WASHINGTON — A multibillion-dollar package to fund immigration enforcement for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term faced new delays Thursday as Senate Republicans showed a rare split with the president over his new “anti-weaponization” fund.

The administration dispatched Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Republicans as many fought to add restrictions to Trump’s $1.776 billion fund as a condition for passing a proposed $72 billion for the departments of Homeland Security and Justice.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the hourslong closed-door meeting with Blanche included “spirited discussion.”

The Department of Justice announced Monday the fund for “victims of lawfare” in exchange for Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. Both agencies are under his purview.

“It’s unprecedented to see a settlement between two parties that seem to be the same person,” Paul said.

Ultimately, senators left their meeting with Blanche with no immediate path forward for the budget reconciliation bill that requires a simple majority to pass. Senate Majority Leader John Thune can only afford to lose a handful of votes in the GOP-led Senate that is split 53-47, as all Democrats vow to oppose the package.

“We’re going home,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said as he made flight arrangements with his staff while standing outside the meeting room. 

Thune told reporters “we will pick up where we left off.” 

Asked whether he thinks a resolution can be reached, the South Dakota Republican said “that’s what I’m counting on.” 

The Senate has adjourned except for pro forma sessions until the afternoon of June 1, the date Trump set to have the finished bill on his desk.

Among the sticking points in the Blanche meeting: whether Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot defendants who assaulted police officers would qualify for the financial relief.

“I did raise that issue,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. “But we haven’t seen (bill) language yet.”

The administration maintains the fund will be nonpartisan, and not only open to Trump supporters. A five-seat commission — four to be appointed by Blanche and the fifth in consultation with Congress — will issue decisions on financial claims.

Further details emerged Tuesday from the Department of Justice, revealing that Trump and his family will be forever immune from tax audits as part of the settlement.

Ballroom battle

Before debate erupted over Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund, Republicans had already fractured over a $1 billion Secret Service security earmark in the bill, $220 million of which was set to be used to “harden” Trump’s White House ballroom project.

The funds for the “East Wing Modernization Project” would have paid for bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies and filtration systems designed to detect chemical or other contaminants. 

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who lost his primary Saturday after Trump supported another candidate, told reporters he would not vote for ballroom funds.

Democrats claimed credit for getting the $1 billion tossed from the bill after challenging whether the provision fit within the strict parameters of reconciliation. Ultimately, the Senate parliamentarian ruled it out, sparking a social media attack from Trump Tuesday.

Trump told reporters Thursday if Senate Republicans didn’t find a way to pass the extra security money, “Then the White House won’t be a very secure place.”

Senate Dems vow to stop ‘slush fund’

Democrats pounced on the opportunity to spotlight the Republican division.

“This afternoon, Republicans — so divided, so dysfunctional, so disorganized — are fleeing Washington,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters at a press conference after movement on the package stalled. 

“Republicans are divided over things that Americans don’t want, but Democrats are united around things that the people do want — for us to lower their costs, rein in the chaos, fight the corruption that is endemic to this administration,” the New York Democrat added. 

Schumer added that “we’ll do everything we can to stop this slush fund, whether it’s in the courts, whether it’s legislative, whether it’s through reconciliation, or any other legislative means.”

Senate Democrats still plan to offer up a handful of painful amendments for GOP senators to vote on during a marathon voting session when and if the bill finally reaches the floor. 

War powers vote postponed

On the other side of the Capitol, House Republicans abruptly delayed an Iran War Powers Resolution vote moments before it was scheduled to open on the floor.

This would have been the fourth time Democrats brought the privileged motion to the floor. The 1970s-era War Powers Resolution sets reporting procedures and limitations on a president’s military campaigns abroad.

An effort to curtail Trump’s campaign in Iran failed in a tied House vote just one week ago.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., shouted on the floor as the presiding officer moved procedures forward, skipping the War Powers Resolution.

“Are we not voting on it because the American people are sick and tired of this illegal war that’s costing tens of billions of dollars? Gas prices are through the roof. People can’t afford their groceries,” McGovern said, alleging the Republicans lacked the “guts” to vote on it.

The House now also leaves for the Memorial Day break and will not return until June 1.

House Speaker Mike Johnson’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House passed a bill Wednesday that would require parental consent before a public elementary or middle school can update a student’s pronouns, gender markers or preferred name on records in order to receive federal funding. 

The measure — which succeeded 217-198 — would also bar federal funding under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 that provides federal aid to schools from being used “to teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology.” 

