An Associated Press analysis of federal data found that roughly one in five federal student loan borrowers is now in default, meaning they are at least 270 days behind on required payments. The increase follows the expiration of pandemic-era protections that temporarily suspended payments and shielded borrowers from default during the public health emergency.

Education advocates say rising living costs, combined with increasing monthly student loan payments, are making it more difficult for many borrowers to remain current on their obligations.

“Folks are struggling to make ends meet and cover all the rising costs of everything else. The growing student loan bills are making things worse and folks are falling behind,” Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director at Protect Borrowers, told The Associated Press.

Although missed payments can damage borrowers’ credit scores, default carries more serious consequences, including potential wage garnishment, offsets of federal tax refunds and reductions in certain federal benefits. The Trump administration has not yet resumed involuntary collections.

Defaults Accelerated After Pandemic Protections Expired

Federal student loan payments were suspended during the pandemic under relief measures administered by the U.S. Department of Education.

Although repayment officially resumed in 2023, the Biden administration created a one-year transition period that protected delinquent borrowers from entering default through the fall of 2024.

During that period, loans could not enter default, while federal rehabilitation initiatives and debt-relief programs helped millions of borrowers leave default status.

Once those protections expired, defaults began rising again. Beginning in June 2025, nine months after the transition period ended, borrowers once again became eligible to enter default.

Since then, the number of borrowers in default has increased from about 5.3 million to approximately 9.5 million, according to the Office of Federal Student Aid. Agency data show that $233.3 billion of the nation’s roughly $1.7 trillion in federally backed student loans is currently in default.

Another increase could follow as borrowers adjust to recent changes in the federal loan system. The Trump administration ended the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) income-driven repayment plan, requiring millions of borrowers to transition to alternative repayment options that may result in higher monthly payments.

Beginning this month, new federal student loan borrowers also face fewer repayment choices, generally selecting between one standard repayment plan and one income-driven option. The Education Department said the revised structure is intended to simplify what it described as a fragmented repayment system.

Southern States Report the Highest Default Rates

The AP’s analysis found that many of the nation’s highest student loan default rates are concentrated in Southern states.

Mississippi recorded the highest default rate among U.S. states at 28.3%.

Other states with comparatively high default rates include:

• Louisiana
• Alabama
• West Virginia
• Oklahoma
• Georgia
• South Carolina
• Texas

The analysis also identified Alaska, Arizona, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, New Mexico and Nevada among the 15 states with the highest shares of borrowers in default.

Puerto Rico reported an even higher default rate of 30.9%, exceeding every U.S. state.

Bañez said the geographic distribution challenges common assumptions about who is affected by student loan debt.

“These are folks who live in states that President Trump won in the previous election,” she told The Associated Press.

She added that many borrowers falling behind are working-class Americans struggling to balance student loan payments with broader increases in living expenses.

Borrowers From For-Profit Colleges Face Greater Challenges

Borrowers who attended for-profit colleges continue to experience significantly greater repayment difficulties than those who attended public institutions, according to Office of Federal Student Aid data released this year.

The data show that 33% of borrowers from for-profit schools were at least 90 days behind on their student loan payments—more than twice the rate among borrowers who attended public colleges.

Among institutions in the highest quarter for nonpayment rates, 76% were for-profit schools.

The Office of Federal Student Aid said elevated nonpayment rates are a strong indicator that schools may also experience higher default rates among former students.

The trend has prompted action within the career education sector.

Career Education Colleges and Universities, an association representing private trade schools and career colleges, has established a task force focused on improving student loan repayment awareness.

Jason Altmire, the organization’s president, told The Associated Press that several factors may be contributing to repayment difficulties, including lingering economic effects from the pandemic and confusion following the Biden administration’s unsuccessful student loan forgiveness initiative.

“We take it seriously,” Altmire said. “It’s a real problem.”

This report is based on reporting by The Associated Press.

Article Topics: Student Loan Defaults | Federal Student Loans | Higher Education | Office of Federal Student Aid | Student Debt | Loan Repayment | For-Profit Colleges | Education Policy

The post Student Loan Defaults Surge as Pandemic-Era Relief Ends, With 9.5 Million Borrowers Behind on Payments appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The agreement, announced Friday by Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff, concludes months of negotiations over alleged civil rights violations and federal scrutiny into the Ivy League school’s diversity and inclusion programs. It follows similar deals reached between the administration and several other elite universities amid a broader campaign targeting what the White House has called “ideological bias” in higher education.

