“Public Funds, Private Politics: Examining Bias in the Truman Scholarship Program”

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

morning, Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Ashley Harrington. I serve as a senior policy counsel at the Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. Founded by our nation's first Black US Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall, LDF is America's premier legal organization fighting for racial justice. For 85 years, LDF has advocated for equal opportunity for all. We work to dismantle barriers that hold people back because of their race, their ZIP code, or the wealth they were born into. Since the historic US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which LDF litigated and won, we have continued to fight for the rights of Black students to receive high-quality, equitable educational opportunities as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Our constitutional principle of equal protection under the law mandates that school districts, post-secondary institutions, states, and the federal government provide equal educational opportunities for all students, including Black students and other students of color, LGBTQIA students, students with disabilities, immigrant students, and other historically marginalized populations. Today's hearing is about the Truman Scholarship, which was created by Congress 50 years ago to invest in future public servants. The bipartisan board of trustees that oversees the Truman Scholarship and the individuals involved in selecting scholars have recognized potential for impactful public service in roughly 3,500 talented individuals over the past half century. These scholars are selected without regard to partisan identity and pursue varied fields of study, ranging from law and policy to public health and education. Attempts to label broad categories of public service as inherently partisan are harmful. But we know what this is. This is just the latest action in the continuous effort of the Trump administration and its congressional allies to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of individuals by attempting to punish those who disagree with the administration's ideologies. But public service has no ideology, and public service certainly cannot be cabined only to those views and issues that the administration favors. Regardless, the Truman Scholarship represents an appropriation of $3 million a year and directly impacts just 50 to 60 students annually. The cuts to the higher education safety net made in the One Big Beautiful Bill are of far greater consequence to the millions of Americans who have never even heard of the Truman Scholarship. They are the students who are already struggling with student debt, the parents unsure how they will pay for their children's education, and the working adults trying to return to school to improve their lives. Every year, millions of students enroll in college, and millions more pursue graduate and professional degrees. They do so because they understand the earnings premium and opportunities that come with education, but they also do so with growing anxiety about affordability, debt, and whether our systems are truly designed to support them. They include students of color, first-generation students, veterans, adult learners, and low-income Americans, current and future students who are counting on this committee to care about their economic mobility and their access to opportunity, not just talking points. The Truman Scholarship's $3 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what our nation spends on higher education each year. Across programs and departments, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year on higher education, with about $120 billion allocated to students in federal grants and loans alone. There are 43 million Americans shouldering $1.6 trillion in student debt. That is why I hope today's conversation can shift towards making our entire higher education system more affordable and accessible for all students, instead of having a narrow, partisan dialogue about the very few who receive this elite scholarship. Instead of removing barriers, the OBBB constructs new ones, pitting everyday Americans against the wealthy few and making it even harder for people to pursue education as a pathway to a better life. But there is another way. Congress can increase the Pell Grant, invest in historically Black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions such as predominantly Black institutions. They can ensure that grad students and dependent students have access to the aid needed to pursue higher education, ensure that there are truly affordable repayment options for student borrowers that include pathways to debt relief. They can strengthen protections against predatory institutions, and they can protect the Department of Education, because none of this is possible unless it is fully resourced to enforce civil rights, administer aid, and oversee institutions. The pursuit of racial justice and equal opportunity for all should be a shared value and not exclusive to a single party. Students and families deserve more from their policymakers. They deserve a higher education system that opens doors rather than closes them, and a Congress committed to ensuring that opportunity is not reserved for the privileged, but available to all. Thank you.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you so much. I'd last like to recognize Mr. Kissel for your testimony.

