(Sorry, you're getting this twice today. We sent last week's edition by mistake. Read on for the latest.)
Welcome back to After the First 100 Days, Inside Higher Ed’s weekly roundup of news from the Hill to the Oval Office. I’m your host, Katherine Knott, Inside Higher Ed’s news editor.
It’s Day 361 of the second Trump administration, and the government runs out of funding in 15 days. But let’s circle back to neg reg and where we left off last week.
We reported that the advisory committee negotiating over a new accountability metric for colleges was unlikely to reach agreement. Well, folks, after we sent our newsletter, they did. The deal paves the way for a future in which college programs must show their graduates earn more than working adults with only a high school diploma to access federal student loans. (The department’s proposal essentially combines two accountability metrics—the Do No Harm standard that Congress passed last summer and the existing gainful-employment rule.)
To get everyone on board, the Education Department compromised and added provisions that could lead failing programs to eventually lose Pell Grant eligibility. Several members of the committee had repeatedly argued against allowing low-income students to use limited Pell dollars at these programs.
Most of the committee praised the department’s compromise as “reasonable” and “common-sense.” But one member said she only voted to abstain, which wouldn’t block consensus, in order to protect students in certificate programs, which are only covered by gainful employment.
“It was made very clear to me throughout this process that protections for students in certificate programs would be taken away altogether if I blocked consensus,” said Tamar Hoffman, the committee member representing legal aid, consumer protection and civil rights groups.
About 6 percent of all programs would fail the new combined earnings test, including about 29 percent of undergraduate certificates, according to department data.
In Other News: Since the Supreme Court ruled last summer that disputes over canceled grants likely belonged in the Federal Court of Claims, I’ve wondered what exactly that court did and how it worked.
This week, Inside Higher Ed’s Ryan Quinn answered all my questions and more. Located near the White House, in a red brick building, the court typically handles issues with contracts. So, experts told us that taking cases related canceled research grants to the Court of Claims will be complicated for researchers, and the payoff is uncertain. For instance, researchers will likely have to rely on their universities to bring a legal challenge, since the institutions are legal parties to the research grants. And it’s unclear whether the court can restore the grants at all.
Sources worry that the small court can’t handle what’s likely to be thousands of cases seeking to restore research funding if the Supreme Court sticks with its decision.
“It’s all a mess because nobody knows what the rules are,” Ted Waters, managing partner at Feldesman LLP and a George Washington University Law School adjunct professor, told Ryan.
On Tap for Next Week:
- President Trump marks the end of his first year in office Jan. 20. We’ll have more coverage Tuesday about what we learned about higher ed in the last year.
- Your newsletter cohosts will be at the AAC&U annual meeting and speaking on a panel at 1:30 p.m. Jan. 23. Stop by and say hi!
That’s it for Week 52. What’s on your federal policy bingo card for 2026? Email me at katherine.knott@insidehighered.com.
As always, if news breaks this afternoon or over the weekend, you can find the latest at InsideHigherEd.com. In the meantime, I’ll be workshopping my application for The Traitors.
Did someone forward you this email and you want to receive it in your inbox? You can also read more about this newsletter here.