A deal to restore vital funding

Under the terms of the six-page agreement, Cornell will pay $30 million directly to the U.S. government and dedicate another $30 million toward agricultural research designed to support American farmers. In return, the federal government will reinstate the university’s access to more than a quarter-billion dollars in research funding that had been frozen during the investigation.

President Kotlikoff said the outcome restores the school’s partnership with Washington while preserving its institutional independence. “The agreement revives our relationship with the federal government while affirming Cornell’s commitment to academic freedom and autonomy — values that have defined our excellence since our founding,” he said in a statement.

The settlement mirrors an agreement reached last month with the University of Virginia, though Cornell’s deal is reportedly less restrictive than those signed by Columbia and Brown universities, which included broader compliance requirements and higher payments.

Federal oversight and academic concerns

The Trump administration has accused several major universities of tolerating antisemitism and maintaining diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies that it argues discriminate against students based on political or religious beliefs. The Department of Justice and Department of Education have jointly investigated such allegations since 2023, using federal funding freezes to compel institutional cooperation.

Under the Cornell agreement, the university must now align with the administration’s interpretation of civil rights laws concerning antisemitism, racial discrimination, and transgender policies. A Justice Department memorandum directing campuses to roll back DEI and transgender-inclusive initiatives will serve as a training document for Cornell’s faculty and staff.

The university must also submit extensive admissions data to federal officials, allowing oversight agencies to verify that race is no longer a factor in admissions — a requirement following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling ending affirmative action in higher education.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon hailed the settlement as a “transformative commitment” that prioritizes merit and excellence. “These reforms are a huge win in the fight to restore rigor and truth-seeking to American higher education,” McMahon said in a statement on X.

Attorney General Pam Bondi also praised the deal, saying it underscores the administration’s expectations for all federally funded institutions. “Colleges must fully adhere to civil rights laws and ensure that harmful DEI policies do not discriminate against students,” she said.

Academic freedom advocates raise alarm

Cornell’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) cautiously welcomed the fact that the deal omits some of the harsher provisions seen in other settlements but warned that it still poses risks to academic independence.

“The agreement omits many of the worst provisions imposed on other colleges, but it still goes beyond what the law requires,” the AAUP chapter said in a statement. Chapter president David Bateman criticized the precedent set by such deals: “If you make a deal with somebody when they’re just extorting you, that only encourages future extortion.”

The AAUP also objected to the $30 million payment to the government and to requirements that Cornell conduct campus surveys on antisemitism and share enrollment data, calling the measures “invitations for future intrusion.”

A balancing act between compliance and autonomy

Kotlikoff emphasized that Cornell was not found in violation of federal law and described the settlement as a pragmatic solution to resume research and stabilize academic operations disrupted by the funding freeze.

“The government’s actions had stalled research, upended careers, and threatened the future of programs critical to our mission,” Kotlikoff wrote in a letter to the campus community. “This agreement allows us to move forward while preserving the principles of independent scholarship and free inquiry.”

Cornell’s president must personally certify compliance with the agreement every quarter until the end of 2028. The administration will retain authority to audit Cornell’s adherence during that period.

Comparisons with other universities

The deal places Cornell roughly between other settlements in scale and tone. Columbia University agreed to pay $200 million directly to the government, while Brown University allocated $50 million to state workforce development programs. The University of Virginia, meanwhile, signed an agreement with no financial penalties.

Cornell’s additional $30 million agricultural investment will unfold over three years, funding projects that use artificial intelligence and robotics to advance U.S. farming efficiency — a nod to Cornell’s origins as a land-grant university with historic ties to American agriculture.

Broader implications for U.S. higher education

The agreement reflects a broader standoff between the Trump administration and higher education leaders over the limits of federal oversight. Kotlikoff was among hundreds of university presidents who signed an April 2025 letter warning of “unprecedented political interference” in academic governance.

While the settlement allows Cornell to regain its funding and move forward, it also deepens a national debate about whether federal leverage over research grants can be used to reshape university policies.

As the deal takes effect, Cornell’s leadership faces the challenge of navigating this new era of federal compliance — one that may redefine the boundaries between academic independence and government authority for years to come.

Source: AP News – Cornell University to pay $60M in deal with Trump administration to restore federal funding

The post Cornell University Agrees to $60 Million Settlement with Trump Administration to Restore Federal Funding appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published: October 8, 2025, 23:00 EDT

Federal Court Rejects Trump-Era Rule on Teen Pregnancy Education

A federal judge has blocked a Trump administration policy that sought to impose new ideological restrictions on federally funded teen pregnancy prevention programs. The decision, issued Tuesday, halts enforcement of guidance that required grantees to comply with directives aimed at curbing what the administration described as “radical indoctrination” and “gender ideology.”

