Social media melted down this week over a policy change that affects fewer than 5% of undergraduate degree programs. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law in July 2025, and a left-wing media outlet recycled months-old reporting about the Department of Education finalizing a rule to restrict student loan eligibility for degree programs with nonexistent returns on investment. The New Republic posted an article on Sunday claiming President Trump was banning students majoring in degrees that don’t make enough money from taking out college loans. The post received more than 20 million views.
The Rule At A Glance
The rule uses a “do no harm” test: graduates can’t be left earning wages equivalent to those with a high school diploma. Preston Cooper, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, says the bar is median earnings of high school graduates. He calls the rule “very sensibly saying college grads should be at least better off than people who never went to college at all” and “a crazy low bar.”
Fewer than 5% of undergraduate degree programs could lose eligibility under the new rule. Programs aren’t banned or shut down; they simply lose eligibility for federal student loans. People can still attend these programs and pay out of pocket or secure a private student loan.
Cosmetology certificate programs are the most likely course of study to lose eligibility. The rule targets degrees for social work, art, religious studies, teaching aides, and music.
The Outrage Machine
One viral post with more than 3 million views says “This is actually fing evil holy s” and adds “In the land of the free, students must only study what the president approves apparently.” Transgender journalist Katelyn Burns said “This is about discouraging women from going to college,” without explaining the statement further.
Another post asked “Doesn’t this violate the First Amendment?”
Democratic members of Congress and governors issued panicked statements condemning the policy change. None of them explained how the rule actually worked.
What The Rule Actually Does
The rule applies to each individual degree program at each college or university. It looks at the median earnings of graduates compared to high school graduates. If a program’s graduates earn less, the program loses federal student loan eligibility.
That’s it. No program closes. No student gets kicked out. No degree disappears from a catalog. Students can still enroll and pay their own way, or they can borrow privately.
Two judges have blocked Trump’s student loan overhaul for public sector employees.
Why The Reaction Is Off
The reaction on social media is off because the rule is narrow and the panic is broad. The New Republic post recycled reporting from months ago, and it presented the change as a ban on entire fields of study. It wasn’t.
The rule targets programs whose graduates earn less than high school graduates. That’s a test of economic value, not a political statement. Preston Cooper’s framing is telling: the rule asks whether a degree produces a graduate who earns more than someone who skipped college entirely. He calls the threshold “crazy low,” which suggests he thinks the rule is strict, not generous.
The outrage also ignores the alternative. If a program loses federal loan eligibility, students can still attend. They just have to pay out of pocket or find a private lender. The rule doesn’t force anyone out of school; it just changes who pays.
The Politics Of Panic
The panicked statements from Democratic lawmakers and governors are a problem for democracy. They condemn a policy without explaining it. They treat a rule that affects fewer than 5% of programs as a national emergency. That’s not leadership, it’s noise.
The First Amendment question raised in one post is also misplaced. The rule is about federal spending, not free speech. The government isn’t telling students what to study; it’s deciding which programs qualify for taxpayer-backed loans.
The gender claim from Katelyn Burns is equally thin. Burns said “This is about discouraging women from going to college,” without explaining the statement further.
What Happens Next
The rule will go into effect. Colleges will have to certify that their programs meet the median earnings threshold. Programs that fail will lose federal loan eligibility, but they won’t close. Students who want to enroll can still do so, though they’ll need cash or a private lender.
The New Republic’s post has been shared widely, and the anger it generated is real. But the anger is based on a misunderstanding of what the rule actually does. The rule is not a ban. It is a funding standard.
The reaction on social media shows how quickly outrage can spread when people don’t read the actual text of a policy. The New Republic recycled reporting from months ago. Its readers saw a headline about banning majors and assumed the worst.
The result is a national conversation about a policy that affects fewer than 5% of programs, led by people who don’t know what it actually does.
| Policy | Effect |
|---|---|
| Trump’s student loan rule | Fewer than 5% of undergraduate programs lose federal loan eligibility |
| Public sector employee overhaul | Blocked by two judges |
| Private loans | Still available for affected programs |
The paper’s view is straightforward: the rule is sensible. It asks whether a degree produces a graduate who earns more than someone who skipped college entirely. That’s a fair question. The outrage is not. It’s a reaction to a headline, not to the policy itself.
The reaction on social media is a symptom of a broader problem. People consume news, share headlines, and assume the worst without reading the details. The New Republic’s post did nothing to correct that pattern. It recycled reporting, added a sensational headline, and moved on.
The rule will go into effect. Colleges will certify their programs. Some will lose eligibility. Students will pay out of pocket or borrow privately. The sky will not fall.
The outrage was real. It was also unfounded. The policy is narrow, and the panic is broad. The difference matters.
The paper supports the rule’s underlying principle: taxpayer money should fund programs that produce graduates who earn more than high school graduates. That’s a reasonable standard. The outrage is not reasonable. It’s a reaction to a headline, not to the policy itself.
The New Republic’s post was shared millions of times. It created a national conversation about a policy that affects fewer than 5% of programs. The conversation was not informed. It was not accurate. It was angry.
The anger is understandable. But it was directed at the wrong target. The rule is not a ban. It is a funding standard. It asks a simple question: does this degree produce a graduate who earns more than someone who skipped college entirely?
The answer, in most cases, is yes. Fewer than 5% of programs fail the test. That’s a small number. It’s not a crisis.
The reaction on social media was a crisis of attention. People read a headline, shared it, and assumed the worst. The New Republic did not help. Its readers saw a headline about banning majors and assumed the worst.
The paper supports the rule’s underlying principle: taxpayer money should fund programs that produce graduates who earn more than high school graduates. That’s a reasonable standard. The outrage is not reasonable. It’s a reaction to a headline, not to the policy itself.
The policy is narrow. The reaction is broad. The difference matters. The rule will go into effect. The outrage will fade. The programs that fail the test will lose federal loan eligibility. The programs that pass will keep it.
The sky will not fall.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs narrow rules against direct harm, such as forcing companies to disclose safety failures they hid, and opposes broad rules that hand the market to the incumbents, but finds no comparable AI or technology regulation at stake here. The outrage over the student loan rule, however, rests on the same dynamic: a headline-driven panic that treats a narrow funding standard as a ban.
The rule asks whether a degree produces a graduate who earns more than someone who skipped college entirely. Preston Cooper calls it “very sensibly saying college grads should be at least better off than people who never went to college at all.” That’s a reasonable standard for taxpayer-backed loans. The outrage is not reasonable. It’s a reaction to a headline, not to the policy itself.
When politicians condemn a policy without explaining it, they treat a rule that affects fewer than 5% of programs as a national emergency. That’s not leadership, it’s noise. Readers should check the actual text before sharing. The rule is a funding standard, not a ban. The sky will not fall.
Source material: “Social media melts down over minor Trump policy change on student loans,” the Washington Examiner.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.