonprofits

    Trump order restricts PSLF eligibility for certain nonprofits

    Despite a public push to cancel student debt among civil servants, only a small number of Public Service Loan Forgiveness applications were approved by the first Trump administration.

    Drew Angerer/Getty Images

    In his latest executive action, President Donald Trump directed the Education Department to limit eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

    The order, issued late Friday evening, would require the Education Department to go through a complex and lengthy process known as negotiated rule making, so the directive doesn’t change anything immediately. And Education Secretary Linda McMahon pledged at her confirmation hearing that PSLF will not be eliminated completely, as “that’s the law.” However, the changes could lead to the denial of student loan forgiveness for thousands of nonprofit employees.

    The administration argued the order was a necessary step to “restore the program” and end the subsidization of “illegal activities” such as “illegal immigration, human smuggling, child trafficking, pervasive damage to public property, and disruption of the public order.”

    But Democrats and debt relief and consumer protection advocates say it’s another attempt to weaponize the federal government and block funds from reaching public servants in fields the president disagrees with.

    “Don’t be fooled, today’s executive order is blatantly illegal,” Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, said in a statement Friday. “It is an attack on working families everywhere and will have a chilling effect on our public service workforce doing the work every day to support our local communities.”

    Like Trump’s other executive orders, this directive is likely to face legal challenges.

    Congress created the PSLF program in 2007 with bipartisan support under former president George W. Bush. It was designed to incentivize Americans to work in public service, by promising student loan forgiveness to federal, state, local or tribal government staff members; civilians working in the military; and the employees of certain nonprofit organizations after they make 10 years of qualifying payments on an approved federal loan repayment plan.

    Historically, recognized nonprofits have included emergency management and crime-reduction services, public interest and civil rights legal groups, and institutions of public health and education. More than two million borrowers are eligible for the program, according to December data from the Education Department, the Associated Press reported.

    But gaining access to the program’s benefits hasn’t always been easy. In 2019, during the first Trump administration, the American Federation of Teachers sued then–education secretary Betsy DeVos, alleging “gross mismanagement” of the program. Data showed that of the roughly 76,000 applications submitted between 2017 and the filing of the lawsuit, only about 1 percent had been approved.

    Although the department reached a settlement in fall 2021 and committed to reconsider every application it denied, when the first Trump administration exited office, only 7,000 Americans had received forgiveness. Comparatively, the Biden administration prioritized making the program easier to access and provided more than $74 billion in relief to more than one million borrowers over the course of four years.

    Now, under the new stipulations, fewer borrowers could see relief, advocates said.

    “The PSLF Program has misdirected tax dollars into activist organizations that not only fail to serve the public interest, but actually harm our national security and American values, sometimes through criminal means,” the order says. “The Secretary of Education shall propose revisions … that ensure the definition of ‘public service’ excludes organizations that engage in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose.”

    According to the order, activities that would disqualify a nonprofit include: aiding or abetting violations of federal immigration laws, supporting terrorism, engaging in violence for the purpose of obstructing federal policy, the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children “or the trafficking of children to so-called transgender sanctuary States for purposes of emancipation from their lawful parents,” and aiding and abetting illegal discrimination.

    Although the president didn’t say so directly, experts interpret the order as yet another attempt to discourage activism and chill efforts Trump disagrees with, such as diversity, equity and inclusion; LGBTQ+ advocacy; pro bono defense for undocumented immigrants; and Palestinian statehood.

    Representative Tim Walberg, a Republican from Michigan and chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, praised the president’s intentions in a statement, saying President Trump is protecting Jewish students from “the hatred they’ve been enduring” on college campuses.

    “Federal dollars shouldn’t fund antisemitism,” he said. “President Trump is stepping up by preventing these activists from receiving windfalls in forgiveness benefits footed by taxpayers.”

    Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington and former chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, says Trump is “holding resources owed to hardworking Americans hostage.”

    “President Trump is once again trying to use his office to force his extreme political views on the American people by choking off promised relief for people who’ve served our country in ways he disagrees with,” she said. “It is as outrageous as it is un-American.”

    But the Trump administration says the order is about more than just preventing “subsidized wrongdoing.” In his view, it’s also a matter of limiting “perverse incentives” for higher education institutions.

    Rather than alleviating worker shortages, the president said, PSLF encourages colleges and universities to increase the cost of tuition and load students in “low-need majors” with “unsustainable” debt.