Planned Parenthood Affiliates Win Legal Challenge

The ruling represents a legal victory for three Planned Parenthood affiliates in California, Iowa, and New York, which jointly sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) earlier this year. The organizations argued that the new policy, introduced in July, contradicted the intent of the congressionally authorized Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (TPPP) by prioritizing political messaging over scientific evidence.

The lawsuit alleged that the administration’s guidance undermined established evidence-based health education by restricting content related to LGBTQ+ inclusion and sexual health. The plaintiffs contended that the directives were vague and inconsistent with the statutory requirements of the program.

Judge Howell Criticizes Policy as “Politically Motivated”

In her written opinion, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, appointed by former President Barack Obama, described the policy as “motivated solely by political concerns, devoid of any considered process or analysis, and ignorant of the statutory emphasis on evidence-based programming.”

The ruling found that the administration failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its policy shift and did not follow proper administrative procedures required under federal law.

“This court cannot permit the government to substitute ideology for evidence in public health policy,” Howell wrote, emphasizing that federal programs must adhere to Congress’s intent to support comprehensive, scientifically grounded education on reproductive health.

Policy Linked to Trump’s Broader Social Agenda

The disputed policy emerged as part of a broader set of executive orders and administrative actions issued by President Donald Trump upon returning to office. Those directives aimed to roll back federal recognition of LGBTQ+ rights and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across government programs.

In the context of the teen pregnancy prevention grants, the administration’s policy objected to educational materials that, in its view, “normalize or promote sexual activity for minors” or “endorse same-sex marriage.”

Critics said the language effectively banned inclusive sex education programs that acknowledge diverse family structures and sexual orientations—elements long supported by major medical and public health organizations.

Ruling Extends Beyond Planned Parenthood

Judge Howell’s injunction applies not only to the three Planned Parenthood affiliates but also to dozens of other program recipients, including nonprofit organizations, city and county health departments, tribal governments, and universities that receive federal teen pregnancy prevention grants.

According to court filings, the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program distributes millions of dollars annually to support evidence-based initiatives aimed at reducing unintended pregnancies and promoting sexual health education among adolescents nationwide.

By blocking the new restrictions, the court effectively preserves funding for programs that use comprehensive, data-driven approaches rather than abstinence-only education models.

Government Response and Policy Defense

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment on Tuesday’s decision but reiterated in prior statements that the policy sought to “ensure taxpayer dollars no longer support content that undermines parental rights, promotes radical gender ideology, or exposes children to sexually explicit material under the banner of public health.”

Administration officials have argued that the guidance was designed to align federal grants with the administration’s interpretation of “family-centered values” and to give parents more influence over the materials presented to students.

However, critics—including the American Public Health Association and multiple reproductive rights groups—said the policy amounted to political interference in public health and risked cutting off critical education programs in underserved communities.

Broader Implications for Federal Health Policy

Legal experts say Judge Howell’s ruling underscores a broader judicial trend of scrutinizing executive overreach in public health and education programs. Similar cases during Trump’s prior term saw courts block attempts to reshape federal grant structures to align with conservative cultural policies.

The ruling may also set an early precedent for other lawsuits challenging the administration’s approach to federal funding tied to reproductive health, gender identity, and educational content.

“It’s a reaffirmation that health policy must be based on evidence, not ideology,” said one legal analyst following the case. “The decision reinforces the limits of executive authority in rewriting programs that Congress has already defined by law.”

Looking Ahead: Policy Uncertainty Remains

While the ruling prevents immediate enforcement of the HHS directive, the administration could appeal the decision to a higher court. If upheld, the ruling would ensure continued funding for evidence-based education initiatives under the current grant cycle.

Public health organizations welcomed the decision, saying it protects both educators and students from politically driven restrictions. Still, the ongoing legal battle highlights the persistent tension between scientific health policy and ideological governance in the U.S.

As the case moves forward, program recipients across multiple states are watching closely to determine whether their curricula and funding will remain protected under existing federal standards.

Source: AP News – A judge has blocked a Trump administration effort to change teen pregnancy prevention programs

The post Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s New Restrictions on Teen Pregnancy Prevention Grants appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published: September-28-2025, 07:00 EDT

Federal immigration officials have arrested the superintendent of Iowa’s largest school district, alleging he was living and working in the United States without legal authorization. The detention has left educators, parents, and community members in shock, while raising questions about hiring practices, background checks, and immigration enforcement in public institutions.

