Trump Moves to Cut Off Student Loans for Tons of College Programs

The Trump administration is forcing colleges to prove that the loans that students are taking out are paying off. 

The Education Department has finalized a rule that bans federal student loans for college programs whose graduates consistently fail to out-earn students who only have a high school diploma, the Los Angeles Times reported Wednesday

For-profit programs will be hit particularly hard. But there is concern that it could also affect social work, art, religion, music, and professional certification programs.

While the Trump administration is framing the policy as “accountability” for higher education, and some are welcoming the move, others see it as an attack on those whose work is important regardless of salary. 

The Education Department intends to use IRS data to determine students’ salaries four years after they graduate and compare them to those of people similar in age who just have high school diplomas. If a program’s graduates are consistently below that baseline, the program will be ineligible for loans.  

“We need social workers,” American Council on Education Ted Mitchell told the Times. “Whether it’s the fentanyl epidemic or homelessness in L.A., we need people who can work on the street with people who need it the most.”

Even some on the right are concerned. 

“The government shouldn’t punish people who pursue socially valuable callings just because in its judgment they don’t earn enough money,” said Gregory Baylor, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian nonprofit that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists as a designated hate group.

“In certain fields of study, especially in the humanities, whether or not that program has been successful and has done a really good job in its educational mission might not be all that directly tied to immediate earnings potential,” added Stanford professor Jonathan Gienapp.

The policy will be implemented in 2027. 

This article has been updated throughout to clarify that college programs, not students, will be cut off from loans.

President Trump thinks that Americans against data centers are being duped by foreign propaganda and that in reality, there are a lot of people who want to live near them.

“Other nations are trying to get us to slow down” regarding data center construction, Trump said at the Environmental Protection Agency Thursday afternoon. “They’re spending a lot of money on propaganda, on press, P.R., trying to convince everybody that this isn’t a positive thing, and if we don’t do this, we’re going to be left behind.”

“You have some communities that really want this, this isn’t all negative stuff, you have communities that really want the data centers, and frankly those are the smart communities because it means a tremendous numbers of jobs, very little actual disruption,” Trump said.

Trump made the remarks at an event promoting the White House’s “Ratepayer Protection Pledge,” in which states and companies pledge to keep consumers from paying higher electricity bills due to data centers. The plan has supposedly gotten the support of companies such as Google, Microsoft, Meta, Oracle, xAI, OpenAI, and Amazon, who vowed to pay for increased power costs in areas where data centers are built. The pledge is completely voluntary—and unenforceable.

People who live near data centers complain about the overhaul to their lives, from the drain on water supplies to increased noise and higher utility costs. In most areas where data centers are proposed, local opposition quickly becomes protests that unite the left and the right. The economic benefit that comes with data centers is actually minimal, with most providing only a few dozen on-site jobs. Trump is very much out of touch with how Americans, including many of his supporters, view data centers.

Donald Trump’s administration withdrew its subpoenas Thursday for three New York Times journalists who reported on Air Force One’s security issues.

Lawyers for the publication appeared in court to challenge subpoenas that would’ve compelled reporters to testify about their confidential sources before a grand jury, and granted access to reporters’ and their family members’ phone records.

Times lawyers argued that the Department of Justice had ignored its own protocols for failing to give advance notice and issuing subpoenas “without first conducting any serious investigation.” On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge Arun Subramanian seemed to agree.

“Subpoenas are not the first thing you do, they are the last thing you do,” he said. The judge argued that the Trump administration’s actions had turned the First Amendment and free speech regulation “on its head.”

After nearly an hour of intense grilling, Sean Buckley, chief counsel to the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, announced that the government was prepared to “unilaterally withdraw” its subpoenas. Subramanian made it clear he would have rejected the subpoenas anyway.

White House officials were left fuming earlier this month after the Times reported that Trump had ditched his new Air Force One in Europe because it was missing certain security and communications capabilities. The president later announced plans to further “max out” the plane, suggesting that the $400 million luxury jumbo jet indeed lacked sufficient security features—all but confirming the story had been accurate.