    To that, debt-relief advocates like the Student Debt Crisis Center say, “Public service workers are the backbone of this country.”

    “This executive order is both illegal and deeply troubling for all nonprofit workers,” SDCC president Natalia Abrams said in a statement. “Relentless political attacks on education and existing programs are not just policy decisions—they disrupt the lives and financial stability of Americans with student debt and their families. This must stop.”

    Source link

  • Trump admin cancels $400M in grants at Columbia U

    Trump admin cancels $400M in grants at Columbia U

    The Trump administration announced Friday that it’s cutting $400 million in grants and contracts from Columbia University as a result of what Republican officials say is “continued inaction” and failure to protect Jewish students at the Ivy League institution.

    The accusations were made in a joint news release from the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, and the General Services Administration, all of which are members of an antisemitism task force the president assembled just one month ago through an executive order. Earlier in the week, the task force said it was reviewing Columbia’s $5 billion in federal grants and hinted that it could halt some of the university’s contracts. That notice was the task force’s first major action, and other universities could face similar reviews, experts said Friday.

    “For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in the release. “Today, we demonstrate to Columbia and other universities that we will not tolerate their appalling inaction any longer.”

    It remains uncertain exactly what grants and contracts will be affected, and the Department of Education did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for clarity.

    Columbia officials said the university is “reviewing the announcement” and pledged to “work with the federal government to restore Columbia’s federal funding.”

    “We take Columbia’s legal obligations seriously … and are committed to combating antisemitism,” a spokesperson said in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    Columbia has been a frequent target for Republicans who have taken issue with how colleges responded to a spate of demonstrations protesting Israel’s war in Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023. That criticism ratcheted up last spring after pro-Palestinian student protesters erected an encampment of tents and later took over a campus building in hopes of persuading the university to divest from companies affiliated with Israel. Those protests, and Columbia’s decision to call in city police in response, not only sparked a national movement but also attracted strong opposition from critics who declared the demonstrations antisemitic and accused the colleges of failing to defend Jewish students.

    Trump officials have pledged to crack down on campus antisemitism, and this action against Columbia could serve as an early test case of how exactly the new administration could follow through on campaign trail promises.

    But canceling a university’s grants and contracts would be unprecedented. Higher education policy experts say that even if it’s just a threat, the concept of pulling funds without proper investigation from the Office for Civil Rights is deeply alarming.

    “You don’t get to punish people just because you don’t like what they’re doing,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education. “The fact that the administration is choosing to simply ignore not just precedent, not just norms, but the actual law covering this should be concerning to a lot of people, not just people at Columbia.”

    The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights is tasked with enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin, including antisemitic and Islamophobic discrimination. The department’s rules and regulations, which Fansmith said are mandated by Title VI, outline how OCR conducts investigations and what to do if the office finds a violation. OCR is required to attempt to reach a resolution with the institution. In the rare case that a college refuses to comply with the law, the case can be referred to the Department of Justice.

    “So while the law doesn’t specifically dictate the process, it dictates the necessity of the process,” Fansmith said. “Nowhere in federal law is the government given the authority to arbitrarily select different types of federal funding and withhold them from an institution absent any prior finding or decision.”

    Republicans from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, on the other hand, praised the decision.

    “Americans do not want their money sent to institutions that serve as breeding grounds for hatred and support for terrorism,” Representative Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the committee, said in a statement. “I applaud the Trump administration for listening to the American people and holding institutions accountable when they fail to combat antisemitic, anti-American values.”

    Walberg and then–committee chair Representative Virginia Foxx were key figures in a scathing interrogation of then–Columbia president Minouche Shafik last spring. They also subpoenaed the university for records in August and published a deep-dive campus antisemitism report in November.

    But these congressional actions, as well as the department’s civil rights investigations, are separate from the actions of the task force.

    “The entire House report would be—what I’m sure many people would consider—a great piece of evidence in an OCR investigation,” Fansmith said. “The Trump administration is just missing the step where OCR does an investigation … which they’re required to in statute.”

    The statement said that Columbia should expect more cancellations.

    ‘Weaponizing’ Funding Cuts

    Similarly to Fansmith, First Amendment advocates see the Trump administration’s move as an overreach designed to intimidate institutions and chill campus free speech rather than address civil rights violations and hate speech.