ICE Arrests Des Moines Schools Chief

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed that Des Moines Public Schools Superintendent Ian Roberts, 54, was arrested Friday during a traffic stop after initially fleeing into a wooded area. Officials said Roberts, a native of Guyana, had been subject to a final removal order issued in 2024 and was classified as a fugitive.

Roberts was taken into custody with assistance from the Iowa State Patrol and transferred to Woodbury County Jail in northwest Iowa. ICE reported that he was carrying a loaded handgun, $3,000 in cash, and a hunting knife at the time of his arrest. It is unclear whether Roberts has secured legal representation.

District Expresses Shock Over Detention

Phil Roeder, spokesperson for Des Moines Public Schools, said the district was surprised by the arrest. He noted that Roberts had passed a comprehensive third-party background check before being hired and had completed the legally required I-9 employment verification form.

“We have seen nothing that would suggest he’s not a citizen,” Roeder told the Associated Press. He added that he witnessed Roberts’ detention through a video call shortly after the incident.

The district said it was not aware of any outstanding immigration order against Roberts and emphasized the legal complexity of the case.

ICE Calls Arrest a Public Safety Issue

In a statement, ICE enforcement official Sam Olson described Roberts’ case as concerning, pointing to his immigration status, prior removal order, and a weapons charge.

“How this individual was hired without work authorization, a final order of removal, and a prior weapons charge is beyond comprehension,” Olson said. He added that the arrest demonstrates the agency’s efforts to protect communities from public safety risks.

A Veteran Educator with National Experience

Roberts, who took over as superintendent in July 2023, leads a district of more than 30,000 students and nearly 5,000 employees. He held an active professional administrator license in Iowa and earned an annual base salary of $270,000 under his contract, which ran until June 2024.

School board president Jackie Norris described Roberts as an “integral part of our school community” and praised his dedication to students.

Union leaders representing teachers and school staff across the state also released a statement expressing shock, describing Roberts’ compassion for students as a “beacon of light” in one of Iowa’s most diverse districts.

Professional and Personal Background

Before moving to Iowa, Roberts served as superintendent of the Millcreek Township School District in Pennsylvania. He previously held leadership roles in other U.S. school systems.

According to his biography, Roberts was born in Brooklyn, New York, to immigrant parents from Guyana. He graduated from Coppin State University in Baltimore in 1998 and represented Guyana in track and field at the 2000 Olympics.

ICE said Roberts first entered the United States in 1999 on a student visa. His father immigrated in the 1980s, followed by his mother in the early 2000s.

Prior Weapons Infraction in Pennsylvania

ICE also cited a prior weapons charge against Roberts. Court records show that in January 2022, he pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a loaded firearm in a vehicle, stemming from a citation issued while he was deer hunting in Pennsylvania. He was fined $100 and court costs.

Roberts explained at the time that he had placed his rifle in plain sight inside his vehicle to avoid alarming a game officer. He suggested that his race may have influenced the officer’s decision to issue the citation but said he chose to plead guilty to avoid distraction.

Des Moines school officials acknowledged they were aware of the 2022 incident before hiring him.

Community Reactions and Protests

The arrest quickly drew public response. On Friday evening, crowds gathered outside the federal building in downtown Des Moines to protest Roberts’ detention. Demonstrators also rallied in Iowa City, where ICE agents had forcibly detained another man at a grocery store the day before.

Governor Kim Reynolds was briefed on Roberts’ arrest and has been in contact with state and federal authorities, according to her office.

The case continues to unfold, leaving the school district, families, and Iowa officials facing uncertainty about leadership and the broader implications for immigration enforcement in public institutions.

Source: AP News – ICE arrests leader of Iowa’s largest school district, saying he was living and working in the US illegally

The post Arrest of Des Moines Schools Superintendent Sparks Shock and Questions Over Immigration Status appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Published Time: 09-20-2025, 14:30 EDT

The Trump administration has increased pressure on Harvard University, placing the Ivy League institution under heightened financial monitoring and warning of possible sanctions if it fails to provide more detailed records on its admissions practices. The move marks a significant escalation in an ongoing clash between the federal government and one of the world’s most prestigious universities.

Heightened Cash Monitoring and Federal Oversight

Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced Friday that Harvard will now be subject to “heightened cash monitoring” rules. Under this system, the university must first use its own funds to cover financial aid for students and then apply for federal reimbursement, rather than receiving upfront federal funding.

McMahon further cautioned that “additional enforcement action” could follow if Harvard does not supply comprehensive data showing compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that banned the consideration of race in college admissions.

The Education Department’s stance reflects a broader strategy by the Trump administration to push elite universities into aligning with federal directives on admissions and governance.