Eight Democrats broke ranks with their party to vote for the Republican-led effort, including: Reps. Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar of Texas, Don Davis of North Carolina, Cleo Fields of Louisiana, Laura Gillen of New York, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state and Eugene Vindman of Virginia. 

Fifteen House members did not vote.

Parental consent 

The bill would also require schools to get permission from parents before changing “sex-based accommodations” to allow a student to access a locker room or bathroom consistent with their gender identity. 

Rep. Tim Walberg, chair of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, said during floor debate the measure “takes monumental strides to restore parental rights and educational sanity.”

The bill “affirms the right of parents to be in charge of their children’s upbringing and ensures schools remain partners in a child’s education” and “also establishes clear guardrails to ensure taxpayer dollars are used to support learning, not indoctrinate kids in radical ideology and agendas,” the Michigan Republican added.  

Walberg led the bill alongside Rep. Burgess Owens, a Utah Republican who brought forth a separate measure that was later looped in and bars the use of federal funds “to teach or advance concepts related to gender ideology.” 

The bill draws on a definition of “gender ideology” in a January 2025 executive order signed by President Donald Trump.

The order defines “gender ideology” as “the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex.” 

GLAAD, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, noted in a fact sheet that “gender ideology” is “an inaccurate term deployed by opponents to undermine and dehumanize transgender and nonbinary people.” 

House Dems, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups blast bill 

Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Education and Workforce panel, blasted the measure during floor debate, saying it would “impose a rigid federal mandate that ignores context, disregards students’ safety and prioritizes politics over people.” 

The Virginia Democrat noted that the bill “bars any discussion of transgender people or topics in the classroom, including “banning books with transgender characters” or discussing “the existence of transgender people.” 

Scott noted that the bill “takes away state and local control of curriculum on education — the very thing that the current administration claims they’re giving back to states by illegally dismantling the Department of Education.” 

Fears students will be outed

Rep. Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, criticized the legislation ahead of floor debate as the “Don’t say trans bill.”

The California Democrat told States Newsroom he was concerned the measure would force school officials to out students to their parents, regardless of whether the official knew the student could suffer harm.

Takano, who also sits on the House education panel, also expressed concern that in the case where parents are supportive of their child using different pronouns, “if the teacher uses a different pronoun, that could be interpreted as ‘promoting gender ideology.’”

He said “we can’t discount that this administration will use a maximalist interpretation of the law, which would make even the case where” a student with supportive parents of trans children “could not go by the preferred nickname.” 

David Stacy, vice president of government affairs for the Human Rights Campaign, condemned the bill as “cruel” and noted the LGBTQ+ advocacy group was “prepared to fight it,” in a statement shared with States Newsroom ahead of the vote. 

“Trans kids are not a political agenda — they are students who deserve safety and affirmation at school like anyone else,” Stacy added. 

“Despite the many pressing issues facing our nation, House Republicans continue their bizarre obsession with trans people,” he said.

WASHINGTON — The Congressional Black Caucus and NAACP on Tuesday urged pushback against GOP-led redistricting efforts in Southern states via college sports, including a boycott of public universities by athletes and supporters.

U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and fellow Congressional Black Caucus members blasted a bill that sets forth a national framework for college athletes’ compensation. 

But the CBC’s backlash went beyond just the legislation — which was yanked from the House’s voting schedule this week following unanimous opposition from the major voting bloc. 

At a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol, the lawmakers rallied behind the NAACP’s call earlier Tuesday for Black athletes and fans to withhold “athletic and financial support from public universities in states that have moved to limit, weaken, or erase Black voting representation” following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Louisiana v. Callais.

The decision from the nation’s highest court gutted the federal Voting Rights Act and has prompted a major redistricting push in Southern states that could threaten Black representation in Congress. 

Southeastern Conference targeted

“We are here standing in solidarity with the NAACP and its call for athletes to boycott institutions within the (Southeastern Conference) that belong to states that have unleashed these Jim Crow-like racially oppressive tactics, which is unacceptable, unconscionable and un-American,” Jeffries said. 

“We believe that the silence of these institutions is complicity, and we will not stand for it,” the New York Democrat added.

The SEC, a major athletic conference under the NCAA, includes several member universities located in states that have joined the redistricting wave. The NAACP pointed to Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas as “eight priority states.”

“In this moment, our democracy is in crisis,” said Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of the NAACP, at Tuesday’s press conference.

“This is not about partisanship — this is about true representation, and for the NAACP, we will fight with all we have in solidarity with the Congressional Black Caucus to ensure that we have representation, or if we don’t, we will withhold the talent that play on the football field or on the basketball court,” he said. 

