Latest news with #Trump-driven
Politico
16 hours ago
- Business
- Politico
Millions of students could lose federal aid under a proposal to slash Pell Grants
College presidents are rallying behind Senate Republicans in a bid to stave off megabill cuts to a program that helps more than 6 million low- and middle-income students pay for school. To help avert a $2.7 billion shortfall in the Pell Grant program later this year, the House's version of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' advanced tighter eligibility rules that alarmed educators. The changes, according to the Congressional Budget Office, could kick nearly 10 percent of Pell recipients off the award and shrink the amount of money most participants receive. Those numbers are driving college leaders — many already facing threats of Trump-driven funding cuts, new endowment taxes and limits on international students — to support the Senate's less-restrictive take on the popular bipartisan program. Mark Brown, a former Trump Education Department official who is now president of Alabama's Tuskegee University, told senators last month that Pell reductions proposed by the House would push students to take out more loans. And some of the nation's largest university systems, like California State University and California Community Colleges, have called the restrictions an 'existential threat.' 'This is a difference between some of those students either coming to our universities or tech colleges or not,' said Jay Rothman, president of the Universities of Wisconsin, whose 13 campuses have roughly 31,600 Pell Grant recipients. Republicans in both chambers are under tremendous pressure from party bosses to find savings that help offset Trump's $4 trillion in broader tax cuts. But higher education leaders across the nation say the House GOP's plans would imperil college access for working students and contend that their institutions can't make up for the loss of federal financial aid. 'There are going to be some students who have the ability and have the passion and have the desire, but will not have the financial means to attend our universities. And there will be students that will not get the benefit of that higher education because of these reductions,' Rothman said. During the 2024-25 award year, the maximum Pell Grant was $7,395, which is determined based on income, family size, federal poverty guidelines and other factors. The House-passed 'big, beautiful bill' would require students to increase their course load from 24 credit hours a year to 30 each year to be eligible for the maximum amount of the grant. Most students would likely have to take 15 credits per semester instead of 12 to get the full award, though students could take summer courses to meet the full-time requirements. The bill also includes language that would bar students enrolled less than half-time from the grant. But the Senate has proposed scaling back the lower chamber's dramatic changes to the grant, and appears to be sticking with its Pell plans in the chamber's latest legislative text. The upper chamber's plan would deem students ineligible for the grant if they receive federal, state, institutional or private aid that covers the full cost of attendance, something campus leaders and advocates deem more favorable. Education Chair Bill Cassidy's proposal strips the full-time definition and half-time language from the panel's portion of the reconciliation bill, to the disgruntlement of some House leaders. 'I'm not OK with it,' said House Education and Workforce Chair Tim Walberg, whose panel is responsible for the lower chamber's Pell proposal. 'But we learned that we have to deal with reality. We know that we have to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill.' Walberg said he hasn't seen anything in the Senate's proposal that would be a deal breaker but worries about the long-term sustainability of the grant. Pell's estimated shortfall could balloon up to $10 billion by the end of fiscal 2026. Both the House and Senate proposals include funding to address the shortfall, but Walberg has said his proposed changes to eligibility would help rein in annual spending on Pell and help stave off another deficit. 'We thought it was very realistic,' the Michigan Republican said. 'The issue is, if we're going to pay for the shortfall that's going to be in Pell, we have to make sure that we have students that are finishing up, completing an education and moving on.' But some institutions are discouraging students from taking heavy course loads, saying student performance goes down the more classes they take, especially if they have obligations outside of school. 'We actually advise them to take 12, not 15, so that they will do well. Fifteen credits is far too many,' Trinity Washington University President Patricia McGuire said. 'That is such a heavy, heavy academic load for students who are normally working. Also, many of them are raising their own children, many of them have family circumstances that are very stressful. Congress, in addition to not understanding how education works, have no concept of the lives of low-income students.' McGuire, who has headed the D.C. university for over 30 years, said 60 to 70 percent of her nearly 2,000 students are Pell recipients. 'If this goes through, we will go out, and we will make the case directly to donors: Can you help us to close this new gap that the government has created?' she said. 'But that also seems like we shouldn't have to do that.' Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a HELP Committee member, said he just wants the reconciliation bill's education proposals to be 'right in the end' when asked about the House Pell plans. 'Education is hugely important,' he said. Pell eligibility changes, if they become law, could be much more acute for community colleges, where students are often part-time. 'At community colleges, we're about careers, we're about jobs, we're about getting people into the workforce and if they can't afford to access the education, then we certainly can't get them into the workforce,' Forsyth Technical Community College President Janet Spriggs said.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
House Republicans proposed to diminish a federal grant for students. Campus leaders want the Senate to save it.