    Kristen Shahverdian, program director for campus free speech at PEN America, said in a statement that while universities must urgently respond to concerns about antisemitism and ensure that students can participate fully and equally in campus life, they also need to be given “space, time and resources” to do so. The task force has not allowed that, and as a result federal research funding hangs in the balance.

    The Trump administration is “weaponizing nearly every instrument it has to suppress ideas it disfavors and pressure institutions into enforcing ideological alignment,” Shahverdian said. “The threat is sure to reverberate across the higher education sector, just as it seems intended to do.”

    Tyler Coward, lead counsel of government affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told Inside Higher Ed that though the loss of funds is a potential consequence for institutions that violate antidiscrimination law, they may only face liability if they fail to address the unlawful conduct.

    “If the administration is cutting funding to Columbia for violating Title VI, it must be clear and transparent about how it arrived at that decision and follow all relevant procedural requirements before doing so,” Coward said. And First Amendment–protected speech cannot be punished with the retraction of federal funds, he added. (The release offered no specifics on how the task force made its decision.)

    This “immediate cancellation” violates the law. If the Admin thinks Columbia has violated Title VI by being deliberately indifferent to antisemitic harassment, it has to give Columbia a chance for a hearing first, make findings on the record, & wait 30 days.

    www.nytimes.com/live/2025/03…

    [image or embed]

    — Sam Bagenstos (@sbagen.bsky.social) March 7, 2025 at 1:27 PM

    Fansmith said he was “not in a position to say” whether Columbia’s response to the student protests, building raids and encampments of 2024 would qualify for punishment under a proper OCR investigation. But the Trump administration “clearly thinks so,” he added.

    “If they are so certain of what the outcome will be, then there’s no harm from conducting an investigation,” he said. But “there’s plenty of harm from not doing it.”

    Trump ‘Walking the Talk’

    But right-leaning advocates for the protection of Jewish students and faculty members say the move was justified and necessary.

    Kenneth Marcus, a prominent civil rights lawyer who ran OCR during Trump’s first term, described Trump’s latest actions as “incredible.”

    “If anyone wasn’t paying attention before, this will get their attention,” said Marcus, who also founded the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. “There can now be no doubt that the Trump administration has prioritized campus antisemitism far higher than any prior administration has done. They have Columbia University in their scopes today, but no one should doubt that they will be coming after other universities as well.”

    McMahon affirmed Marcus’s take on the situation in an interview with Fox News shortly after the funding cuts were announced.

    “The president has said he’s absolutely not going to allow federal funds to be going to these universities that continue to allow antisemitism,” she said. “Kids ought to go to college and parents ought to feel good about their kids going to college, knowing they’re in a safe environment.”

    Marcus also applauded the Trump administration for utilizing multiple agencies to tackle the problem at once. The Department of Justice was minimally involved in responding to campus antisemitism during Trump’s first term, he said, but this time “the DOJ is leading the charge” and “the difference is palpable.” This weekend, all university administrators should be meeting with their general counsels and ensuring they are doing everything they can to protect all students, Marcus advised.

    “The last administration spoke of a whole-of-government approach. This administration is walking the talk,” he said.

    Liam Knox contributed to this report.



    Source link

  • Trump administration cancels $400M of Columbia’s grants and contracts amid antisemitism probe

    Trump administration cancels $400M of Columbia’s grants and contracts amid antisemitism probe

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

    Four federal agencies announced Friday they are immediately canceling $400 million of grants and contracts to Columbia University over what they described as the Ivy League institution’s “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” 

    The cancellation of the grants and contracts comes just four days after the Trump administration’s newly created Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced a probe into Columbia. 

    The four agencies — the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Education and U.S. General Services Administration — said more cancellations will follow. The university has over $5 billion in federal grant commitments, according to the announcement. 

    “Universities must comply with all federal antidiscrimination laws if they are going to receive federal funding,” U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a Friday statement. “For too long, Columbia has abandoned that obligation to Jewish students studying on its campus. Today, we demonstrate to Columbia and other universities that we will not tolerate their appalling inaction any longer.”

    A Columbia spokesperson said Friday that officials are reviewing the announcement and plan to work with the federal government to restore the funding. 

    “We take Columbia’s legal obligations seriously and understand how serious this announcement is and are committed to combatting antisemitism and ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our students, faculty, and staff,” the spokesperson said.

    The four agencies threatened to take similar actions against other colleges. 