SCORE Act under scrutiny 

The Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements, or ‘‘SCORE” Act, seeks to allow compensation but bar student-athletes from being recognized as employees and provide broad antitrust immunity to the NCAA and college sports conferences. 

The college sports world continues to grapple with the fallout from the NCAA’s 2021 guidelines, which allowed student-athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness, or NIL. 

A federal judge in June 2025 also approved the terms of a nearly $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that paved the way for schools to directly pay athletes.

The college sports landscape is also grappling with gender inequity in NIL deals, a patchwork of state NIL laws, booster collectives and the NCAA’s controversial transfer portal, among other issues.

House GOP leadership had also pulled the SCORE Act from the House floor in December.

In a statement, the CBC said U.S. Reps. Shomari Figures, D-Ala., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., two of the bill’s lead sponsors, had been negotiating changes in the legislation to improve it but pulled their support, and the CBC did so as well.

The caucus said its members cannot support legislation that benefits large athletic institutions when their leaders are not speaking out about redistricting that weakens Black representation in government.

“This is not politics as usual. This is a defining moral moment for our country,” the caucus said.

“For generations, Black athletes have helped build college athletics into one of the most powerful and profitable industries in American life. The success, visibility, and cultural influence of major athletic conferences and institutions are inseparable from the talent, labor, leadership, and cultural contributions of Black communities. Yet at the very moment those same communities face coordinated attacks on their democratic representation, too many leaders across college athletics have chosen silence.”

Letters sent

The caucus also said it has sent formal letters to SEC Commissioner Greg Sankey, Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner Jim Phillips and NCAA President Charlie Baker “demanding immediate engagement and a public response regarding the ongoing assault on Black political representation throughout the South and across the nation.”

Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke, a New York Democrat, said the caucus “cannot support legislation benefiting major athletic institutions that continue to remain silent while Black voting rights and Black political power are being systematically dismantled across the South.” 

Jeffries noted that “with respect to the SCORE Act, our position has been clear: If LSU is for it, we’re against it. If the University of Alabama is for it, we’re against it. If Ole Miss is for it, we’re against it. If the University of South Carolina is for it, we’re against it. If the University of Tennessee is for it, we’re against it, and if the SEC schools are for it, we are against it.” 

WASHINGTON — A coalition of Democratic attorneys general and governors sued the U.S. Department of Education on Tuesday over forthcoming regulations that will impose new borrowing limits for students pursuing certain advanced degree programs. 

The lawsuit — filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland — challenges a portion of the incoming federal student loan system overhaul that sets stricter loan caps for students partaking in postbaccalaureate degree programs that do not fall under the department’s “professional” classification, such as nursing, teaching and social work.

The department finalized regulations, published May 1, that implement the student loan overhaul outlined in congressional Republicans’ mega tax and spending cut bill signed into law by President Donald Trump last year. Most of the student loan provisions will take effect July 1. 

The forthcoming regulations eliminate the Grad PLUS program, which allowed graduate and professional students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance. 

Graduate student loans will have a $20,500 annual limit and $100,000 aggregate cap. Professional student loans will have a yearly limit of $50,000 and aggregate cap of $200,000. 

However, the programs that fall under the department’s “professional” category — and thus are eligible for the higher borrowing limit — are limited to pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and clinical psychology.

‘Professional degree’ definition at issue 

The states allege that the department “unlawfully altered” the “professional degree” definition “by adding new requirements and narrowing eligibility in ways Congress never authorized,” per a press release regarding the lawsuit. 

The states also argue that the “professional degree” definition will harm them by “reducing funding for many State institutions of higher education and impeding the States’ abilities to meet critical workforce needs and provide services to their residents.” 

The states also allege that the regulations will threaten their “ability to meet critical workforce needs, especially in healthcare,” and that the forthcoming reduced loan limits will “likely cause students to graduate with more debt, discouraging them from finding less remunerative jobs in rural areas or the classroom.” 

The lawsuit included attorneys general in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, in addition to the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

Administration defends loan caps 

Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said that “after decades of unchecked student loan borrowing that gave schools no reason to control costs, these commonsense loan caps — created by Congress — are already incentivizing colleges and universities to lower tuition,” in a statement shared with States Newsroom. 

“Clearly, these Democratic governors and attorneys general are more concerned about institutions’ bottom-line rather than American students and families’ ability to access affordable postsecondary education,” Kent added. 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon took heat Thursday over forthcoming changes to the federal student loan system that will impose new borrowing limits for professional and graduate students.  

