What a Second Trump Term Could Mean for Student Financial Aid
By Maria Carrasco, NASFAA Staff Reporter
Read our coverage on how a Harris administration could impact student financial aid policy.
With the 2024 presidential election less than a month away, former President Donald Trump’s platform could mean more aggressive policies for higher education and federal student financial aid.
Trump’s first term, in 2016, began with a focus of rescinding higher education initiatives of the Obama administration, including new gainful employment regulations and borrower defense to repayment regulations.
Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said that if Trump does take office again, his administration could be even more aggressive against higher education institutions, especially “elite” institutions.
“In recent years, we've seen a bit of a Republican churn against ‘elite’ higher education,” Cooper said. “There's a sense on the right that we heavily subsidize these institutions, and of course, we're just not getting that much for it. There probably is some energy on the right to take a hard look at the subsidies that are going to higher education, especially very prestigious institutions, and see whether those should continue, and whether that would really be worth it.”
Cooper added that while initially Trump in 2016 focused on overturning Obama administration initiatives, this time his administration could craft their own higher education agenda through the rulemaking process, where more details could be forthcoming. He added that Trump could also overturn Biden’s student loan debt relief initiative, which is already facing a legal challenge.
According to Trump’s platform, Republicans will support the creation of “more affordable alternatives to a traditional four-year college degree” and “fund proven career training programs.” The platform also pledges to prioritize affordability and “reduce” the cost of higher education.
“Whoever the next president may be, it's essential to keep higher education affordability at the forefront,” said Megan Walter, senior policy analyst at NASFAA, which manages the CCT initiative. “The College Cost Transparency initiative plays a vital role in ensuring that, despite ongoing uncertainty around federal aid, students and families have the clear information they need to make informed decisions about college costs, enrollment, and borrowing.”
Cooper added that a Trump administration could push for an endowment tax on wealthy institutions. There could also be a movement from the Trump administration for accountability for institutions and demands that institutions show their post-graduate results, Cooper added.
In addition to Trump’s education platform, there is also Project 2025, which is a conservative policy agenda published by the Heritage Foundation, focused on guiding the next Republican president. Part of the document, which Trump has distanced himself from, focuses on higher education and highlights that a new Republican administration “must end” the Biden administration’s “abuse of the agency’s payment pause and Higher Education Act (HEA) loan forgiveness programs, including borrower defense to repayment, closed school discharge, and Public Service Loan Forgiveness.”
The agenda also suggests the Department of Education (ED) should work with Congress to amend the HEA to eliminate negotiated rulemaking, and at a minimum, Congress should allow ED to use public hearings rather than negotiated rulemaking sessions. Additionally, a Republican president should consider “returning to a system in which private lenders, backed by government guarantees, would compete to offer student loans.”
Michelle Dimino, director of education at Third Way, a public policy think tank, noted that during Trump’s first presidency, his federal budget proposals slashed funding to federal student aid programs, including Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Federal Work Study (FWS).
Trump’s previous track record, along with proposals outlined in Project 2025, would, in Dimino’s view, do little to address the challenges burdening students and families right now.
“Reelecting President Trump threatens the promises of our higher education system to help people reach the middle class,” Dimino said. “His track record on these issues and the proposals that are in Project 2025 would attack students and the opportunities that are available to them from a very early age, that would especially fall hard on lower income students.”
However, Dimino noted that regardless of what either Trump or Harris proposes for higher education on the campaign trail, their proposals will require support from Congress.
“Trump would need a lot of support from Congress to do many of these [Project 2025] proposals,” Dimino said. “They're not universally popular ideas. His proposals are widely panned, of course, by Democrats, but there are plenty of folks in his own party who would think twice about taking away benefits from their constituents.”
As for what people should look out for in the 2024 presidential election, Cooper said both the Republican and Democratic campaigns are focusing on issues with the value of higher education.
“I think there is more energy on both the left and the right to say we need to have higher standards for higher education,” Cooper said. “We can't just continue with business as usual. We can't just send a bunch of money out the door through the student loan program and through other federal subsidy programs and expect nothing in return.”