Mr. Adam KisselSPEAKER_09

Thank you, Chairman Owens, Ranking Member Adams, and members of the committee. My name is Adam Kissel. I am a visiting fellow for higher education reform at the Heritage Foundation. The views I express today are my own and should not be construed as representing Heritage. I also was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Higher Education Programs at the Education Department in the first Trump administration. Thank you for this opportunity to outline some ideological biases in the structure and rhetoric of the Truman program, and I'll offer two ideas for addressing them. First, the program steers applications to the left and discourages applications from the right. Just look at the website. The sample application responses have several examples. No example of a successful response is right-coded, while many are clearly left-coded. Topics for the successful essays included environmental racism and community organizing, while unsuccessful ones included students who wanted to study military history, students who are Christians, students who express patriotism. Second, the website directs advisors of applicants to focus on, quote, "change agents." This term is commonly used on the progressive left due to its ideology of radically changing American institutions. Likewise, the program privileges, quote, "advocacy" over other kinds of public service. You can see this for yourself on the website. This rhetoric discourages conservatives from applying because we often more— more often speak of preserving American traditions and values. For us, public service often means supporting what is good in the current order against efforts to change it. Third, the program's regulatory definition of public service—getting into some details here, it's not in the statute—this definition is also somewhat left-coded. The definition emphasizes environmentalism, but not, for example, protection of unborn children. Imagine who would apply if the program instead gave examples of constitutionalists or promoters of strong families or federalism. Fourth, the program excludes MBAs almost entirely from the competition. The positive role of American business in society might be something we'll have to debate another day, but even the left today recognizes how profit-making businesses engage in public service in many ways. This MBA prohibition, again, is not in the statute or regulations; it's just in the operation of the program. And finally, higher education is skewed deeply to the left, so the applicant pool itself is skewed deeply to the left. So no one should be surprised that right-leaning colleges seldom see the point of sending applicants. Pepperdine, Liberty, Grand Canyon universities, they've had zero Truman Scholars across the program's entire history. Hillsdale has had just one. So I have two policy ideas or recommendations to consider. Easy one, as Mr. Hess said, is revise the program's regulations and website to remove their biases, including the definition of public service, so that it's as neutral as it can be, not discouraging conservatives or or any ideology. And second, an idea to consider is to harmonize the Truman program with a program called the Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need program, GAANN. In that program, the Secretary of Education consults with other agencies and nonprofits, say the National Science Foundation, Department of War, to determine the national need in graduate education. And this process results in priorities that genuinely serve the nation, such as cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, and this is under both Republican and Democratic administrations for the GAANN program. These changes would better honor President Truman's legacy. So thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. Thank you so much. Under committee rule 9, I will now question the witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. Dr. Hess, you mentioned that students interested in the four prominent left-leaning issues outnumber those interested in the four prominent right-leaning issues by better than 12 to 1. That's truly unbelievable, by the way. If the tables were turned and liberal students were being discriminated against, the left would be irate. Are you aware of any federal education programs where conservatives win 12 times as much as liberals?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

No, I am not. And I think it's important to understand here that this is not just about partisan balance. The point of the Truman is to recruit young Americans who are interested in public service so that they might advance, so that they might serve the needs of the nation. This is about Americans who bring different values and different ideas to the table.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. I think we all can agree, and I'm going to ask Ms. Harrington a quick question, that any taxpayer funding should be—opportunities should not be discriminatory. Correct, right? Anything that taxpayers are paying for should not be discriminatory. That's easy. Yes or no? Yes. Okay, thank you. There are millions and millions of Black conservatives like myself. How many Black conservatives have ever been selected as Truman Scholar?

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

Sorry, is that to me, sir?

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Yes.

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

I don't think any of us know. Right. Even the research that we're talking about today has only looked at a limited number of bios, and they're doing it based on their own research of social media. And, and not having— there's no way to

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

find out if this— if this— In other words, we're trying to make sure that it is very open, very inclusive, and there's no way to see if any Black conservatives ever have been selected as Truman. That should be a big deal. I would think that would be a really highlight of the Truman Scholarship Program to say we service everyone, including Black conservatives.