Harvard’s Response and Legal Challenges

Harvard did not issue a public response on Friday following the administration’s announcement. However, the university has previously challenged federal actions in court.

Earlier this year, a federal judge sided with Harvard after the Trump administration cut off $2.6 billion in federal research funding. The judge described the government’s actions as “a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” Following that ruling, the Department of Health and Human Services unfroze $46 million in research funds, according to Harvard officials.

The legal battles highlight the intensity of the standoff between the White House and Harvard, which the administration has frequently accused of harboring liberal bias.

Admissions Practices Under Scrutiny

The Education Department’s ongoing investigation focuses on whether Harvard has fully complied with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision prohibiting the use of race in admissions. Federal officials allege that the university has not met all requests for applicant and admissions records.

The case stems from a 2014 lawsuit filed by students who argued Harvard’s admissions practices unfairly disadvantaged white and Asian applicants. While the Supreme Court ultimately ruled against race-conscious admissions nationwide, federal officials now want Harvard to demonstrate its policies have been fully restructured.

Federal Funding and Financial Concerns

Despite Harvard’s vast $53 billion endowment—the largest of any university in the world—federal funding plays a critical role in supporting research and student aid. By placing Harvard under heightened monitoring, the Education Department has raised new questions about the university’s financial stability in the context of its reliance on government reimbursements.

McMahon expressed concerns about Harvard’s fiscal health, stating that federal agencies must ensure universities comply with financial and legal obligations before receiving taxpayer support.

Broader Crackdown on Higher Education

Since taking office, President Trump has leveraged federal agencies to exert greater influence over higher education. His administration has reduced federal research grants, pressed institutions into financial settlements, and threatened to withhold funding from universities accused of noncompliance with federal directives.

Critics argue these actions are politically motivated and undermine academic independence. Supporters counter that the administration is working to restore fairness and accountability in higher education, particularly around admissions practices.

Looking Ahead

The heightened monitoring and threat of sanctions signal that the dispute between the Trump administration and Harvard is far from resolved. With ongoing court cases and potential financial repercussions, the university’s ability to balance compliance with its longstanding admissions philosophy remains under scrutiny.

For now, the administration insists that elite institutions must provide transparency and adhere to federal standards, while Harvard faces the challenge of protecting its academic reputation amid intensified oversight.

Source: AP News – Trump administration threatens further sanctions in escalating fight with Harvard

The post Trump Administration Intensifies Oversight of Harvard, Threatens Sanctions Over Admissions Data appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Growing up in Brazil, neuroscientist Danielle Beckman always dreamed of coming to the United States to pursue her passion. In 2017, that dream came true when she landed a position at UC Davis, working at the California National Primate Research Center. Like so many international scientists before her, she saw the U.S. as the global capital of scientific innovation.

But now, that dream is slipping away.

In the wake of sweeping budget cuts, policy crackdowns, and what many call an ideological war on higher education under Donald Trump’s second term, Beckman no longer sees the U.S. as a place where her work—or she herself—is truly welcome.

“It’s the first time since I moved here that I don’t feel so welcome anymore,” she told CNN, after her lab lost $2.5 million in grant funding. “There’s interest in virology everywhere in the world—except the U.S. right now.”

She’s not alone. A growing wave of scientists, researchers, and academics—both American and international—are packing up and leaving the U.S. for more supportive environments abroad. What’s shaping up to be one of the most significant brain drains in decades may end up fueling a scientific renaissance in other parts of the world.

The Global Race for U.S. Talent

While the Trump administration slashes research budgets and restricts international academic access, countries like Germany, France, Canada, Australia, and Singapore are actively recruiting disillusioned U.S.-based researchers—and investing millions to do it.

• The European Union pledged €500 million ($562M) over three years to become “a magnet for researchers.”
• Canada’s top health research body is spending CA$30 million to attract 100 early-career scientists, many from the U.S.
• France has launched a “Safe Place for Science” program to provide refuge for threatened academics.
• Singapore is targeting top U.S. researchers and offering jobs within days.
• Norway and Australia have both announced aggressive new hiring initiatives aimed at American scientists.

“We know these individuals are highly trained, talented, and have much to offer,” said Anna-Maria Arabia of the Australian Academy of Science. “The interest has already been encouraging.”

Trump’s War on Academia

Under President Trump’s second term, the relationship between the federal government and top research institutions has fractured.