College presidents are rallying behind Senate Republicans in a bid to stave off megabill cuts to a program that helps more than 6 million low- and middle-income students pay for school. To help avert a $2.7 billion shortfall in the Pell Grant program later this year, the House's version of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' advanced tighter eligibility rules that alarmed educators. The changes, according to the Congressional Budget Office, could kick nearly 10 percent of Pell recipients off the award and shrink the amount of money most participants receive. Those numbers are driving college leaders — many already facing threats of Trump-driven funding cuts, new endowment taxes and limits on international students — to support the Senate's less-restrictive take on the popular bipartisan program. Mark Brown, a former Trump Education Department official who is now president of Alabama's Tuskegee University, told senators last month that Pell reductions proposed by the House would push students to take out more loans. And some of the nation's largest university systems, like California State University and California Community Colleges, have called the restrictions an 'existential threat.' 'This is a difference between some of those students either coming to our universities or tech colleges or not,' said Jay Rothman, president of the Universities of Wisconsin, whose 13 campuses have roughly 31,600 Pell Grant recipients. Republicans in both chambers are under tremendous pressure from party bosses to find savings that help offset Trump's $4 trillion in broader tax cuts. But higher education leaders across the nation say the House GOP's plans would imperil college access for working students and contend that their institutions can't make up for the loss of federal financial aid. 'There are going to be some students who have the ability and have the passion and have the desire, but will not have the financial means to attend our universities. And there will be students that will not get the benefit of that higher education because of these reductions,' Rothman said. During the 2024-25 award year, the maximum Pell Grant was $7,395, which is determined based on income, family size, federal poverty guidelines and other factors. The House-passed 'big, beautiful bill' would require students to increase their course load from 24 credit hours a year to 30 each year to be eligible for the maximum amount of the grant. Most students would likely have to take 15 credits per semester instead of 12 to get the full award, though students could take summer courses to meet the full-time requirements. The bill also includes language that would bar students enrolled less than half-time from the grant. But the Senate has proposed scaling back the lower chamber's dramatic changes to the grant, and appears to be sticking with its Pell plans in the chamber's latest legislative text. The upper chamber's plan would deem students ineligible for the grant if they receive federal, state, institutional or private aid that covers the full cost of attendance, something campus leaders and advocates deem more favorable. Education Chair Bill Cassidy's proposal strips the full-time definition and half-time language from the panel's portion of the reconciliation bill, to the disgruntlement of some House leaders. 'I'm not OK with it,' said House Education and Workforce Chair Tim Walberg, whose panel is responsible for the lower chamber's Pell proposal. 'But we learned that we have to deal with reality. We know that we have to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill.' Walberg said he hasn't seen anything in the Senate's proposal that would be a deal breaker but worries about the long-term sustainability of the grant. Pell's estimated shortfall could balloon up to $10 billion by the end of fiscal 2026. Both the House and Senate proposals include funding to address the shortfall, but Walberg has said his proposed changes to eligibility would help rein in annual spending on Pell and help stave off another deficit. 'We thought it was very realistic,' the Michigan Republican said. 'The issue is, if we're going to pay for the shortfall that's going to be in Pell, we have to make sure that we have students that are finishing up, completing an education and moving on." But some institutions are discouraging students from taking heavy course loads, saying student performance goes down the more classes they take, especially if they have obligations outside of school. 'We actually advise them to take 12, not 15, so that they will do well. Fifteen credits is far too many,' Trinity Washington University President Patricia McGuire said. 'That is such a heavy, heavy academic load for students who are normally working. Also, many of them are raising their own children, many of them have family circumstances that are very stressful. Congress, in addition to not understanding how education works, have no concept of the lives of low-income students.' McGuire, who has headed the D.C. university for over 30 years, said 60 to 70 percent of her nearly 2,000 students are Pell recipients. 