Lawmakers took specific aim at stricter loan caps set to be established for students pursuing advanced programs that do not fall under the department’s “professional” classification, such as nursing, teaching and social work. 

Members on both sides of the aisle voiced their criticisms during a hearing of the U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce, where McMahon defended the incoming federal student loan overhaul as well as President Donald Trump’s administration’s separate, ongoing efforts to dismantle the 46-year-old department. 

McMahon emphasized that her department is “not making any kind of a judgment relative to professional degrees” and instead is trying to “bring down the cost” of tuition. 

The secretary pointed to “exorbitant” college costs, noting that “students are burdened with debt.” 

Megabill provision

The imminent shifts to the federal student loan system stem from congressional Republicans’ tax and spending cut megabill that Trump signed into law last year. The department this month published the finalized regulations consistent with the law’s directive. Most provisions will take effect July 1.

The regulations eliminate the Grad PLUS program, which allowed for graduate and professional students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance. 

Graduate student loans will also have a $20,500 annual cap and $100,000 aggregate limit. Professional student loans will have a yearly limit of $50,000 and aggregate cap of $200,000. 

But the programs falling under the department’s “professional” category — and thus eligible for the higher borrowing limit — are limited to pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and clinical psychology. 

The agency has also clarified, in an agency fact sheet on the finalized regulations, that the “professional” student classifications “do not express a value judgment about the importance of any occupation or field” but instead serve a “loan-administration function.”

‘Tone-deaf’ message

Rep. Jahana Hayes said she was “very concerned” about the department’s “professional” student classifications, noting that these limits “make higher education, especially master’s degree programs, more difficult to afford for nursing, social workers (and) teachers.” 

The Connecticut Democrat clapped back at McMahon’s assertion that the overhaul is about bringing down college costs, saying: “The people who can afford it don’t apply for these programs, the people who can afford it don’t need student loans, the people who come from communities like mine and just want to go back and serve those communities are the ones who are going to be most affected, not the colleges, not the universities, not the board of directors, not the top 1%.”

Rep. Joe Courtney, also a Connecticut Democrat, blasted the regulations’ exclusion of nursing from the “professional” category as “one of the most insulting, tone-deaf messages to 5 million nurses imaginable across the country.” 

Courtney added that the exclusion “will, in fact, raise education costs for critically needed nurses,” and pointed to a petition from the American Nurses Association that received more than 245,000 signatures and urged the department to include nursing programs in its “professional” definition. 

McMahon defended her department’s “professional” classification to the panel, arguing that the agency “looked very, very carefully at the entire nursing profession,” and “95% of the nurses that are in programs do not exceed these caps.” 

The secretary added that “78% of the nurses that are moving for graduate programs do not exceed or come up to these caps.”

Even some Republican members on the panel, whose party championed the “big, beautiful” law that sets forth the student loan overhaul, called into question the new limits.  

Rep. Lisa McClain, chair of the House Republican Conference, asked McMahon “if there’s any way, or you had any thoughts on: Can we explore opening the nurse graduate programs up to expand these caps or lift these caps, because it’s a good return on investment, and we sure do need them?” 

In the GOP’s tax and spending cut law, “one of the things we did was we put the caps on, but we had some carveouts and caveats … and I think this sector of graduate nursing programs was just an unintended consequence, perhaps, that got overlooked,” the Michigan Republican said. 

“And what I’m here to do is really advocate for these programs, because I think they’re extremely important.” 

Legislation to reverse the caps

Bipartisan efforts are underway in Congress to both address the forthcoming loan limits and expand the “professional” student definition. 

Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican, introduced a bill in December that would expand the “professional” definition to also include “nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, ministry, social work, audiology, physician assistant, public health, business administration and management, accounting, architecture, secondary education, and special education.” 

Rep. Tim Kennedy of New York brought forth legislation in December with fellow Democratic Reps. Jill Tokuda of Hawaii and Rep. Shomari Figures of Alabama that would ensure graduate and professional students are subject to the same annual and aggregate loan caps. 

Rep. Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat, introduced a bill that would “restore the full loan limits that were narrowed” under the GOP’s mega tax and spending cut law. 

In the upper chamber, Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, a Maryland Democrat, introduced a companion bill to Torres’ in March, which has drawn more than a dozen co-sponsors.  

Meanwhile, a handful of Democratic lawmakers brought forth a resolution this month that seeks to reverse the forthcoming student loan regulations through the Congressional Review Act, a procedural tool Congress can use to overturn certain actions from federal agencies.