The Air Force has already spent roughly $400 million on renovating the plane, changing the cabin layout, communications system, and security upgrades. That doesn’t account for the taxpayer-funded continued maintenance of the plane, either. The Qatari-gifted jet will be moved to Trump’s presidential library foundation in 2029, where it may be available for him to use as a private citizen.

This story has been updated.

It’s only been four months, but it looks like Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is already on the White House’s bad side.

The rift is a result of some early missteps and concerns about Mullin’s personnel choices, according to a senior Trump administration official and a senior Department of Homeland Security official who spoke with NBC News Thursday.  

The White House wasn’t happy with Mullin’s decision to temporarily restrict Immigration and Customs Enforcement vehicle stops after two deadly shootings by immigration officers in Texas and Maine. 

Just one day after Mullin announced the change, and yet another person was killed during a chaotic ICE incident, Trump ordered the agency to resume traffic stops.

An administration official told NBC News that Mullin’s decision was “100 percent” a bad move.

Mullin reportedly never received the White House’s blessing before announcing the sudden policy change—leaving President Donald Trump and border czar Tom Homan in the dark. Trump was reportedly furious, believing that it signaled the administration was softening on immigration enforcement. 

Another source of tension between Mullin and the White House is the secretary’s decision to nominate Lance Schroyer, one of his allies, to run ICE. 

The decision had “a lot of people talking,” as Schroyer has no direct experience with federal law or immigration enforcement, a DHS official told NBC News. In addition to Schroyer’s lackluster résumé, he’s also been accused of failing to pay for child support.

In any case, several officials “aren’t thrilled with him,” one Trump administration official told NBC News. 

Rising tensions with the freshly appointed DHS secretary come as a new report suggests that Trump’s second administration has even higher turnover among Senate-confirmed officials than his first. 

President Trump announced massive new conditions to his nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia on Thursday morning, just hours after it was signed.

In a Truth Social post, Trump demanded that Saudi Arabia normalize relations with Israel via the Abraham Accords before getting any U.S. nuclear technology. He also claimed “there will be no enrichment of material,” though the deal certainly opens the door to uranium enrichment in the country.

“The Civil Nuclear Deal (There will be no enrichment of material!) being made between the United States Department of Energy and Saudi Arabia, which pertains only to non-military use such as the ones that Iran and UAE (and others) already have, will be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords,” Trump wrote. “The United States is not opposed to Civil (Non-Enriched) Nuclear Facilities.” 

Negotiating terms would make sense if the deal wasn’t already signed, or if the Saudi kingdom had at least hinted at accepting the demands Trump outlined (it hasn’t).

Trump’s post created a stark messaging contradiction for the White House, which is still struggling to explain the terms of the deal.  

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked to explain the president’s about-face during her Thursday press conference. 

“What steps is the U.S. taking to get Saudi Arabia to sign the Abraham Accords?” a reporter asked.

Leavitt did not answer the question. 

“This is a condition that the president has spoken about many times.… He wants to see these countries sign the Abraham Accord, it was one of the most historic accomplishments of his first term, and it continues to be a long-term goal of his to expand those accords to ultimately come to a place where the Middle East can be a peaceful and stable region,” Leavitt replied, providing no examples of mechanisms being used to make that happen. “Yes, this deal with Saudi Arabia … is contingent on this condition as far as the president is concerned. So we’ll continue to talk with our Saudi counterparts to get the deal finalized.” 

“Why was that condition not mentioned yesterday when the energy secretary announced it?” another reporter followed up.

“Well, look, the president is always the final dealmaker, as you know, and this is something that he has mentioned on numerous occasions,” Leavitt replied.

“So the deal is dead if Saudi Arabia doesn’t join? And have you any indication that Saudi Arabia is even considering this?” 

Leavitt once again failed to engage with the actual questions being raised. 

“The president has spoken directly with the Saudis about this in numerous conversations in the past, and the administration will continue to engage in these conversations.” 

It’s clear that no one in the Trump administration can explain just how they plan to get the Saudis to agree to a different deal than the one they signed just a few hours ago. 

“On Trump seemingly adding new conditions to the US Saudi nuclear deal, including Saudi Israel normalization, a Saudi source says: ‘It was signed. So nothing to renegotiate,’” journalist Laura Rozen wrote. “‘Tweets don’t overturn signed agreements.’”