'If this goes through, we will go out, and we will make the case directly to donors: Can you help us to close this new gap that the government has created?' she said. 'But that also seems like we shouldn't have to do that.' Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a HELP Committee member, said he just wants the reconciliation bill's education proposals to be 'right in the end' when asked about the House Pell plans. 'Education is hugely important,' he said. Pell eligibility changes, if they become law, could be much more acute for community colleges, where students are often part-time. 'At community colleges, we're about careers, we're about jobs, we're about getting people into the workforce and if they can't afford to access the education, then we certainly can't get them into the workforce,' Forsyth Technical Community College President Janet Spriggs said.
Politico
a day ago
- Business
- Politico
House Republicans proposed to diminish a federal grant for students. Campus leaders want the Senate to save it.
College presidents are rallying behind Senate Republicans in a bid to stave off megabill cuts to a program that helps more than 6 million low- and middle-income students pay for school. To help avert a $2.7 billion shortfall in the Pell Grant program later this year, the House's version of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' advanced tighter eligibility rules that alarmed educators. The changes, according to the Congressional Budget Office, could kick nearly 10 percent of Pell recipients off the award and shrink the amount of money most participants receive. Those numbers are driving college leaders — many already facing threats of Trump-driven funding cuts, new endowment taxes and limits on international students — to support the Senate's less-restrictive take on the popular bipartisan program. Mark Brown, a former Trump Education Department official who is now president of Alabama's Tuskegee University, told senators last month that Pell reductions proposed by the House would push students to take out more loans. And some of the nation's largest university systems, like California State University and California Community Colleges, have called the restrictions an 'existential threat.' 'This is a difference between some of those students either coming to our universities or tech colleges or not,' said Jay Rothman, president of the Universities of Wisconsin, whose 13 campuses have roughly 31,600 Pell Grant recipients. Republicans in both chambers are under tremendous pressure from party bosses to find savings that help offset Trump's $4 trillion in broader tax cuts. But higher education leaders across the nation say the House GOP's plans would imperil college access for working students and contend that their institutions can't make up for the loss of federal financial aid. 'There are going to be some students who have the ability and have the passion and have the desire, but will not have the financial means to attend our universities. And there will be students that will not get the benefit of that higher education because of these reductions,' Rothman said. During the 2024-25 award year, the maximum Pell Grant was $7,395, which is determined based on income, family size, federal poverty guidelines and other factors. The House-passed 'big, beautiful bill' would require students to increase their course load from 24 credit hours a year to 30 each year to be eligible for the maximum amount of the grant. Most students would likely have to take 15 credits per semester instead of 12 to get the full award, though students could take summer courses to meet the full-time requirements. The bill also includes language that would bar students enrolled less than half-time from the grant. But the Senate has proposed scaling back the lower chamber's dramatic changes to the grant, and appears to be sticking with its Pell plans in the chamber's latest proposal. The upper chamber's plan would deem students ineligible for the grant if they receive federal, state, institutional or private aid that covers the full cost of attendance, something campus leaders and advocates deem more favorable. Education Chair Bill Cassidy's proposal strips the full-time definition and half-time language from the panel's portion of the reconciliation bill, to the disgruntlement of some House leaders. 'I'm not OK with it,' said House Education and Workforce Chair Tim Walberg, whose panel is responsible for the lower chamber's Pell proposal. 'But we learned that we have to deal with reality. We know that we have to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill.' Walberg said he hasn't seen anything in the Senate's proposal that would be a deal breaker but worries about the long-term sustainability of the grant. Pell's estimated shortfall could balloon up to $10 billion by the end of fiscal 2026. Both the House and Senate proposals include funding to address the shortfall, but Walberg has said his proposed changes to eligibility would help rein in annual spending on Pell and help stave off another deficit. 