Publication Date: 10/8/2024
Kim J | 11/7/2024 8:51:50 AM
With our membership being approximately 20,000+, we are bound to have vast differences in our views on religious matters, politics, etc. What I have noticed is that for the most part, our beloved profession does come together and work for the good of our noble cause. Having said, that, I will say this article troubles me in that it is strongly slanted against a Trump administration. Taking out the person(s), who is not against an over abundance of regulations (rhetorical)? I would say the vast majority of us do want FVT-GE rescinded as this task is NOT our main purpose, but rather a reporting arm of convoluted data that likely does not serve an understandable purpose. As for the abolishment of ED, that has been bandied about for 30+ years! This is nothing new and there is validity in discussing this as to understand the regulatory monster it has become (and we existed prior to ED). The Trump team has noted on numerous occasions they do not have anything to do with Project 2025 and yet this article continues to use language that does associate him with it. Within any vast topic, there may be nuggets where we agree but overall, we may disagree with much (think of a bill in the federal and state government that has items we both like and abhor). I greatly appreciate NASFAA and it has really gained strength over many years, but please do not do this ... keep this apolitical. In past years, SR leadership at NASFAA was very careful about this (and I had communications with SR leadership on this) and kept our focus moving forward and non-divisive. Much more I could say and others before me have said things that are on topic. For the good of our noble cause ...
Carolyn M | 11/4/2024 1:23:32 PM
"Trump’s previous track record, along with proposals outlined in Project 2025..." I'm very disappointed that Project 2025 is even in cited in this article. Both Project 2025 (Heritage Foundation) and Trump have repeatedly said that he has NOTHING to do with it and does not endorse it, but those statements are disregarded; saying everyone is lying. Yet, when a founding Trustee of the Heritage Foundation endorsed Harris, it was quickly disregarded since he 'hasn't been involved with the group' for a while. Trump has championed fewer government regulations (which lowers overhead costs across the board) and making sure the American people are getting good value for the money they spend on students. Makes sense. If the Harris campaign is so insistent that student loans are awful, evil and destroying the next generation, then why keep offering them? Let's empower our students to learn the value of an education and make good decisions to get a good return for their money and ours.
Destiny S | 10/9/2024 10:24:16 AM
The slant of this article versus the Harris Administration article is interesting to me. Additionally, the continuous association with the Trump administration and Project 2025 (despite his rejection of that project) is laughable and makes me believe this writer is a conspiracy theorist. Shameful.
George T | 10/9/2024 12:2:44 AM
This article points out issues that are the product of congressional inaction on reauthorizing the HEA every 5 years. This 2 year process allows a thorough review and updating of the HEA, which could include balancing the loan, grant, and work-study programs, establishing a single income based repayment program and loan cancellation program, and establishing a "maintenance of effort" program for states requiring a minimum annual state appropriation to state student financial aid programs for eligibility to participate in Title IV programs.
The scheduled reauthorization of the HEA is 3 cycles behind - last reauthorized in 2008, and missing the normally scheduled 2013, 2018, 2023 reauthorizations. This has never happened to this extent during the 59 years since the HEA was signed into law in 1965.
However, without controlling majorities in the House and Senate, and other, much more important, issues facing the country, the congressional regular order is, unfortunately, not happening any time soon, resulting in ad hoc changes, like one-time student debt cancellation for selected current borrowers qualifying under existing programs.
Raymond G | 10/8/2024 3:54:16 PM
There is a misperception here regarding the possibility of the Department of Education being eliminated. This does not mean financial aid would be eliminated. FSA would fall under the US Treasury. This eliminates political agendas. For as we all know the Dept of Education has been used to redefine Title IX from what it's original intended purpose was. Just look at how much the current administration has added. Used to be that the courts were the ones to interpret laws not agencies. Agencies that are headed by those appointed by the current presidential administration are of course going to interpret laws that benefit those they serve. The Supreme court gave the final interpretation of the laws back to the courts where it belongs. And I have never heard a single financial aid administrator say how much they enjoy Gainful employment. Which we know is not fairly targeted in the first place. Be honest. There are bad degrees on both sides of the public / private spectrum. And a good degree is not necessarily good if one has to move across the country to work and this was not advertised to the student in the first place. And although FFELP was not perfect it was much better than direct lending. Direct lending was suppose to be more efficient and actually bring in money. Enough so to pay for the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) and it had failed in doing so and is costing more. Our federal deficient is rising drastically now with Obama Care that was suppose to be covered from federal student lending. There is no escaping. It has been shown time and time again that government regulations create more costs and waste not less. The private sector creates more wealth and innovation because of competition. The US was built on meritocracy. It's time we go back to our roots.
Sheree T | 10/8/2024 3:10:02 PM
Trump has nothing to do with Project 2025. If that is the only argument against Trump, then there is no argument.
Prior to 1978, Title IV aid was not administered through the ED because it didn't exist.
I bet most of us are not fans of GE reporting, and I know none of us are fans of how the current ED administration went about the 2425 FAFSA, and are not feeling optimistic about 2526.
Having said that, I have my reservations about both candidates.
Peter G | 10/8/2024 1:58:08 PM
"Congress should allow ED to use public hearings rather than negotiated rulemaking sessions."