The administration has:

• Cancelled nearly 700 NIH grants, worth $1.8 billion, in just six weeks.
• Proposed a 40% budget cut to the NIH in 2026.
• Slashed $1.4 billion in grants from the National Science Foundation.
• Frozen federal funds to elite universities like Harvard over ideological disputes, including DEI programs.
• Temporarily banned Harvard from enrolling international students, a decision a federal judge later blocked.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt made the administration’s stance clear in a recent Fox News appearance:

“We need more electricians and plumbers, and less LGBTQ graduate majors from Harvard.”

This rhetoric, along with punitive funding decisions, has rattled researchers across the country. In a March 2025 survey by Nature, 75% of U.S. scientists said they were considering leaving the country due to government policies.

A Tipping Point for U.S. Scientific Leadership?

For decades, the United States has been the world’s research powerhouse—fueled by unmatched investments in R&D and an open-door policy that welcomed talent from around the globe. In 2023 alone, combined public and private U.S. R&D spending hit $900 billion.

The result? More than 400 Nobel Prizes, with over one-third awarded to immigrants.

But now, that legacy is at risk. “This is the most significant crisis universities have faced since World War II,” said Kenneth Wong, professor of education policy at Brown University. “We’re watching a collapse in the collaborative relationship between government and academia.”

And younger scientists—many of whom are just launching their careers—are especially vulnerable. They’re also more mobile, and global institutions are ready to welcome them.

“What we’re losing is a whole generation of highly productive, well-trained researchers,” Wong said. “These are people who are primed to take off—and they’re taking off somewhere else.”

The Rest of the World Steps Up

As U.S. support for science falters, other nations are seizing the opportunity.

• China invested over $780 billion in R&D in 2023 and continues to close the gap with the U.S.
• The European Union increased its R&D spending to $504 billion in 2023, up from $336 billion in 2007.

These shifts signal a major turning point: countries that once relied on U.S. research leadership are now building up their own ecosystems—and luring away the talent to power them.

Beckman, the Brazilian neuroscientist, says she considered stepping away from research entirely. But then international institutions started calling.

“Now, I’m looking at opportunities in Germany and France,” she said. “It feels like those places value what we do.”

A Global Opportunity—At America’s Expense

What began as a dream for many scientists like Beckman has turned into a wake-up call. While other countries embrace science and innovation, the U.S. risks isolating itself—politically, ideologically, and intellectually.

The question now is not just where the next generation of discoveries will be made—but who will still be around in the U.S. to make them.

Source: CNN – How a Trump-fueled brain drain could be the rest of the world’s brain gain

The post America’s Brain Drain: How Trump’s Policies Are Pushing Researchers Out appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

HONG KONG — Thousands of Chinese students in the United States are on edge after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced a sweeping new policy that could revoke the visas of students linked to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in sensitive academic fields.

The move, unveiled on Wednesday, has left many scrambling for answers and reconsidering their future in the U.S.

A Shockwave Through the Chinese Student Community

For Linqin, a Chinese student at Johns Hopkins University, the news was deeply unsettling. “This feels like a modern-day version of the Chinese Exclusion Act,” he said, referencing the 19th-century law that banned Chinese immigrants and blocked them from gaining citizenship. For the first time, he’s seriously considering leaving the U.S.—a country he’s called home for nearly a third of his life.

With over 270,000 Chinese students currently enrolled in American universities—making up about a quarter of all international students in the U.S.—the policy is expected to have far-reaching consequences.

Beijing Slams Move as Politically Motivated

China’s Foreign Ministry swiftly condemned the U.S. decision. Spokesperson Mao Ning called it “unreasonable” and accused Washington of hypocrisy. “This discriminatory action reveals the U.S. lie about freedom and openness,” she said, noting that China had formally lodged a protest.

Visa tensions between the two countries aren’t new. Back in 2019, during Trump’s presidency, China warned students of tightening visa restrictions and an uptick in rejections. And just last year, Beijing protested after several Chinese students were allegedly interrogated and deported upon arriving in the U.S.

Frustration and Uncertainty on Campus

The policy has upended plans for students like Zou Renge, a 27-year-old studying public policy at the University of Chicago. She had planned to work in humanitarian aid overseas after graduation. Now, she’s staying put.

“With all this uncertainty, I’m just trying to figure out a solution,” she said.

For others, the U.S. is no longer the dream destination it once was. State media in China continues to emphasize American gun violence and civil unrest, discouraging students from studying abroad. The ongoing strain in U.S.–China relations has led some students to instead choose schools in the U.K., Australia, or Hong Kong.

Hong Kong Sees an Opportunity

Sensing a moment to attract global talent, Hong Kong officials are extending an open hand. On Thursday, city leader John Lee said Hong Kong would welcome students “discriminated against by American policies.”