     “The decisive action by the DOJ, HHS, ED, and GSA to cancel Columbia’s grants and contracts serves as a notice to every school and university that receives federal dollars that this Administration will use all the tools at its disposal to protect Jewish students and end anti-Semitism on college campuses,” they said in Friday’s announcement. 

     The antisemitism task force is already poised to review several other high-profile colleges. Last week, the Justice Department said the group would visit 10 college campuses, including Columbia, where antisemitic incidents have been reported since October 2023, when Hamas attacked Israel. 

     The other campuses are George Washington University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, New York University, Northwestern University, University of California, Los Angeles, University of California, Berkeley, University of Minnesota and University of Southern California. 

    Even more recently, the task force on Wednesday announced a probe into the University of California over allegations that it discriminated against employees by not doing enough to prevent an antisemitic and hostile work environment. 

    Groups raise concerns over free speech

    Columbia has drawn Republican policymakers’ ire for months over the way university administrators have responded to pro-Palestinian protests on its campus. Protesters erected an encampment on the university’s lawn in April, sparking similar demonstrations nationwide that led to hundreds of student arrests. 

    This past fall, many colleges tightened their protest rules to deter encampments. Since then, Columbia and other high-profile institutions largely haven’t seen the same long-running encampments that rocked their campuses last spring, though protesters have held sit-ins and other demonstrations. 

    Columbia itself has made several policy changes — including some that have attracted criticism from free speech scholars. 

    The university’s Office of Institutional Equity — a newly created committee — has recently been bringing disciplinary cases against students who have criticized Israel, the Associated Press reported earlier this week. 

    “Based on how these cases have proceeded, the university now appears to be responding to governmental pressure to suppress and chill protected speech,” Amy Greer, an attorney advising the students under review, told AP. 

    Source link

  • The future of apprenticeships under Trump

    The future of apprenticeships under Trump

    Advocates for apprenticeship programs came into a second Trump administration with a rosy outlook on their future.

    Historically, these on-the-job training programs have enjoyed bipartisan support, and apprenticeships featured prominently in Project 2025, the conservative policy blueprint for a second Trump administration put forth by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank. The plan encouraged their expansion, lauding the programs as a meaningful alternative to “the woke-dominated system of public schools and universities.”

    But now, apprenticeship proponents are divided on how hopeful to feel.

    Some maintain their optimism. They foresee a potential period of growth for the programs, as Trump administration officials and supporters speak positively about apprenticeships and nondegree pathways.

    But others worry that at least some apprenticeship programs—and their financial supports—could be hurt by the administration’s slashing of federal spending. Already, some grants supporting apprenticeship programs have been cut to trim costs or for perceived connections to diversity, equity and inclusion work. The Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship, which advises the Department of Labor on apprenticeship issues, has been disbanded, along with other federal advisory bodies.

    “If the approach is to just cut, cut, cut grants across the government—and the kind of machete-wielding, indiscriminate cutting of things continues—I think that could pose some long-term stress on the system and halt a lot of the momentum that it’s had,” said Taylor White, director of postsecondary pathways for youth at New America, a left-wing think tank, and a former member of the now-defunct advisory committee. She fears the uncertainty caused by federal spending cuts in general could scare off employers or state agencies that otherwise would have invested in these programs.

    Apprenticeship-related grants have gotten “caught up” in efforts to scrutinize government spending, said Vinz Koller, vice president of the Center for Apprenticeship and Work-Based Learning at Jobs for the Future, an organization focused on workforce development, though he doesn’t think “they’ve been the target” or that the moves are necessarily indicative of apprenticeships’ future under Trump.

    “What we are hearing from the administration is a commitment to registered apprenticeship and to apprenticeship writ large and to making it more widely accessible,” he said. “That leads us to believe, looking into the future, that’s where we’re headed.”

    Reasons for Optimism

    John Colborn, executive director of Apprenticeships for America, a nonprofit working to expand apprenticeships in the U.S., said it’s “too early to say for sure” what the next four years hold for apprenticeships. But he sees “plenty of positive signs out there,” including supportive rhetoric from current and nominated Trump administration officials.

    For example, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon posted on X in November that apprenticeship programs “are a pathway to successful careers,” praising Switzerland’s apprenticeship system as “a model the rest of the world can adapt.”

    Similarly, Trump’s pick for secretary of labor, Lori Chavez-DeRemer, said during her Feb. 19 confirmation hearing that she values investing in and “doubling down” on registered or federally recognized apprenticeships.

