When Linda McMahon was initially elected as Secretary of Education, I wrote an article detailing how she compared her to former Secretary of Education Betsy Devos. I’m cautiously suggesting that McMahon will end this post by aligning with the elements of the Heritage Foundation’s 2025 program and the think tank she led (the First Institute of Policy Research). I also suggest that McMahon may feel the courage to engage in similar behaviors as the president’s attitude to following court orders is ambiguous.
McMahon has been identified as Secretary of Education since my previous columns and has since shared her vision for the Department of Education in various interviews. Although her focus is mainly on K-12 education, for higher education, she has always emphasized that Pell grants and loans will remain safe – I will revisit this topic later. However, the most predictable results have proven to be accurate: McMahon’s approach is closely aligned with the intentions outlined by Heritage and AFPI, because the goal of ED is to turn off.
One way to frame McMahon’s leadership and most recently as secretary is that she is the agency’s appointment driver (before a signing of an executive order, President Trump “hopes to be our last education secretary.”) Now, there is no way to eliminate ED without Congress’ approval. However, there are many decisions that the government can make to seriously affect the department and its internal offices. Some of these decisions have been implemented.
One of the most influential and direct policies McMahon has adopted is that ED’s employees have dropped by nearly 50%, from about 4,000 to 2,000. These cuts reduce staff in offices, such as the Federal Student Aid Office, the Institute of Educational Sciences and the Office of Civil Rights. Communication from ED shows that these cuts do not affect students’ ability to apply for and ensure financial aid.
Among the nearly 2,000 layoffs, more than 300 layoffs occurred within the Federal Student Aid Office, and almost immediately, free applications for federal student aid websites fell by several hours. Even with one employee, the Biden administration has documented issues while keeping FAFSA running smoothly, which has resulted in a 9% drop in FAFSA submissions for first-time applicants in 2024, while all applications are missing by about 432,000. Given the reduced functionality of the department, I have little confidence that I can handle the FAFSA application quickly.
On March 21, President Trump announced that the Small Business Administration would take over the student loan portfolio, an interesting move given that McMahon was head of the SBA during Trump’s first term. There is no clear explanation for why the SBA should be responsible for the portfolio and no public plans are released. Additionally, SBA intends to reduce its workforce by nearly half, reducing its 6,500-strong workforce by about 2,700, while managing the Titanic mission.
Although it can be argued that, as outlined in the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Higher Education Amendment Act of 1998, the loan portfolio may have been transferred from the FSA (performance-based organization) to the FSA (performance-based organization”), it is still unclear whether external portfolios of ED outside ED are legally allowed. In addition, the Higher Education Opportunities Act of 2008 does not seem to support moving loans outside ED or other financial aid-related procedures.
In a recent interview, McMahon did not provide further clarification on the decision, noting that other ED functions may be transferred to other departments. Although she suggested working with Congress to explain the legitimacy of the actions, she also suggested that Congressional approval might be unnecessary.
In addition to concerns surrounding financial aid, we should also expect weaker liability measures and reduce the progress of academic research. Ed’s Institute for Education Sciences faces a large number of layoffs. Although the integrated postgraduate education data system is still active, providing important data on admissions, costs, financial aid and graduation rates, its future is uncertain. This dataset is crucial for researchers at foundations and think tanks, as well as researchers targeting accountability, and scholars studying higher education outcomes. However, IPED may soon lack accuracy or even public accessibility due to the decline in recent survey submission links and limited personnel to oversee the system. As other federal datasets also face potential risks, researchers may need to rethink the criteria for defining good work in an evolving landscape.
However, employee cuts may be too sudden, as Ed recently asked dozens of employees to return to fulfill their statutory obligations, including responsibilities related to financial aid and loans. However, uncertainty remains about how the government and secretary McMahon explains these obligations and the level of efficiency required for their implementation.
McMahon’s impact on higher education has gone beyond the ED’s “Sweet Chin Music” directive (“Sweet Music” is the end of WWE legend Shawn Michaels. She seems eager to be a bridge to align higher education with conservative priorities, the first validation case for her direct involvement in revoking $400 million in federal grants and the revocation of Columbia’s contract, the first validation case for a broader strategy for the allegations of anti-Semitism on campus. Critics argue that this is an excuse to advance the Conservative agenda rather than a real effort to protect Jewish students and staff, and a similar strategy now applies to Harvard and Princeton. The administration also seems to be using similar strategies toward the University of Pennsylvania. Other agencies like Pennsylvania) put pressure on issues related to Title IX and trans athletes.
To restore federal funding, Colombia was given a series of demands, including the creation of a new ban on campus masks and putting the Middle East, South Asia and African research sectors within academic takeover, which is federally over-criticized. Although Colombia has taken several steps to address anti-Semitism concerns, including seeking arrests on pro-Palestinian protesters’ invasion, deportation of students and temporary revocation of diplomas, these actions are actually considered insufficient.
Although Colombia has largely complied with the government’s requirements, there is little indication of the amount of funds that the withheld will be restored or to what extent. Regardless of the readers’ personal perception of the outcome, Colombia’s compliance suggests that institutions may become increasingly vulnerable to federal intervention. Looking ahead, I expect both the Republican and Democratic governments to exert significant political pressure on institutions, greatly reshaping higher education, partly influenced by McMahon’s direct role in the Colombian negotiations.
Since the National Institutes of Health’s cancellation grants began, I have described federal government agencies as “unreliable partners” in higher education. As McMahon continues to remove ED and transfer his responsibilities to other departments, the “Unreliable Partner” label remains appropriate, which can lead to extreme efficiency. I am particularly concerned about the delays in FAFSA processing and whether financial aid for the next school year will reach institutions and students. Administrators should prepare for these risks. Furthermore, just as Colombia meets the government’s requirements, future financial aid may bring new conditions (e.g., mask bans on all campuses), or intentionally withheld until expectations are met.
