Key points:
- OBBBA endangers the core of American higher education
- It’s time to rethink the foundations of higher education
- How colleges are reimagining inclusion amid political rollbacks
- For more news on higher-ed policy, visit eCN’s Campus Leadership hub
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), passed by the 119th U.S. Congress and signed by President Trump, has been hailed by its sponsors as a bold step toward economic revitalization. In reality, it is a sweeping reconfiguration of federal priorities that benefits the ultra-wealthy while burdening the vulnerable, including millions of students, educators, and educational institutions.
Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D–NY) condemned it as “the big, ugly betrayal,” a label fitting not only for its trillion-dollar giveaways to billionaires, but also for its structural abandonment of public goods, including access to higher education.
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), this bill is projected to add $3.2 trillion to the national debt by 2034 while removing health coverage from up to 12 million Americans. As we examine the details of this legislation, it becomes clear that OBBBA is not just a fiscal document–it is a political blueprint that undermines the future of postsecondary learning in the United States.
Curtailing access: Loan limits and the demise of PLUS Loans
One of the most immediate threats OBBBA poses to higher education access is found in Subtitle B of Title VIII, where the Act establishes loan caps for graduate and professional students and completely eliminates the Graduate and Professional PLUS Loan program (Sec. 81001, page 704). These loans have historically served as a financial lifeline for students who exhaust subsidized federal loan options. Their elimination will disproportionately harm students from underrepresented or low-income backgrounds, who often rely on these loans to attend medical, legal, or doctoral programs. These are not frivolous expenditures but investments in the country’s intellectual and professional capital. Restricting access to funding for advanced degrees effectively narrows the pipeline of future educators, researchers, and public service professionals.
Debt without relief: Rolling back forgiveness and servicing protections
Equally troubling is the gutting of student loan relief mechanisms. Under Subtitle C and Subtitle D, the bill revises existing provisions related to loan repayment, deferment, forbearance, rehabilitation, and the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program (Secs. 82001–82005, page 713). While the bill retains some elements of loan rehabilitation, it significantly reduces flexibility and access to income-driven repayment options. By weakening PSLF, the Act turns its back on graduates who commit to careers in education, healthcare, and public service. These changes increase the long-term financial burden on students, reduce their disposable income, and contribute to lower participation in public interest careers.
The Pell Grant mirage: A workforce agenda disguised as access
Although the bill claims to support Pell Grants through the creation of “Workforce Pell Grants” (Sec. 83002, page 751), this provision narrows eligibility to specific job-training programs rather than supporting traditional academic pathways. Additionally, the Pell Shortfall Adjustment (Sec. 83003, page 758) and eligibility restrictions outlined in Sec. 83001 (page 748) do little to expand access. These changes reinforce a utilitarian vision of education as job preparation rather than intellectual or civic development. They are part of a larger ideological shift toward treating students as economic units to be trained and placed–hardly the vision of a liberal democracy’s commitment to education.
Regulatory rollbacks: Reduced oversight, increased risk
The bill also delays rules related to borrower defense to repayment and closed school discharges (Secs. 85001–85002, page 765). These rules were implemented to protect students from predatory institutions, particularly in the for-profit sector. Their delay opens the door to increased exploitation. Students defrauded by institutions will now face greater hurdles in seeking restitution, while institutions with poor records of student outcomes remain eligible for federal aid–creating a perverse incentive structure that prioritizes profit over performance.
Tax incentives, but for whom?
OBBBA’s Subchapter B of Chapter 4 (Secs. 70411–70416, page 374) includes measures like tax credits for donations to scholarship organizations and employer student loan payments. While superficially beneficial, these tax incentives are regressive. They offer substantial benefits only to wealthy individuals and corporations capable of large contributions. Meanwhile, the Act modifies the excise tax on private university endowments without improving financial aid requirements–placing new pressure on institutions to fundraise more aggressively while doing less with the funds they do manage to secure.
Limiting institutional autonomy and innovation
A particularly alarming provision is found in Subtitle G, which explicitly limits the Department of Education’s authority to propose or issue regulations and executive actions related to higher education (Sec. 86001, page 767). This section hampers future administrations from responding to crises, closing loopholes, or protecting students from institutional failure or financial fraud. It also undermines the Department’s role in setting accountability standards, thus weakening its capacity to enforce equity and access.
A clear message to educators and students
In the midst of all this, it is essential to highlight that the bill makes no mention of increasing institutional support for public colleges and universities. There are no provisions for improving faculty salaries, expanding research funding, or supporting minority-serving institutions. Instead, the bill’s clearest message to higher education is this: you are on your own.
Conclusion: A bill that tramples the public good
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act may be celebrated in partisan circles as a political victory, but for those of us committed to the transformative power of education, it is nothing short of a betrayal. By dismantling loan support systems, gutting consumer protections, undermining regulatory authority, and reducing access to essential programs, OBBBA endangers the social contract that has defined American higher education for decades. Students will pay more and receive less; educators will work harder with fewer resources; and institutions will struggle to fulfill their missions in a landscape reshaped by austerity and privatization. As educators, policymakers, and citizens, we must advocate for a future where education is treated not as a privilege for the wealthy but as a right for all.
