A sweeping federal policy change signed into law last year is raising serious questions about the future of dozens of academic programs at the University of Idaho and other institutions that rely heavily on federal student aid — including some of the school’s most historically significant departments.
President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, 2025. Among its provisions is a new earnings benchmark requirement for programs that want to remain eligible for federal student loans. Under the rule, undergraduate programs must demonstrate that their graduates earn at least as much as the median income of high school diploma holders between the ages of 25 and 34. Graduate programs face a higher bar: their graduates must out-earn the typical bachelor’s degree holder in the same age range.
Programs that cannot meet those benchmarks would lose federal financial aid eligibility under what the rule calls Accountability in Higher Education standards. The practical consequence is significant: if a program loses federal aid eligibility, many students — particularly lower-income students — would be effectively priced out of enrolling.
Roughly 70 Percent of U of I Students Rely on Federal Aid
That concern is especially acute at the University of Idaho, where approximately 70 percent of undergraduate students receive some form of federal financial assistance. For those students, losing aid eligibility in a chosen major is not an abstract policy problem — it is a barrier to completing a degree.
The list of programs that could fall short of the new earnings benchmarks is long and cuts across a wide range of disciplines. At the undergraduate level, majors under scrutiny include education, natural resources, agriculture, biology, life sciences, anthropology, religious studies, communications, journalism, music, theatre arts, philosophy, psychology, art, English, and history. Vocational programs such as cosmetology and culinary arts also appear on the list. At the graduate level, programs including a Master of Public Health and a Master of Psychology could be affected.
Critics of the rule point out a fundamental flaw in how earnings are measured: the benchmark compares graduates’ early-career wages to non-degree holders, but it does not account for students who pursue professional or doctoral degrees after completing their undergraduate major. Psychology and anthropology graduates, for instance, frequently go on to earn advanced degrees before entering careers — careers that often pay well above the benchmark. Under the current rule, those pathways would not count in the program’s favor.
Educators Warn of Consequences for Working-Class Students
Rebecca Tallent, a longtime journalism educator, put the concern bluntly in a public statement: “It is as if the federal government is saying it is fine if a poor person wants to major in business or economics, but not if they want to become a teacher, musician, minister or counselor.”
Her concern touches on something real about the rule’s design. High-earning fields like engineering, finance, and computer science face little risk under the benchmark system. But programs that train teachers, social workers, musicians, clergy, and public health professionals — fields that often serve communities directly rather than generating high private-sector wages — could find their students cut off from the aid they need to attend.
For a land-grant university like the University of Idaho, the implications extend into the agricultural and natural resources sectors that are central to Idaho’s economy and identity along the Palouse. Programs in agriculture and natural resources appearing on the at-risk list would be a particular blow to a school whose founding mission is tied directly to serving Idaho’s farming communities.
The comment period for the new rule has now closed, meaning the public input phase through the federal rulemaking process has ended. However, individuals who wish to push back on the policy still have a direct avenue: contacting their congressional representatives to express opposition before the rule is fully implemented.
The University of Idaho has not yet publicly announced which, if any, programs it plans to modify or discontinue in response to the new requirements. It remains unclear how and when enforcement timelines will be applied to existing programs.
What Comes Next
Implementation details and enforcement timelines for the earnings benchmark rules are still being worked out at the federal level. University administrators across Idaho and the nation are likely assessing which programs face the greatest financial aid risk. Students currently enrolled in or planning to enter affected majors should monitor developments closely and consult with their financial aid offices. Those wishing to weigh in on the policy should reach out to Idaho’s congressional delegation directly. Updates on how the University of Idaho plans to respond are expected in the months ahead.