If memory serves, part of the Proj 2025 argument was that eliminating NegReg would get advocates with specific agendas out of the rulemaking process, or at least counter-balance them.
Personally I think the issue here is how the current administration has wielded its committee selection, rather than the underlying concept of negreg. I don't really see how 'public hearings' would shift where the influence is, since parties who hold the Undersecretary/lawyers' ears would still have outside influence when they go back behind closed doors to write the rules.
If their goal is what they say it is, it would seem better to set rules around how the reps participating in Negreg are chosen imo.
Mindy S | 10/8/2024 1:23:31 PM
Most of the comments are coming directly from Project 2025 papers. Higher Education is under attack. It is Trump's way of punishing the industry to his failed and corrupt Trump University. Society has lost sight of the importance of higher education in a global economy. Higher education should be guarded as a national security priority.
David S | 10/8/2024 11:9:29 AM
2/2
And as the article points out, Trump and his cronies want to punish the "elites" because that's red meat for his supporters. Never mind that Trump and four of his five kids all went to an Ivy (his 5th kid is in a pretty highly selective school too) and that his running mate attended an Ivy law school; they got what they needed from elite schools, but now as those schools are too "woke" (an undefined concept Project 2025 looks to eliminate from all schools, Pre-K through PhD) it's time to punish them. This of course is consistent with Trump's entire campaign; revenge on those he sees as his enemies.
Most financial aid administrators don't work at "elite" schools and most students don't attend them; but anyone who thinks that a White House declaring war on those schools will benefit any schools that don't fit into that category in any way is sorely mistaken. Republicans want fewer Americans attending college, and we all heard Betsy DeVos say "the two-thirds of Americans who don't go to college shouldn't have to pay for the one-third who do." The way I do that math, it means the excess students they see as not belonging on our campuses are the ones our offices serve.
Vote accordingly.
David S | 10/8/2024 11:8:55 AM
Even before we heard of Project 2025 - which for all of his denials was written largely by people who worked for Trump by an organization that prides itself in being completely aligned with him and mentions him by name hundreds of times - Republicans were calling for fewer Americans to attend college. Virginia Foxx said that in no uncertain terms...on a NASFAA podcast, and she isn't the only one who's said it.
Project 2025 sets out a vision for eliminating the Department of Education and removing the federal government from the student loan business (this on top of repeated Republican attempts to cut or eliminate multiple T4 programs). I'm not saying the private sector should have no place in student loans, but those of us who remember the waning days of FFELP, in which lenders were redlining schools because the profit margin didn't meet their needs, shudder at the though of the student loan program returning to a corporate welfare program that enabled executives to build golf courses at their multimillion dollar estates. Student loans are a public service designed to help people who need the help, not something for CEO's to live lifestyles of the rich and famous (and I'm 100% sure that venture capitalists would join the fray this time around, and there's no greater recipe for disaster). More on higher ed under this manifesto here - https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2024/07/11/how-project-2025-could-radically-reshape-higher-ed.
(thread)
Joshua M | 10/8/2024 10:57:22 AM
Less Regulation and probably a FAFSA that works!
Vincent F | 10/8/2024 10:48:24 AM
I've voted Libertarian every election since 1992. For the first time, I am considering voting Republican, because this time there really IS a difference between the two candidates. As bad as the Biden Administration has been, a Harris one will be ten times worse.
Jeff A | 10/8/2024 9:52:53 AM
With only four years, a Trump admin will look a LOT like his first term. Revise/Reverse what his admin believes was a poorly crafted and biased regulatory onslaught. Most of which will not, did not, or would not survive a legal challenge.
The FAFSA will likely be better-prioritized. Project 2025 will guide nothing in a Trump admin. It doesn't exist to him.
Our jobs in FA would be less burdensome and stressful. There would be a focus on our college's program level outcomes across several measurements, not just debt and salary after 2-3 years, and making that data well-publicized to better inform consumers and steer higher ed towards employers' needs.
On the flip side, the regulatory onslaught and operational challenges continue.
Sheree T | 10/8/2024 9:23:54 AM
I would also like to know if either of the candidates has a plan to improve the disastrous FAFSA rollout. 2425 was and is still a dumpster fire, and 2526 is not giving me positive vibes. It is amazing to me that Cardona is still employed. The #1 thing any president can do to immediately improve higher education administration is hand him a pink slip.
Theresa C | 10/8/2024 8:56:04 AM
Can you please cite the actual speeches for this article. It seems to just reference other NASFAA articles. It is important that when citing individuals you provide a link to where those statements are published. Looking forward to an update on this article.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.