“This is an opportunity for Hong Kong,” Lee told lawmakers. “We’ll work with our universities to provide the best support.”

Universities across the city—including HKUST, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and City University—are already easing application processes for international students from elite U.S. institutions. HKUST even extended an invitation to Harvard students after former President Trump threatened their visa status.

Hong Kong, known for its academic freedom and international environment, has long been a preferred destination for mainland Chinese students. The city introduced a new visa scheme in 2022 to reverse an exodus of professionals and students during the COVID pandemic and after Beijing imposed a national security law.

Looking for a Way Forward

Education consultants like Will Kwong in Hong Kong say they’re now helping students with U.S. admission offers seek alternatives in the U.K. and Australia.

Meanwhile, some see the U.S. move as self-defeating.

“Fewer international exchanges will hurt America’s development,” said Zhang Qi, a postdoctoral researcher in Beijing. “This could actually benefit China by encouraging top talent to stay and contribute to local institutions like Tsinghua and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.”

And for those waiting to begin their U.S. education, the uncertainty is unbearable.

Chen, an incoming student at Purdue University, is still in China awaiting his visa. He’s frustrated and disillusioned.

“I thought the U.S. stood for freedom and diversity. But this feels like the opposite,” he said.

Source: AP News – Chinese students anxious and angry after Rubio vows to revoke visas

The post Chinese Students in U.S. Face Uncertainty After New Visa Crackdown appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

WASHINGTON — In a move that could disrupt the plans of thousands of international students, the U.S. State Department has temporarily stopped scheduling new visa interviews for those hoping to study in the United States, officials confirmed.

The pause, which does not affect students who already have interview appointments, comes as the department prepares to roll out stricter guidelines for screening applicants’ social media activity.

According to an internal cable signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and obtained by the Associated Press, consulates have been instructed to stop adding appointments for student and exchange visitor visas until new vetting guidance is issued.

“Effective immediately, in preparation for an expansion of required social media screening and vetting, consulate sections should not add any additional student or exchange visitor visa appointment capacity,” the memo reads.

A Crackdown With Ripple Effects

The change marks yet another move in a broader crackdown on international student programs that began under former President Donald Trump. While the Biden administration continued the policy of social media screening for visa applicants, this latest step could have more immediate consequences.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the U.S. will continue to use “every tool we can” to evaluate visa applicants, including students.

“We will continue to use every tool we can to assess who it is that’s coming here, whether they are students or otherwise,” Bruce said during a press briefing.

The decision, first reported by Politico, follows a series of high-profile efforts to restrict or revoke international student privileges.

Just last week, the administration revoked Harvard University’s authority to enroll international students under the student visa program—a decision that was challenged in court and temporarily blocked by a federal judge.

Earlier this year, thousands of international students already in the U.S. lost their legal status after a separate policy change. Although many successfully fought back in court and had their status restored, the administration quietly broadened the criteria for future terminations.

What This Means for Students and Schools

The suspension of new interview appointments could cause serious delays for students planning to start classes this summer or fall. With limited time before the next academic term, any prolonged pause could derail travel and enrollment timelines.

Universities, especially those already grappling with budget constraints, could also feel the impact. Many institutions rely heavily on international students—who often pay full tuition—to offset reductions in federal research funding and other revenue shortfalls.

If the freeze continues into peak visa season, colleges may face an unexpected enrollment crunch, and students may be left scrambling for alternatives.

Source: AP News – US stops scheduling visa interviews for foreign students while it expands social media vetting

The post Visa Interview Pause Disrupts Plans for Foreign Students Heading to U.S. appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is escalating its battle with Harvard University by pushing federal agencies to cancel about $100 million worth of contracts with the Ivy League powerhouse, a senior official revealed Tuesday. This move adds to an already significant crackdown on the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university.

So far, the federal government has slashed more than $2.6 billion in research grants to Harvard, which has resisted the administration’s demands to change its leadership, governance, and admissions policies. Now, a draft letter from the General Services Administration (GSA) instructs agencies to review their contracts with Harvard and seek alternative vendors. The letter was expected to be sent out Tuesday.

The New York Times first uncovered this letter, which reflects growing tensions between the Trump administration and Harvard.

What’s at Stake? Contracts Under Review Include Executive Training and Research

The administration has identified roughly 30 contracts across nine federal agencies that could be canceled. These contracts, totaling around $100 million, cover a range of services — from executive training for Department of Homeland Security officials to graduate student research and even health studies linked to energy drinks.

For contracts deemed critical, agencies have been told not to halt work immediately but to prepare plans to switch to vendors other than Harvard.