    “Right now, we’re focused on the registered apprenticeships, growing those, investing in those and making sure that those are adhered to,” she told lawmakers.

    Her comments were a notable departure from the vision for apprenticeships laid out in Project 2025, which called for a return to an earlier Trump policy of industry-recognized apprenticeships, a separate system to circumvent what Republican lawmakers view as excessive federal regulation. Registered apprenticeships are required to meet certain quality standards to receive federal dollars.

    Chavez-DeRemer’s position “came as good news to many of us listening and watching,” White said, though she wonders if Chavez-DeRemer will retain that stance if there’s pressure from the administration to do otherwise.

    Colborn believes the current administration might improve the registered apprenticeship system, including speeding up program approvals and expanding the types of occupations that offer apprenticeship options.

    He added that so far, the Trump administration hasn’t interfered with financial supports for apprenticeships that the Biden administration instituted. Under Biden, the Department of Labor announced the State Apprenticeship Expansion Formula grant program, which makes $85 million available for states and territories to grow the capacity of existing registered apprenticeships and invest in new offerings.

    “I don’t have any official word on this, but every indication we have is that that grant process is going forward,” Colborn said. “We take that as a signifier that this administration is committed to apprenticeship.”

    Some apprenticeship advocates hope the moment might be ripe to push for more support and see their policy wish lists fulfilled, including more reliable federal and state funding for apprenticeships, rather than one-off grants, and incentives like tax credits for employers to participate in apprenticeship programs.

    “There’s definitely room for the administration to make a mark on the broadening of apprenticeship into more sectors where traditionally they haven’t been as common,” Koller said.

    Causes for Concern

    Still, some advocates worry apprenticeships will be negatively affected by other policies advanced by the Trump administration.

    White, for example, was jarred by the Department of Labor’s decision to ax its Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship, a group of about 30 employers, labor organization representatives and other stakeholders that advises the department on apprenticeship-related policy.

    She doesn’t believe the move was intended to signal an anti-apprenticeship stance, given that the committee isn’t the only federal advisory body to bite the dust. A February executive order got rid of a handful of them and called on government officials to flag “Federal Advisory Committees that should be terminated on grounds that they are unnecessary.”

    But the disbanding of the committee still feels like a “confusing signal” and a potential obstacle to progress, White said.

    “What’s lost by dissolving a community like that is the connection to the people on the ground who are actually having to interpret regulation, live regulation, build the programs, implement the programs,” she added. She sees such perspectives as critical to making apprenticeships “more efficient, more accessible, more functional and, frankly, a more mainstream training option for Americans to access high-quality training and good middle-class jobs.”

    Like the advisory committee, some federal funding for apprenticeship programs and apprenticeship-related research projects has gotten caught in the crossfire as the administration works to downsize government and curtail DEI work.

    Notably, the Department of Government Efficiency’s website shows about $18 million in cuts to three grants issued by the Department of Labor’s Office of Apprenticeship, according to The Job, a newsletter that covers education and workforce issues.

    Managed by the consulting firm ICF, one of the grants was for “technical assistance and coaching support” and one for “industry engagement and outreach.” DOGE’s documentation said only that the grants were terminated “for convenience,” meaning the cuts were in the government’s interest. Another impacted grant was for “technical and coaching assistance support,” managed by a subsidiary of the American Institutes for Research. The Job also reported in late February that several research projects related to apprenticeships had their federal funding frozen.

    Another victim of federal cuts was Reach University, a nonprofit institution with a mission to offer on-the-job credentials, called apprenticeship degrees. The institution lost three grants, totaling $14.7 million, from the Education Department. (Teacher-training grants at other institutions have also been slashed for supposed connections to DEI. Three teacher preparation groups sued the Department on Monday over the slew of grant cuts in the field.)

    The grants to Reach were supposed to support apprenticeship-based degree programs training teachers in rural Arkansas and Louisiana through 2028. One program helps associate degree holders earn bachelor’s degrees while learning teaching skills on the job in local schools. (The grant application mentioned that the program is a partnership with Delgado Community College, a predominantly Black institution in New Orleans, and would “increase the number of teachers of color in high-need Louisiana schools,” The Job reported.) The other two grants were partnerships with nonprofits to help people in more isolated rural areas earn teaching credentials on the job.