'We thought it was very realistic,' the Michigan Republican said. 'The issue is, if we're going to pay for the shortfall that's going to be in Pell, we have to make sure that we have students that are finishing up, completing an education and moving on.' But some institutions are discouraging students from taking heavy course loads, saying student performance goes down the more classes they take, especially if they have obligations outside of school. 'We actually advise them to take 12, not 15, so that they will do well. Fifteen credits is far too many,' Trinity Washington University President Patricia McGuire said. 'That is such a heavy, heavy academic load for students who are normally working. Also, many of them are raising their own children, many of them have family circumstances that are very stressful. Congress, in addition to not understanding how education works, have no concept of the lives of low-income students.' McGuire, who has headed the D.C. university for over 30 years, said 60 to 70 percent of her nearly 2,000 students are Pell recipients. 'If this goes through, we will go out, and we will make the case directly to donors: Can you help us to close this new gap that the government has created?' she said. 'But that also seems like we shouldn't have to do that.' Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a HELP Committee member, said he just wants the reconciliation bill's education proposals to be 'right in the end' when asked about the House Pell plans. 'Education is hugely important,' he said. Pell eligibility changes, if they become law, could be much more acute for community colleges, where students are often part-time. 'At community colleges, we're about careers, we're about jobs, we're about getting people into the workforce and if they can't afford to access the education, then we certainly can't get them into the workforce,' Forsyth Technical Community College President Janet Spriggs said.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Two Supreme Court Justices Invited an All-Out Assault on the Voting Rights Act. Now It's Here.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. On Wednesday, the Voting Rights Act suffered the second shot in a brutal new one-two punch, and some worry it could lead to a knockout blow at the Supreme Court. The Trump Department of Justice had already recently ended long-running bipartisan enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the part of the law that assures fair representation of minority voters in congressional, state, and local redistricting (among other things). Assistant attorney general for the civil rights division Harmeet Dhillon has signaled a pivot away from protecting minority voters and toward chasing phantom claims of voter fraud and pursuing other Trump-driven regressive election changes. These moves had already significantly hampered enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has, for the second time, held that minority voters do not have the authority to sue states and localities directly themselves for Section 2 violations. It's a ruling that unless overturned will effectively end Voting Rights Act enforcement in the seven states comprising the 8th Circuit. What's worse, two Supreme Court justices already expressed agreement with the position of the 8th Circuit. If three more justices agree, Section 2 would be a dead letter throughout the United States, at least during Republican administrations. It's worth explaining the history of the Voting Rights Act's enforcement mechanisms in order to clarify why this latest ruling is not just a devastating blow to the law, but also an entirely ahistorical judicial power grab. When Congress passes laws protecting against discrimination, one question that arises is who may sue to enforce them. Sometimes a statute is clear that it may be enforced only by the federal government through the Department of Justice. Other statutes can be enforced by people who have been harmed under the law. When individuals or groups have the power to sue to enforce federal law, the term used is that the statute includes a 'private right of action.' Since 1982, when Congress passed the current version of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, courts have understood that private plaintiffs have the right to sue to enforce it. And such suits make up the vast majority of Section 2 suits that are brought. As the Guardian explained, 'Since 1982, there have been 466 Section 2 cases. Only 18 were brought by the Department of Justice.' When it passed the revision to the law more than 40 years ago, Congress surely understood it to mean that private plaintiffs could sue. In 2006, when Congress revamped the Voting Rights Act overall, it knew that the lion's share of Section 2 suits were brought by private plaintiffs and it did not change anything in Section 2 