Those lawmakers are: Rep. Suzanne Bonamici and Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Rep. John Mannion of New York, Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois and Alsobrooks. 

WASHINGTON — The federal student loan system is set to see a dramatic overhaul beginning this summer, and critics warn it likely will make loans more expensive and difficult to obtain for borrowers — driving them to private lenders or altering their plans for higher education.

Among the major changes are new loan limits for graduate and professional students, a restructured repayment system where new borrowers will have only two plans to choose from and the elimination of a key loan program for graduate and professional students that allowed for unlimited borrowing.

The provisions — most of which will take effect July 1 — stem from congressional Republicans’ mega tax and spending cut bill that President Donald Trump signed into law last year. 

The U.S. Department of Education finalized regulations, published May 1, that implement sweeping changes outlined in the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law. The department received more than 80,000 public comments before the rule was finalized. 

Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said that “at a high level,” the reforms center on “lowering the cost of college, simplifying student loan repayment and restoring accountability to the federal student lending system,” during an April 30 call with reporters regarding the new regulations. 

The average federal student loan debt balance stands at $39,547, according to the Education Data Initiative.

As July 1 approaches, here’s a closer look at some of the biggest changes coming to the federal student loan system: 

Elimination of Grad PLUS 

The Grad PLUS program, which allowed for graduate and professional students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance, will soon be eliminated under the package and unavailable for new borrowers.

“If you are currently borrowing Grad PLUS loans, so you borrowed Grad PLUS loans before July 1, you will be allowed to continue using Grad PLUS until you finish your program, or until three years have expired, basically whichever is sooner,” said Preston Cooper, senior fellow in higher education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank.

“Current students are grandfathered in — it will only be new graduate students, as of this fall, after July 1, who will be subject to the new loan limits,” Cooper said. 

New borrowing caps 

The package also sets forth new annual and aggregate loan limits for graduate and professional students, along with parents who take out federal student loans for dependent undergraduate students. 

Graduate student loans will be capped at $20,500 annually, with a $100,000 aggregate limit. 

Parent PLUS borrowers will have an annual cap of $20,000 and an aggregate cap of $65,000 per dependent. 

Professional student loans will have a $50,000 annual limit and an aggregate cap of $200,000. 

The programs that fall within the department’s “professional” category and are subject to that larger loan cap include: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and clinical psychology. 

The department clarified in a fact sheet on the finalized regulations that the “professional” student classifications “do not express a value judgment about the importance of any occupation or field” but instead serve a “loan-administration function.” 

The agency has received immense pushback from groups representing people in fields that do not fall under the department’s definition and will thus be subject to lower annual and lifetime borrowing caps. 

Incoming repayment options 

In another major shift, the regulations replace prior repayment options with two new plans — the Repayment Assistance Plan, or RAP, and the Tiered Standard plan — both of which will launch July 1.

RAP is an income-based repayment plan that “waives unpaid interest for borrowers who make on-time payments that do not fully cover accruing interest,” per the department’s fact sheet. 

Balances under the plan will also “decline with each on-time payment, as unpaid interest is fully waived and the Department then reduces principal by an amount equal to the borrower’s payment, up to $50,” per the agency. 

The Tiered Standard plan offers fixed monthly payments, ranging from a 10-year to 25-year period, depending on the outstanding principal balance of the borrower. 

‘A lot more expensive’

“The upshot is that loan repayment is going to get a lot more expensive for almost everyone, and for some people, it’s going to get significantly more expensive, and the transition is also going to be difficult for a lot of people to manage,” Michele Zampini, associate vice president for federal policy and advocacy at the Institute for College Access & Success, told States Newsroom.

Zampini, whose organization aims to advance affordability, accountability and equity in higher education, said she thinks “there will be a lot of students who will have to turn to the private loan market, who otherwise would have been able to cover their costs through the (Grad PLUS) program.”

Victoria Jackson, assistant director of higher education policy at the nonprofit policy and advocacy group EdTrust, said that with the new loan limits and “drastic cuts to aid availability” in the regulations, “you would really hope that it would come with other, more affordable and better forms of financial aid.” 

“And what they’ve done is just created this vacuum that right now can really only be filled with private loans, which are costlier and riskier for students, or students are just not going to go,” Jackson said.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues its efforts to eliminate the Department of Education, including through a series of interagency agreements that transfer several of its responsibilities to other departments. 

Under the most recent agreement, the Treasury Department will take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt — the first step in a multiphase process toward Treasury taking on Education’s entire, roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio.

