Staff Reports
The Education Department has quietly moved the chess pieces on federal student aid. Starting July 1, big parts of the new RISE final rule tied to last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill went into effect, changing who can borrow and how much they can borrow. At the same time the Department put forward a new STATS earnings‑accountability proposal that would, if finalized, yank federal loan access from programs whose graduates earn less than comparable non‑graduates. This is a real moment: finally some teeth — and also a new swamp of rules and lawsuits to watch.
What actually changed on July 1
The RISE final rule implements many of the One Big Beautiful Bill’s loan changes. For new borrowers, Grad PLUS is gone for most students. New annual caps and a large but finite lifetime aggregate now limit graduate borrowing (the rule cites high lifetime maximums for loans made after July 1). Loans are prorated for part‑time study and repayment plans were reshaped. That will curb the runaway borrowing that let some students pile up six‑figure bills with little check on returns.
The STATS proposal: the real stick — for now it’s only a proposal
The Department’s STATS “earnings accountability” proposal would go further. It uses federal wage data to compare a program’s median graduate pay to a non‑graduate baseline (high‑school grads for undergrad programs, bachelor’s grads for grad programs). Programs that fail the test two years out of three could lose Direct Loan eligibility; repeat failures could cost Pell and campus aid. Important note: STATS is an NPRM — notice and comment — not a final rule. It could change. But it signals the Department’s plan to use earnings as the main yardstick.
Why conservatives should cheer — but not blindly
Taxpayers shouldn’t bankroll degrees that leave graduates poorer than someone who skipped college. Accountability is overdue. Good conservative policy supports outcomes, not just credentialing. Still, let’s be clear: letting Washington bureaucrats wield IRS and College Scorecard data to decide which programs live and die invites mistakes. Small programs, newer fields, self‑employment and data quirks can look bad on paper even when graduates do well in real life. The right move is to insist on better data, clearer due process, and more local control — not to cede everything to a federal algorithm.
What to watch next
Expect fights in court and in the Federal Register comment docket. Some parts of RISE are already tied up in litigation, including how “professional” degrees are defined. Colleges will revisit programs, change admissions and financial aid language, and some will close or shrink risky offerings. Students and families should read the fine print: RISE already changes borrowing; STATS could change program eligibility if finalized. Conservatives should cheer accountability, but also push to keep Washington from overreaching into curricula and career choices. If we want real reform, we must demand smart rules that punish bad actors, protect small and deserving programs, and widen true pathways to good jobs — not just write another federal hit list of inconvenient degrees.