    Joe E. Ross, president and CEO of Reach, wrote to Inside Higher Ed that he remains “hopeful” the university will regain the funds through the Education Department’s internal appeals process, and he said university leaders are in touch with department officials. Despite the financial hits, he’s optimistic the administration will be good news for apprenticeships over all.

    “We are confident that the projects funded by these grants align with long-standing, bipartisan priorities, including those of this administration,” Ross said. “As applied by Reach, all three of these grants are a merit-based, discrimination-free application of federal funds to meet the department’s long-held priority of alleviating the teacher shortage with residents of the local community.”

    Source link

  • Trump reportedly set to order dismantling of Education Dept.

    Trump reportedly set to order dismantling of Education Dept.

    This story will be updated.

    President Donald Trump is planning to sign an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps” to close the agency, The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets reported.

    The president’s order—scheduled to be signed at 2 p.m. in the Oval Office—is the first step in carrying out his controversial campaign promise to abolish the 45-year-old department. A draft of the order provided to Inside Higher Ed criticizes the department for spending “more than $1 trillion without producing virtually any improvement in student reading and mathematics scores.” Trump’s press secretary called reports about the order “fake news.”

    Education advocates have already shown staunch opposition to the executive action. The American Federation of Teachers, a key higher ed union, was one of the first groups to pipe up when the news broke Wednesday evening, calling the order a government attempt to “abdicate its responsibility to all children, students and working families.”

    “The Department of Education, and the laws it is supposed to execute, has one major purpose: to level the playing field and fill opportunity gaps to help every child in America succeed,” union president Randi Weingarten said in a statement. “No one likes bureaucracy, and everyone’s in favor of more efficiency, so let’s find ways to accomplish that. But don’t use a ‘war on woke’ to attack the children living in poverty and the children with disabilities, in order to pay for vouchers and tax cuts for billionaires.”

    The president and his allies have promoted the idea of dismantling the agency since the early days of his 2024 campaign, saying the department has grown too big and interferes in matters best left to local and state authorities. They also argue the agency’s existence violates the Constitution (because the document doesn’t mention education) and is a prime example of federal bloat and excess.

    Read More on Trump’s Plans to Break Up the Department

    Such an order has been rumored for weeks, and higher education officials have been nervously waiting for the shoe to drop since McMahon was confirmed by the Senate Monday afternoon. But the secretary backed plans to break up or diminish the department at her confirmation last month, and shortly after taking office, she wrote to agency staff about their “momentous final mission,” which includes overhauling the agency and eliminating “bureaucratic bloat.” She never did directly use the words “dismantle” or “abolish” but pledged to “send education back to the states.”

    “As I’ve learned many times throughout my career, disruption leads to innovation and gets results,” she wrote. “We must start thinking about our final mission at the department as an overhaul—a last chance to restore the culture of liberty and excellence that made American education great.”

    Eliminating the Education Department and sending key programs such as the Office for Civil Rights to other agencies was a key part of the conservative blueprint Project 2025’s plans to reshape education policy in America. But recent public opinion polls have found support for keeping the agency.

    One survey conducted by the progressive think tank Data for Progress, on behalf of the Student Borrower Protection Center, a left-wing advocacy group, showed that 61 percent of all respondents “somewhat” or “strongly” opposed the idea of eliminating the department. Another poll from Morning Consult, a data-driven insights company, showed that a large chunk of voters—41 percent—actually want to increase funding to the department.

    The order doesn’t mean the department will close tomorrow or even this month, as it calls for the secretary to create a plan to wind down operations. McMahon also told senators during her confirmation that only Congress can shut down the agency altogether.

    Higher Ed Officials Brace for Impact

    As talks about the department’s demise ramped up in recent weeks, lawmakers, student advocacy groups, civil rights organizations and left-leaning think tanks warned how destructive dismantling the department could be.

    Democrats in the House started pushing back on the idea as early as Feb. 10, when they walked directly up to the department’s front doors and demanded a meeting with then–acting education secretary Denise Carter. Denied entry, they argued the department’s existence is key to supporting students with disabilities and making higher education accessible to all.

    That same week, several key senators wrote a letter to the department outlining their “serious concerns” about its actions.

    “We will not stand by and allow the impact that dismantling the Department of Education would have on the nation’s students, parents, borrowers, educators, and communities,” the lawmakers wrote.