Transition to new system

Zampini noted that, when it comes to the incoming student loan regulations, she does not have confidence in the Education Department’s “ability at this moment to successfully manage the transition without a lot of issues, as far as servicing and as far as account tracking and plan enrollment and things like that.” 

Jackson, of EdTrust, said that “by weakening the federal financial aid system, I think there’s a weakening of our higher education system and making it more difficult for low-income students, students of color and other marginalized students to access graduate education.”

She added that “people who complete those degrees tend to have more financial security in the future — they earn more over their lifetimes and, on markers of financial success and opportunity, do better.” 

“I think this is one prong of a plan of undermining our overall higher education system.” 

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators across the aisle pushed back Tuesday against President Donald Trump’s proposal to eliminate funding for programs serving disadvantaged students.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended those and other proposed cuts to her agency outlined in Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget request, which calls for $75.7 billion in new discretionary budget authority for the department that would mark a $3.2 billion, or 4.1%, reduction from fiscal 2026 levels. 

The administration has taken major steps to dismantle the 46-year-old Department of Education as part of the president’s quest to send education “back to the states.” That effort continues despite much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurring at the state and local levels.

“We’ve been clear: Shifting authority back to the states will not come at the expense of the central federal programs (and) support, much of which predate the department itself,” McMahon told lawmakers at the hearing of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

The panel shares jurisdiction over Education Department spending with the corresponding subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. The president’s budget request is generally considered a starting point for negotiations, but Congress is responsible for deciding federal spending.

Bipartisan support for TRIO 

Republican and Democratic senators took particular aim at the administration’s proposal to eliminate Federal TRIO Programs in fiscal 2027.

The Federal TRIO Programs — funded at $1.19 billion this fiscal year — help support groups including low-income students, first-generation college students, individuals with disabilities and veterans. 

Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the full Senate Appropriations Committee, said she opposes the president’s proposal to eliminate TRIO, noting that these programs have “changed the lives of countless first-generation and low-income students in Maine and across the country.” 

The Maine Republican added that TRIO “enjoys robust support and has made such a difference in the lives of children.” 

Arkansas GOP Sen. John Boozman also emphasized his support for TRIO, noting that in his state, these programs “have been a game-changer in helping low-income and first-generation students not only access higher education, but also succeed once they are there.” 

Sen. Jeff Merkley was the first in his family to go to college and said he comes from a “very blue-collar, frontier, homesteading, timber background.”

The Oregon Democrat said it’s from that perspective he believes that “having conscious programs to help people overcome the cultural chasm that exists between blue-collar kids like myself and that college world that you have very little contact on is enormously valuable in America, and the stats from these programs are pretty damn impressive.” 

The secretary told the panel that while “there are many instances where the TRIO program has been very beneficial … as we look across the country in how to spend these dollars and how to have similar results by maybe not necessarily focusing students towards college degrees, maybe there’s another way for them to have their path to success.” 

McMahon said her agency was in the process of spending “about $2.1 million” for investigating and evaluating the TRIO programs.

In its summary of Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget request, the department said that TRIO “has failed to meet the vast majority of its performance measures, and studies of program effectiveness have shown that it has not increased college enrollment.” 

Dems decry plan to eliminate agency

Meanwhile, McMahon took heat from the leading Democrats on the subcommittee and the broader Senate Appropriations panel over the administration’s ongoing efforts to dismantle the agency. 

Part of those efforts include several interagency agreements between Education and the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior, State and Treasury that transfer many of Education’s responsibilities to those agencies.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, ranking member of the subcommittee, said Education “is transferring the vast majority of its programs to other federal departments, agencies with little experience or expertise or capacity to administer them.” 

The Wisconsin Democrat said that instead of “reducing bureaucracy” — a major goal of the administration across the federal government and the department in particular — the transfers are creating “another layer of it.”

She added that “where states previously primarily dealt with the Department of Education, they will now have to deal with multiple federal agencies.” 

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the full Appropriations Committee, pressed McMahon on the status of the administration mulling the transfer of special education services out of the Education Department amid its dismantling efforts. 

The possible move to transfer programs out of the department’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services has stoked widespread concern from disability advocates.

McMahon said her department was “still evaluating where those programs would best be located, and we have not made that determination yet.” 

“I can assure you that the intent of this administration is not to put these students at risk in any way whatsoever,” McMahon said. 

But Murray was not satisfied with the secretary’s response, saying she is “deeply concerned that your answer sounds like you’re still moving ahead — let’s make it clear that will break the law, and it will make it a lot harder for these students with disabilities to get the education and understanding that their country will stand behind them with that.” 

