Trump’s crackdown on colleges is a good start — but more is needed to fix higher ed

New York Post - Apr 27th, 2025

Education Secretary Linda McMahon has announced an end to President Joe Biden’s student-loan repayment pauses and forgiveness plans as of May 5, labeling the nation's higher education financing system as a 'scam.' In her Wall Street Journal column, McMahon criticized colleges and universities for exploiting federal loan subsidies by raising tuition and accumulating large endowments, while students graduate with significant debt and often worthless degrees. McMahon's stance has prompted further action, with Team Trump declaring that they will pursue student borrowers' pensions, tax refunds, and wages if they fail to repay federal loans.

The announcement has sparked a debate on the need to overhaul the current higher education funding model. McMahon argues that both students and institutions should have greater accountability, suggesting that higher education institutions should bear some responsibility for loans in default. The narrative is part of a broader campaign by Team Trump to reform US education, including potentially restructuring or eliminating the Department of Education. While some universities contribute positively with valuable research and education, many are criticized for prioritizing financial gain and social activism over practical education. This development highlights the urgent call for a reevaluation of college financing in America.

Donald Trump Higher Education Wall Street Journal Student Loans Education Reform Linda Mc Mahon Federal Subsidies College Tuition

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article effectively highlights significant issues in higher education financing, such as student debt and college accountability, with a focus on recent policy changes. It engages with a timely and relevant topic, offering a clear and direct narrative that is accessible to readers interested in education policy. However, its overall quality is diminished by a lack of balance and transparency, as it leans heavily on a conservative viewpoint without adequately exploring counterarguments or providing comprehensive sourcing. The use of emotive and politically charged language further limits its ability to present a nuanced analysis, potentially reinforcing existing biases rather than fostering a well-rounded understanding of the issues. Despite these shortcomings, the article succeeds in drawing attention to a critical public interest topic, though it could benefit from a more balanced and transparent approach to enhance its credibility and impact.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims about higher education financing and the student loan system that align with general criticisms often made about these topics. For instance, the claim that colleges profit from federal loans and increase tuition is supported by economic research, such as the 2015 study mentioned, which indicates a correlation between loan caps and tuition hikes.

However, the article's assertion that many students graduate with six-figure debt and worthless degrees requires more nuanced verification. While student debt is a significant issue, six-figure debts are less common among undergraduates, typically associated with graduate studies. The claim about 'worthless degrees' is subjective and lacks specific data backing.

The article also discusses the Trump administration's actions on student loan enforcement, which are factually supported by reports of policy changes targeting loan repayments. Yet, the broader characterizations of universities as 'leftist bastions' prioritize opinion over factual reporting, lacking empirical evidence.

Overall, while the article contains verifiable facts, its accuracy is diminished by the inclusion of politically charged opinions that require careful differentiation from factual content.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a conservative viewpoint on higher education, heavily criticizing the current system as a 'scam' without offering a balanced perspective. This one-sided approach is evident in its portrayal of universities as profit-driven and ideologically biased, which lacks representation from the institutions themselves or from experts who might provide a counter-narrative.

There is minimal acknowledgment of the complexities within higher education financing or the potential benefits of federal loan programs. The article could have improved balance by including perspectives from educators, students, or policymakers who support current policies or propose alternative solutions.

The focus on Trump administration actions without exploring the broader context or counterarguments further contributes to an imbalanced presentation. This limits the reader's understanding of the issue by not fully exploring the spectrum of opinions and potential solutions.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and direct style, making its main arguments easy to understand. The language is straightforward, and the structure logically progresses from identifying problems within higher education to discussing potential solutions.

However, the clarity is somewhat compromised by the use of politically charged language, which may distract from the factual content. Terms like 'scam' and 'leftist bastions' are emotive and could lead to misinterpretations of the article's intent.

Despite these issues, the article effectively communicates its primary message, albeit in a manner that may not fully convey the complexity of the topic to all readers.

Source quality

The article references a Wall Street Journal column by Linda McMahon and a 2015 study, suggesting some level of reliance on reputable sources. However, these references are not directly quoted or linked, reducing the transparency and verifiability of the claims.

The lack of diverse sources or expert opinions limits the article's credibility. It primarily relies on politically aligned viewpoints and does not incorporate data or insights from a variety of stakeholders in higher education, such as economists, educators, or students.

The absence of direct citations or detailed attribution to studies or authoritative figures weakens the article's source quality, as readers are left without clear evidence to substantiate the claims made.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its sourcing and methodology. While it mentions a Wall Street Journal column and a 2015 study, it does not provide direct links or detailed citations, making it difficult for readers to verify the claims independently.

There is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or biases that might influence the article's perspective. The article's reliance on politically charged language and opinions suggests a lack of transparency about its underlying motivations or editorial stance.

Overall, the article would benefit from clearer attribution of sources and a more transparent discussion of how its conclusions were reached, providing readers with a fuller understanding of the basis for its claims.