Importantly, this directive targets federal contracts only, not the remaining research grants still awarded to Harvard.

Trump’s Broader Assault: Threatening Billions in Cuts and Targeting International Students

Over the weekend, President Trump ramped up his attack on Harvard via social media, threatening to cut an additional $3 billion in federal grants and redirect that funding to trade schools nationwide. However, he did not specify which grants would be affected or how the money would be reallocated.

Trump also criticized Harvard for allegedly refusing to release the names of its foreign students. He argued that their home countries contribute nothing to their education costs and claimed some of these countries “are not at all friendly to the United States.”

In reality, international students don’t qualify for federal financial aid, but Harvard provides its own scholarships and aid to all students, both domestic and foreign.

“We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country,” Trump wrote on social media.

What exactly he’s demanding remains unclear, especially since the government already has access to visa and other records for foreign students across U.S. universities.

Foreign Student Records and Legal Pushback

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has demanded that Harvard hand over extensive records on its foreign students, including disciplinary files and any information related to “dangerous or violent activity.” Harvard says it complied, but DHS deemed the response insufficient and moved to revoke Harvard’s permission to enroll international students.

Harvard sued to block this move, and a federal judge in Boston temporarily halted the DHS action.

Global Reactions: Japan Steps In to Support Affected Students

Internationally, the situation is drawing concern. Japan’s government announced plans to support Harvard’s international students affected by these sanctions. Education Minister Toshiko Abe said she will ask Japanese universities to prepare measures to help those students.

The University of Tokyo, Japan’s most prestigious institution, is reportedly considering temporarily accepting some Harvard students caught in the crossfire.

This latest escalation highlights the deepening rift between Harvard and the Trump administration, with wide-ranging consequences for the university’s funding, its international students, and its role in federal research and education programs.

Source: AP News – Trump administration moves to cut $100 million in federal contracts for Harvard

The post Trump Administration Moves to Cut $100 Million in Harvard Federal Contracts appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Former Trump education official Linda McMahon is taking aim at President Biden’s student loan forgiveness policies, calling them irresponsible and unfair to taxpayers — while accusing colleges of cashing in on the chaos.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, McMahon defended the Department of Education’s decision to resume debt collections starting May 5, targeting roughly 5.3 million borrowers who are in default. She didn’t mince words, blaming the Biden administration for enabling massive debt accumulation under the false promise of blanket forgiveness.

McMahon argued that colleges — despite their nonprofit status — have benefited enormously from federal student loans.

“For years they’ve hiked tuition and built up billion-dollar endowments, all while students graduate buried under six-figure debt,” she wrote.
“Colleges and universities call themselves nonprofits, but they’ve profited massively off the federal subsidy of loans.”

She stressed the need for accountability — not just from borrowers, but also from higher education institutions. “As we push to hold students accountable, we will also demand that colleges be transparent and responsible.”

Student loan payments were first paused in 2020 under President Trump as part of COVID-19 relief efforts. But McMahon criticized Biden for extending the pause and pushing sweeping forgiveness programs that she said lacked legal authority.

“Biden dangled the carrot of loan forgiveness in front of young voters,” McMahon said, arguing it led many to take on more debt with no real plan for repayment.

She announced a full reversal of what she called “zero-interest, zero-accountability” policies. Moving forward, borrowers in default will face serious consequences — from lowered credit scores to wage garnishment.

The Education Department confirmed that about 1.8 million borrowers will be moved into repayment plans as collections restart in May. McMahon emphasized that the decision isn’t about being harsh — it’s about restoring fiscal responsibility.

“Borrowing money and not paying it back isn’t a victimless offense. Debt doesn’t vanish — it shifts to taxpayers,” she said.

She added that unlike car or mortgage loans, student loans come with a public cost. The goal, she said, is to make sure borrowers are supported in repayment, and that colleges can no longer saddle students with unaffordable debt.

The numbers tell a troubling story. Over 42.7 million Americans now owe more than $1.6 trillion in federal student loans, according to the Department of Education. The agency warned the system is heading toward a “fiscal cliff.”

Even more alarming, over 5 million borrowers haven’t made a single payment in more than a year — with some skipping payments for over seven years.

McMahon’s message is clear: forgiveness without accountability has backfired — on borrowers, taxpayers, and the nation’s finances. With loan collections set to resume, her approach signals a tougher stance and a call for deeper reforms within higher education.

Source: NYPOST – Trump’s education boss reveals greedy truth behind Biden’s student loan forgiveness: ‘They have profited massively’

The post Trump’s Education Chief Blasts Biden’s Loan Forgiveness as ‘Unfair and Costly’ appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.