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is looking to eliminate funding in fiscal 2027 for the agency that serves as the primary federal funding source for libraries and museums nationwide.

But congressional appropriators — who rebuffed similar efforts to gut the agency in fiscal 2026 — expressed little enthusiasm for the proposed cut in interviews with States Newsroom. Groups representing museums and libraries across the country also blasted the president’s proposal. 

The administration is requesting $6 million in fiscal 2027 for the agency, known as the Institute of Museum and Library Services, “for necessary expenses to carry out (its) closure.”

U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, noted that her panel did not agree to the same Trump request in fiscal 2026 to eliminate funding for the agency. 

“I personally have always been a fan of libraries, and it does a lot for local communities,” said Capito, a West Virginia Republican whose panel writes the annual bill to fund the Institute of Museum and Library Services. 

“So, that’s what he does, he proposes, and then we look at it and make our own decisions,” she said. 

Last year’s request turned down

The spending package signed into law by Trump in February provides roughly $292 million for the agency this fiscal year — a sharp rejection of Trump’s efforts. 

Capito said that though her committee will consider the president’s fiscal 2027 request, “if you look at what we did last year, it shows that we kind of rejected that premise.” 

Rep. Robert Aderholt, an Alabama Republican and chair of the corresponding Appropriations subcommittee in the House, appeared noncommittal about pursuing Trump’s fiscal 2027 request to gut the agency.

In response to States Newsroom’s request for a phone interview, Aderholt provided a written statement. 

“We are reviewing the request from the Administration and the requests from every member of the House,” Aderholt said, adding that “this is a member-driven process, and we look forward to working with our colleagues in putting together a strong bill for the American taxpayers.” 

Legal battles

The agency was created by Congress in 1996 and has a mission to “advance, support, and empower America’s museums, libraries, and related organizations through grantmaking, research, and policy development.”

The administration has taken major steps to try to dismantle the agency, including through a March 2025 executive order. 

However, Trump’s Department of Justice reached a settlement earlier in April with the American Library Association — the nation’s largest library association — and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees — the country’s largest union of cultural workers — that protects the agency and guarantees it will continue issuing grants and program operations. 

In another setback for the administration, the DOJ dropped its appeal this month in a case brought by 21 attorneys general, who challenged the administration’s efforts to dismantle the agency and had secured a major court victory in November. 

‘The barbarians are at the door’

Meanwhile, leading Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations panels dealing with the agency’s spending were quick to lambaste Trump’s proposal in interviews with States Newsroom. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, ranking member of the Senate subcommittee and a Wisconsin Democrat, described the agency as “such an incredibly valuable entity” and vowed to fight “tooth and nail” to protect it. 

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member of the full House Appropriations Committee and the spending subcommittee with jurisdiction over the agency, said the administration’s request is “just neanderthal.”

The Connecticut Democrat said “we’ll work to restore like we try to do every time,” while adding that Trump’s request indicates that “the barbarians are at the door.” 

Library, museum organizations push back

Leading library and museum organizations fiercely opposed Trump’s request and called on Congress to reject the proposal. 

In a statement, Sam Helmick, president of the American Library Association, said Trump’s “continued attack” on the agency in the budget request and the March 2025 executive order to shutter it “shows the extent to which the administration is tone deaf to the needs of millions of Americans who rely on libraries every day: older adults and veterans who use library telehealth spaces; unemployed people who use library resources to find a new job or learn new skills; families who count on story time; and students and faculty who do research in school and academic libraries.”

John Chrastka, founder and executive director of EveryLibrary, said Trump’s proposal is “a direct threat to the infrastructure that millions of Americans rely on every day,” in a statement. 

Chrastka, whose organization is dedicated to building support for libraries, said “libraries are not optional,” but instead represent “essential public resources that support literacy, workforce development, and community connection in every state.”

The American Alliance of Museums blasted the proposal as “misguided and out of step with the American public and Congress,” noting that similar efforts in fiscal 2026 and prior budget cycles to yank funding for the agency were rejected due to “strong bipartisan, bicameral support in Congress and sustained advocacy from the museum community.” 

The Institute of Museum and Library Services declined to comment on Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget request. 

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats, advocates, students and leaders on Wednesday blasted attempts by President Donald Trump’s administration to do away with funding for minority-serving institutions in higher education.  

U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono led a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol that called on the administration to fully fund and protect the more than 800 minority-serving institutions, or MSIs, which enroll millions of students of color. Many are from low-income households or are the first in their families to attend college.

