No Hearing, No Answers

Today, the Senate HELP Committee advanced Nicholas Kent’s nomination for Under Secretary of Education behind closed doors without a public hearing typical for the role—a serious disservice to students and taxpayers.

The Under Secretary oversees more than $100 billion in annual federal student aid—more than the federal government spends on K-12 education–and the more than 5,000 colleges that receive it. This role directly shapes the policies that affect millions of college students, institutions, and the future of the American workforce. With such a large and complex portfolio, nominees should demonstrate deep experience fit for the job of managing large-scale federal programs and navigating higher education policy with an eye toward ensuring students get their money’s worth and schools abide by the rules.

Mr. Kent’s background raises serious questions. While he has experience in the higher education space, much of it has come through lobbying on behalf of for-profit colleges—a sector with a history of poor outcomes and questionable practices. That experience includes working for one company that faced numerous investigations and reached a settlement over allegations that it deceived students and taxpayers. It also includes lobbying against numerous Department of Education rules and regulations intended to protect students from deceptive practices and hold colleges accountable. What remains unclear is whether Kent has the leadership experience and policy depth needed to effectively steer federal student aid, regulate postsecondary institutions, and implement reforms to improve student success, without giving handouts to the for-profit schools he’s previously represented.

Confirmation hearings provide a vital opportunity for senators to ask those questions on behalf of the public. When James Kvaal was nominated for the same position, he answered tough questions on debt, tuition, and college accountability. Kent, by contrast, advanced without any public scrutiny—leaving too much we don’t know about how he would lead one of the federal government’s most consequential education offices. The Senate should not have let that happen.

Here are some questions that Senators should’ve asked Kent, questions for which the public deserves answers, and the Senate should consider before rubber stamping the nominee for Under Secretary of Education:

Student debt remains a crisis for millions of Americans, with borrowers struggling to repay even decades after leaving college. What will you do to ensure federal student loan programs provide borrowers with a path to successful repayment and don’t leave them in debt traps?

According to the Department of Education, 5 million borrowers are currently in default, and that number is expected to double over the coming months. How will you help get borrowers back into repayment and ensure more borrowers don’t face the devastating consequences of default?

College costs continue to rise, and students and families struggle to understand what they’ll actually pay. How would you work to improve affordability and transparency for students?

The Pell Grant is the cornerstone of federal student aid, but it has not kept up with the cost of college. Do you support increasing the maximum Pell Grant?

Only about half of students complete a degree within six years. What role should the Department play in improving college completion, particularly at under-resourced institutions that serve low-income and first-generation students?

How will you hold institutions accountable for poor outcomes, like low graduation rates, low earnings, or high default rates—especially when those institutions receive large sums of federal aid?

The gainful employment rule, finalized in 2023 and effective July 1, 2024, will protect 700,000 students a year from career education programs that leave graduates with debt they cannot repay and low earnings. Similarly, the financial value transparency framework would give students the most detailed information available to date on costs and outcomes they can expect. Yet the data reporting required by colleges has been delayed. Do you commit to enforcing these rules without further delays?

Would you support strengthening Gainful Employment rules or other accountability frameworks to ensure that programs prepare students for jobs that justify their costs?

On March 11 of this year, the Department announced it was executing a reduction in force, which, in addition to other actions, resulted in Department staff capacity being slashed in half. The reductions included the team responsible for certifying school eligibility and ensuring schools follow the rules. Do you commit to ensuring that work continues? Do you commit to releasing public information such as the list of schools on heightened cash monitoring and the status of program participation agreements, which have not yet been updated during this administration?

Secretary Linda McMahon has continuously stated that the Department will continue to deliver on all of its statutory responsibilities following the reduction in force, while also stating she’s winding down the Department of Education. Do you commit to ensure that the Department is following the law and agree to provide information to Congress on those efforts?

Given your prior work with the for-profit college lobby, how will you ensure impartiality in developing and enforcing policies that affect the sector you previously represented?

The for-profit sector has a long history of targeting low-income students and veterans, often with poor outcomes. What role should the Department play in regulating for-profit institutions and protecting students?

Do you support restoring stronger oversight of accreditors and requiring them to enforce meaningful standards for institutional quality?

Available data show stark disparities in college completion and student loan outcomes by race and income. What specific strategies would you implement to close equity gaps in higher education outcomes?

How will you ensure the Department’s policies advance opportunity for underserved students while holding institutions accountable for delivering results—not just access?