The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has put forward a sweeping new rule that would strip federal student loan eligibility from college programs whose graduates fail to out-earn workers who never attended college—a proposal the Trump administration is framing as a common-sense accountability measure, but one that raises thorny questions about how access to higher education could be reshaped along economic lines.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, released April 17, would require that graduates of undergraduate programs typically earn more than a high school diploma holder. Graduate programs would face a parallel standard, with graduates expected to out-earn the average bachelor’s degree holder. Programs that consistently fall short would lose access to federal student loans and, in some cases, Pell Grants—the foundational aid that many low-income students depend on to attend college at all.
Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent defended the framework in stark terms. “The Trump Administration’s proposed accountability framework is grounded in common sense: if postsecondary education programs do not leave graduates better off, taxpayers should not subsidize them,” he said.
The rule is the third and final in a series of proposed regulations stemming from the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, signed by President Trump. The Department says the proposal was shaped in part by the AHEAD Committee—the Accountability in Higher Education and Access Through Demand-driven Workforce Pell Committee—a negotiated rulemaking body that reached consensus in January after five days of deliberation. The committee included representatives from higher education institutions, the business community, legal aid organizations, and student groups.
The administration has pointed to the $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio as evidence that the current system is broken, arguing that too many students are leaving college in a worse financial position than if they had never enrolled at all.
But the earnings-based framework is not without its critics, and the framing deserves scrutiny. Programs in education, social work, the arts, and the humanities—fields that generate significant public value even if they don’t produce high salaries—could face existential pressure under rules that treat earning potential as the primary measure of a program’s worth. Community colleges and minority-serving institutions, which often enroll students from lower-income backgrounds who face structural barriers to high wages regardless of their degree, could also find themselves disproportionately flagged.
It’s worth noting, too, that context provided by the National College Attainment Network suggests the scope of the problem being addressed is narrower than the proposal’s breadth might imply. According to NCAN, roughly 98% of students already attend institutions where graduates earn more than high school diploma holders—meaning the programs most at risk enroll a relatively small share of the overall student population. The question is whether a blunt policy instrument is the right tool for what is, statistically, a targeted problem.
The proposed rule is open for public comment for 30 days, with the deadline set for May 20, 2026. Comments can be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at regulations.gov. The Department has indicated it may revise the rule in response to substantive feedback.
For advocates of broad access to higher education, the comment period represents a critical window—one worth using.