“Donald Trump is doing all he can basically to dismantle support for education in this country, and what is happening to minority-serving institutions is part of this all-out attack,” the Hawaii Democrat said. 

“Under the false pretense of addressing discrimination, this regime is limiting access to higher education for underserved and underrepresented groups, and there are millions of students who are being served by these programs,” she added. 

Along with advocates, leaders and students, Hirono was joined by fellow Democrats: Sen. Alex Padilla, chair of the Senate Hispanic-Serving Institutions Caucus; Rep. Mark Takano, first vice chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; Rep. Juan Vargas of California, of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; and Rep. Danny Davis of Illinois, of the Congressional Black Caucus. 

Padilla, of California, said MSIs are “better training the future leaders, entrepreneurs (and) servants” that communities need. 

“That’s what we’re standing up for. That’s what we’re fighting for, and that’s (why) we’re calling on Republican colleagues to join us, to push back on the threats of this administration and maintain our decades-long steadfast support of minority-serving institutions for the interest of these young people, their families, their communities and our country.” 

Takano, also of California, said “Congress funded these programs, and we will fight for them, and they cannot impound the funds.” 

He added that “Congress has the power of the purse, and we will make sure we hold this administration accountable.” 

Programs called ‘racially discriminatory’

Trump — who has sought to end diversity, equity and inclusion policies in schools — has proposed eliminating funding for minority-serving institutions, totaling $354 million, as part of his fiscal 2027 budget request.  

The U.S. Department of Education in September gutted and reprogrammed $350 million in discretionary funds that support MSIs, over claims that the programs for Black, Asian, Indigenous and Hispanic students and more are “racially discriminatory.”

The agency soon after moved to redirect $495 million in additional funding to historically Black colleges and universities, along with tribal colleges.

The Justice Department in December issued an opinion finding several grant programs for minority-serving institutions to be “unconstitutional.”

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon concurred with the opinion, and the agency said later that month it was “currently evaluating the full impact” of the opinion on affected programs.

The president signed into law in February a spending package that funds the Education Department at $79 billion this fiscal year and also “increases funding for all Title III and V programs that support HBCUs, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal colleges, and other minority-serving institutions,” per Senate Appropriations Committee Democrats’ summary. 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House on Thursday passed a measure that would extend Temporary Protected Status for Haiti for three years, in a rare rebuke by the GOP-led Congress to President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

Ten Republicans defected, including Reps. Maria Salazar, Mario Díaz-Balart and Carlos Giménez of Florida, Rich McCormick of Georgia, Don Bacon of Nebraska, Mike Lawler and Nicole Malliotakis of New York, Mike Turner and Mike Carey of Ohio and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. 

Rep. Kevin Kiley, a California independent who caucuses with the GOP, also voted for the bill. 

The bill, which succeeded 224-204, came as Trump’s administration has sought to revoke legal protections for immigrants with Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, including Haitian nationals, amid his crackdown on immigrants without legal status.  

The bill now heads to the GOP-led Senate, and should that chamber pass the measure, would almost certainly be vetoed by Trump. 

Discharge petition

The Democratic-led effort came to the floor under a discharge petition, which allows a bill to skirt Republican leadership and be brought to the House floor once it gains the signatures of a majority of House members.

U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley — a Massachusetts Democrat and co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus — brought forth the petition in January and it reached the 218-signature threshold in late March.

Pressley’s petition forced a floor vote on a bill from New York Democratic Rep. Laura Gillen. The version voted on by the House would require the secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for TPS until April 2029. 

Lawler, a New York Republican, was an original co-sponsor of Gillen’s measure.

Lawler, Salazar, Fitzpatrick and Bacon had also signed on to Pressley’s discharge petition.

The bill’s passage in the House came just days before the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over Trump’s efforts to revoke TPS for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. 

A federal judge in February blocked the termination of TPS for Haiti from going into effect — shortly before the designation was slated to end. 

TPS is provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary to nationals who cannot safely return home. The deportation protection lets individuals legally work in the United States, with renewal cycles that range from six to 18 months.  

‘A death sentence’

“Let us be clear about what deportation would mean — we would be sending parents back into danger, ripping our seniors away from their caregivers, faith leaders back into instability, and essential workers back into insecurity,” Pressley said at a Wednesday press conference she and Gillen held with colleagues and advocates regarding the effort. 

“To deport anyone to a country that is grappling with layered political, humanitarian and economic crises is unconscionable, it is dangerous and it is preventable,” Pressley added. 

“To deport anyone to Haiti right now is unlawful, and it would be a death sentence.”