related to who could sue. So it was a surprise when the 8th Circuit in 2023 became the first court to hold that private plaintiffs did not have the right to sue to protect their voting rights. Other courts had reached contrary conclusions, but the 8th Circuit followed signals from two justices on the Supreme Court regularly hostile to voting rights claims—Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas—that Section 2 contains no private right of action. Plaintiffs did not try to take that 2023 case to the Supreme Court to try to get the ruling reversed, perhaps because voting rights lawyers had another theory for how plaintiffs could sue to enforce Section 2: by doing so through another federal statute, 42 U.S.C. section 1983, which allows people to sue for certain violations by state and local officials of civil rights. In a 2–1 ruling on Wednesday, the 8th Circuit shut down this other route to allowing private plaintiffs to sue to enforce Section 2. Like the 2023 version, the court's Wednesday ruling is ridiculous, rejecting Congress' long understanding that private plaintiffs can bring these suits. Chief Judge Steven Colloton, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his dissent in the case, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe, that the 8th Circuit was wrong to be the only court to deprive plaintiffs of this effective tool: 'Since 1982, private plaintiffs have brought more than 400 actions based on § 2 that have resulted in judicial decisions. The majority concludes that all of those cases should have been dismissed because § 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not confer a voting right. Consistent with all other courts to address the issue, I conclude that § 2 confers an individual right and that the enforcement scheme described in the Act is not incompatible with private enforcement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.' Plaintiffs may now try to take this case to the entire 8th Circuit to reconsider, but that did not work with an appeal of the 2023 case. Otherwise, plaintiffs will face a difficult choice. If plaintiffs leave this case as is, Section 2 will be a dead letter in the states covered by the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. If the Supreme Court takes the case, there are already two votes likely to side with the 8th Circuit. If a majority embraces the bad reasoning of the 8th Circuit, Section 2 would be dead throughout the entire country. Of course, one hopes that a Supreme Court majority would reject this attempt to shut down the Voting Rights Act, just like it rejected different extreme arguments made by Alabama a few years ago in another Section 2 case, Allen v. Milligan. But nothing about protection of voting rights can be taken for granted these days, and I'm glad I am not the one who has to make the call about whether to enter the ring at the Supreme Court.
Calgary Herald
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Calgary Herald
How many Canadians voted in the federal election? What we know about the turnout
Article content Voter participation in the largely Trump-driven federal election was among the largest since the free-trade election of 1988, when Canada's ties with the U.S. last took centre stage in a campaign. Article content As of 12:16 p.m. ET Tuesday, Elections Canada reported that 19,217,335 registered electors — 67.35 per cent — had cast a ballot, whether in-person on Monday or during the four-day advance polling period on Easter weekend when a record-breaking 7.3 million-plus voted. Article content Article content However, the final figure doesn't yet include those who registered on election day or the results of roughly 560 polls left to tally after Elections Canada paused counting of special ballots early Tuesday morning. Article content Article content Special ballots are cast by mail or in person at any election office if the person cannot or does not want to vote in advance or on election day. Tabulating resumed at 9:30 a.m., and the agency's results page is being regularly updated. Article content This year's sum has already surpassed the 62.6 per cent in 2021. Article content Per Elections Canada, the last time more than 70 per cent of eligible voters took part in an election was in 1988, when 75.3 per cent exercised their right as incumbent prime minister Brian Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives collected a second straight majority government. Article content Article content The largest ever turnout was 79.4 per cent in 1958, the year Tory John Diefenbaker routed the Liberals and Lester B. Pearson. The lowest, 58.8 per cent, was in 2008 as Stephen Harper's Conservatives collected a slightly stronger minority. Article content Article content Provincially, Prince Edward Island had the most eligible voters at 75.9 per cent as of Tuesday morning, and Newfoundland and Labrador had the smallest turnout at 65.5 per cent. Average turnout in the rest of Canada was roughly 68 per cent. Article content
