For all the political oxygen that higher education has consumed during Donald Trump’s four-year absence, the former and future president has yet to lay out a comprehensive policy agenda on postsecondary education for his second term, including how it will address federal financial aid and programs aimed at facilitating access to postsecondary education.

He demanded the abolition of the Ministry of Educationa move that would relegate most financial aid responsibilities to the states and block a massive federal operation without a seat. Some have suggested that the Office of Federal Student Aid and its more than 1,500 employees, charged with implementing federal student aid and loan policy, could be relocated within the Treasury Department.

Half a dozen experts who spoke with Inside higher education agreed that dismantling the Department of Education is an implausible outcome. What is more likely, they say, is that Trump and a Republican-dominated Congress will make significant cuts to funding for the Department of Education, and to financial aid programs in particular.

The last Trump administration proposed slashing the Department of Education’s budget every year it was in office, including significant reductions in financial aid: its 2020 budget projected a $5.6 billion funding cut dollars, a reduction of almost 8%. The administration has particularly targeted federal work-study, calling for “significant” reductions on the agenda in 2017 and again in 2018. In 2020, Trump’s budget proposal included a A reduction of $630 million to the program – about half of its total budget – and called for the complete elimination of federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant programs, which fill gaps in aid for students with extraordinary financial need.

With a Congress entirely controlled by Republicansthese reductions could finally materialize. Pell’s current funding is probably safe; there are too many political downsides for legislators to derive direct benefits from their constituents. But other federal college access initiatives – from work-study to academic supports like Upward Bound to debt relief programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness – could be on the way. point of being deleted.

Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, said without these federally funded aid and access initiatives, federal grants alone would not be as effective.

“You look at these college access programs and the populations they serve, and you have to worry about what kinds of supports are going to be available to students,” he said. “There are very few things on the table that I don’t worry about.”

Kim Cook, CEO of the National College Attainment Network, said her organization will continue to advocate for increasing the maximum Pell Grant amount and investing more money in federal financial aid programs. She acknowledged that the case “might be harder to make” under Trump, but said support for expanding financial aid can sometimes be surprisingly bipartisan. Most recent expansion of Pell eligibilityenshrined in the FAFSA Simplification Act, was championed by former Republican Senator Lamar Alexander and signed into law by Trump himself.

“It’s not always a binary thing,” she said. “We have not given up the fight.”

Disruption and “liability”

The presidential transition could disrupt this cycle’s FAFSA deploymentjust as all eyes are on the form after a disastrous launch last year. As the Department of Education changes direction and leaders who managed the form for the past four years shed responsibility, some fear the friction could lead to further delays in the spring.

But there is also bipartisan agreement on the ministry’s failures during the last cycle, and the new administration will face immense pressure to ensure this one goes smoothly.

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona “won’t be very happy working with the Trump transition team, and that could create problems with the FAFSA,” said Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute. “But if they can step in and clean up the mess, that would be a big PR win.”

Trump likely won’t just seek to undo his predecessor’s successes or right his mistakes; a number of new policy changes are on the agenda in a trio government led by Trump.

Cooper said he expects Trump and congressional Republicans to reframe Title IV eligibility requirements, which determine which degree programs can receive federal financial aid, based on postgraduate outcomes such as job prospects and student debt.

“There’s going to be a real movement toward accountability,” he said. “We might start to look more skeptically at some programs and ask, ‘Why are they getting taxpayer money?’ And we can look at others and say, “Why aren’t they?” »

This could mean a peak for institutions offering short-term degrees and professional training. Under President Biden, House Republicans introduced legislation that would have expanded Pell Grant eligibility to workforce training and short-term accreditation programs – paying for expansion by making wealthier colleges pay for unpaid student loans – but they have been blocked by opposition Democrats in Congress. In the short term, Pell, as the bill is called, may have a much better chance of passing the new Congress.

Cook said she worries that Pell in the short term could have downstream consequences on federal student aid overall. If Pell money is redirected to apprenticeship and accreditation programs without increasing overall grant funding, it could result in a budget shortfall, which in turn could put current students’ Pell Grants at risk.

“Once you reach that point, it leads to some really devastating conversations about eligibility and scholarship amounts,” she said. “So we’re thinking about what safeguards do we need to put in place to protect student aid if this happens? »

Cooper admitted that a change in the types of degree programs eligible for federal aid would have consequences for students currently receiving Pell Grants. But he added that in the long run, it could also prevent students from taking on debt to earn lesser degrees.

“If these programs lose access to federal aid, it is possible that some students will no longer be able to participate,” he said. “But if the program had had disastrous employment results, you might consider this a dodged bullet rather than a denied opportunity.”

Outside of administrative policies or congressional action, some say another Trump presidency signals a cultural shift that could have broad implications for state institutional aid and grant programs.

Scholarships and financial aid for students from underrepresented racial backgrounds have been attack since the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action. Cook fears that a Trump presidency would validate a broad interpretation of the court’s ruling that supports eliminating these programs and gives state attorneys general Or legal activist groups more leverage for pressure colleges to eliminate them.

“There are real concerns that the equity mission as a whole is going backwards,” Cook said. “These are not things that the president or Congress have direct control over, but it is a question of political and cultural climate. And that worries me.