    Derrick Johnson, president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, put out a statement expressing similar concerns for students of color just minutes after McMahon was confirmed. The NAACP played a key role in the landmark 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed racial segregation in public schools, and has been a longtime advocate for equality and opportunity in education. He said that protecting the Department of Education is critical, since the agency not only funds public schools, but “enforces essential civil rights laws.”

    “This is an agency we cannot afford to dismantle,” he said.

    On Tuesday morning, EdTrust, a nonprofit policy and advocacy group, said America has reached “a dangerous turning point for public education.”

    “Simply put: If we are truly to reach America’s ‘Golden Age,’ we need to build a better, stronger Department of Education, not tear it down altogether,” the organization wrote in a statement.

    Kevin Carey, vice president of education at New America, a left-leaning think tank, said in a statement that eliminating the department is a “deeply unpopular idea,” citing the organization’s own new polling data.

    The survey found that over all only 26 percent of adults support the department’s closure. And though the Trump administration says it is carrying out the will of the people who elected him to office, barely half of Republicans want closure. Even fewer members of the GOP support the specific consequences of shuttering the department, like moving federal financial aid to an agency with no experience overseeing the program.

    “This is all part of the standard authoritarian playbook for would-be dictators engaged in tearing down democratic institutions,” Carey wrote. Dismantling the department would be “a nihilistic act of civic vandalism, carried out by ideological zealots.”

    Gathering Congressional Support

    But Carey and others also note that, ultimately, the Trump administration lacks the legal authority to actually close the Department of Education, making full abolishment more complicated than the president suggests.

    Shuttering the agency would require 60 votes in the Senate as well as a majority in the House, as the department’s existence is written into statute. And with a 53-seat majority in the Senate, Republicans don’t currently have the votes unless some Democrats back the plan.

    Still, Trump has continued to promote the concept, and red states across the country have backed it. Although the president has not disclosed specific details on how he would try to overcome the political and legal hurdles, higher education policy experts predict he’s likely to leave the skeleton of the department standing while gutting the agency of everything but its statutorily protected duties.

    Conservative groups, most notably the Heritage Foundation, have suggested redistributing responsibilities by moving programs to other agencies. For example, the federal student loan system could be moved to the Treasury, and the Office for Civil Rights could be moved to the Department of Justice.

    Critics of the idea say that such proposals need more specifics that spell out how exactly the plan would work, what programs would stay, which ones would go away and what agencies would take over the department’s responsibilities.

    However, higher ed policy experts from the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, say getting rid of the department is “a good idea.” They describe the department as “unconstitutional,” given education is mentioned nowhere in the specific, enumerated powers given to the federal government, and call it “ineffective,” “incompetent,” “expensive” and “unnecessary.”

    The founding fathers chose to exclude dominion over education from the Constitution “because education was believed best left in the hands of parents and civil society—the families and communities closest to the children—and certainly not in a distant national government,” Neal McCluskey, director of Cato’s Center for Educational Freedom, wrote in a policy handbook. “Nearly 60 years of experience with major and, until very recently, constantly expanding federal meddling in K-12 education have proved them right.”

    Source link

  • Education association sues Trump admin over DEI guidance

    Education association sues Trump admin over DEI guidance

    Legal challenges to the Education Department’s guidance ordering colleges to rescind all race-based programming are piling up. 

    A week after the American Federation of Teachers sued the Trump administration over the guidance, the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit that seeks to restrain the department from enforcing the Feb. 14 letter.

    Similar to the AFT lawsuit, the NEA argues that the letter and its threat to cut federal funding would hamper public schools’ function as “the nation’s ‘nurseries of democracy.’” The NEA lawsuit was filed in the New Hampshire federal district court, while the AFT’s challenge is in Maryland district court.

    “The Trump administration is threatening to punish students, parents and educators in public schools for … fostering inclusive classrooms where diversity is valued, history is taught honestly, and every child can grow into their full brilliance,” Becky Pringle, president of the NEA, said in a news release. “We’re urging the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing this harmful and vague directive and protect students from politically motivated attacks that stifle speech and erase critical lessons.”

    NEA alleges that the Dear Colleague letter “imposes vague and viewpoint discriminatory prohibitions,” “invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” and causes “substantial, irreparable harm.” 
    The NEA wants the court to declare the letter contrary to constitutional rights and place a permanent restraint on the department, preventing it from enforcing the letter’s orders.

    Source link