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

I think the bigger deal is, does our higher education system as a whole service everyone? And what we're worried about are the millions of Americans, not the 50 or 60 a year. There are millions of Americans struggling in our higher education. And

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

We're losing that battle, by the way, because of liberal policy. All right. Thank you so much. Ms. Kabbany, you mentioned The College Fix has been investigating Truman Foundation for nearly 10 years. One thing that struck out to me is how consistent your finding are each year. Liberal winners massively outnumber conservatives every single year, regardless of which party is in power, who's running in office. What do you think this says about the program itself? Well, what it says is that this program is essentially a talent pipeline and taxpayer-funded scholarship program for the Democratic Party and the liberal activist network. It also shows that the system is inherently broken. There's a systemic bias that starts at the campus level all the way up to the final decisions that needs to be reformed. Thank you. Miss Kissel Mr. Kissel, you mentioned the program structure assumes that for-profit corporations in the private sector can never serve the public, and conversely, nonprofits, the government sector, always act in the public interest. Personally, I don't think either of this is true. Can you say more about why some types of for-profit work perhaps could count towards Truman Public Service requirements?

Mr. Adam KisselSPEAKER_09

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, whenever there's a voluntary transaction, both sides are better off. That's Econ 101. When any public company, uh, or, or for-profit company is contributing to the public by selling goods and services that people want, they're engaging in a kind of public service. But maybe more to the point, lots of companies have a public service component to what they do. They'll have a philanthropy arm, they'll have a community outreach arm. And if you are in a field where you're helping the public, it shouldn't matter whether the structure of your organization is for-profit or nonprofit.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. Okay, I'm going to yield back my time now to the ranking member, recognize for the purpose of questions and witnesses.

Ranking Member Alma Adams (D-NC)SPEAKER_00

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When students dream about college, they shouldn't be left wondering whether the federal government will still be there when they arrive, wondering if the Department of Education will be open or wondering if the programs they rely on—Pell Grants, campus support programs, HBCU funding—will still exist by the time they graduate. I spent more than 40 years in the classroom as a professor, and I know that uncertainty by itself can derail a student. When programs disappear overnight, students lose their footing, and when an entire federal program is put on the chopping block, the consequences are felt in in every classroom, every campus, and every community. So let's put the numbers in perspective. The Truman Foundation is receiving a lot of attention today, but students aren't struggling because of the Truman Scholarship. They're struggling because Congress passed a law that gutted Pell, slashed student aid, and weakened the support systems that help low-income and first-generation students stay enrolled. And while we debate a scholarship program that has supported public service for nearly 50 years, we're watching in real time the federal government dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. The Trump administration has laid off nearly half of the department's workforce, it's canceled and withheld billions in grants, and it's signed interagency agreements to move critical functions, including the entire Office of Postsecondary Education, out of the department altogether. Well, that's not reform. That is a retreat from our responsibility to students. So let me turn to our witnesses. Ms. Harrington, the Truman Foundation could receive roughly $30 million in federal support over 10 years, but H.R. 1, which my colleagues supported, cut $284 billion from education over that same period. So can you speak to the relative importance of that $30 million compared to the scale of the $284 billion in cuts? And what does that difference mean for students, for institutions, for the future of federal support for higher education?

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

Absolutely. It's a drop in the bucket. The billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of dollars that we spend every year, the hundreds of billions of dollars that are going to be cut because of this bill are going to, those cuts are going to fall directly on students, families, and institutions. Students are going to have to make hard decisions about whether they can go to college, stay in college. Folks are going to have to make hard decisions about how they're going to manage their student loans with the debt that they currently have. Parents are going to have to make hard decisions about whether they can afford to send their kids to school. Schools are going to have to make hard decisions about what programs they are able to keep, but some of them, whether they're even able to stay open with these changes. We should be very concerned. We know that there's an affordability crisis in higher education. We know that there's a student debt crisis and that is disproportionately burdening families of color, low-income students, veterans, women, all the folks who are disproportionately harmed when we make these huge cuts. This bill doesn't make life easier or make higher education more accessible for any of these communities. It puts it further out of reach.

Ranking Member Alma Adams (D-NC)SPEAKER_00

So thank you. And my colleagues have talked a lot about eliminating the Department of Education, but I'm not sure the American people understand what the department actually does for students. So let me ask: Can you tell us what the Department of Education does for college students, for institutions of higher education? And can you talk about the negative impact that these layoffs, grant cancellations, interagency transfers have already had, especially on campuses trying to serve students? And how will the continuing dismantling of the department affect our most vulnerable students—low-income students, first-generation students, and students of color?

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

The Department of Education was created by statute by Congress, and one of its most important functions is that it protects the civil rights of students. Students are able, if they are being discriminated against on their campus, in their school district, anywhere, to to file complaints and to have that investigated by OCR, the Office for Civil Rights. But right now, because that department has been gutted, and that office specifically, thousands of complaints are going unanswered. Folks don't have a response. Last year alone, there were 23,000 complaints made to the Office for Civil Rights. Many of them are still open. Folks have submitted complaints this year. There is no continuity. They have no idea who their case officer is. There is no idea for next steps. And that impacts the schools and institutions as well. Many of them are waiting for guidance on what to do next. They're waiting on guidance on how to handle this. They're trying to do the right thing, but they don't even have anyone they can contact at the department.

Ranking Member Alma Adams (D-NC)SPEAKER_00

So let me ask you about the dismantling of this department and the transfer or elimination of core programs and how it affects HBCUs' ability to serve their students and strengthen their campuses and continue their mission.

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

Anytime we try to move broad swaths of a program, we saw this already with the transfer of the Office of Career and Technical Education, there were disruptions in funding, disruptions in the system. All of this takes time to implement. It's not something that can be done overnight. We see this moving to departments where they don't have the expertise, the resources, the years of experience with these programs. And so there are going to be funding disruptions, and that will be most felt by the schools that are most under-resourced. Thank you.

Ranking Member Alma Adams (D-NC)SPEAKER_00

very much, Mr. Chairman i yield back.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. I'd like to now recognize my friend from New York, Ms. Stefanik, who was actually a former member, a board member of Truman.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)SPEAKER_15

Thank you so much, Chairman Owens. Thank you for the witnesses for being here today. I've been tracking these issues quite closely and your work for some time, and most recently as a sitting board member of the foundation, and the first board meeting will be right after this hearing in about 5 minutes. I sent a letter to my fellow board members on May 28th of this year, raising serious concerns regarding the ideological bias and impartiality of the scholarship selection process. So, I have a few questions for some of the witnesses. Mr. Kissel, based on your work examining ideological issues in higher education, what are the inherent risks to a congressionally established scholarship program like the Truman Foundation when public reporting suggests its selection process may be prioritizing ideological alignment over the merits of leadership and public service?

Mr. Adam KisselSPEAKER_09

Thank you for the question. Every government body can easily be captured by politics and ideology. Non-governmental bodies can as well. But the problem is especially acute for organizations like the Truman Program, where the members of the foundation are political members.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)SPEAKER_15

Thank you. Ms. Kabbany, do you believe that the foundation's current lack of transparency in its selection criteria and the makeup of its selection committees make it vulnerable to political and social activism rather than those committed to broad, nonpartisan public service?

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)SPEAKER_15

Thank you. Dr. Hess, I have questioned the will and commitment of the foundation's board to maintaining ideological neutrality. What specific actions or policy changes should the board and the foundation immediately implement to restore public trust and demonstrate a genuine commitment to political and ideological neutrality in their selections?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

It's a great question. Look, and it's important for folks to understand why this matters so much. The Truman Fellowship exists as a model of how we want to encourage young Americans to engage in public service. We want young leaders who can model the breadth of good-faith disagreement in this country, who can bridge divides, who can lead us forward. We cannot do this if half of the nation is not is not at the table. So what kinds of changes are necessary? One, look, the Truman Program ought to understand its primary mission as making sure it is inviting all Americans to the table. It needs to recruit aggressively on campuses where it is not currently getting submissions. It needs to make sure it is reaching out to networks it may not have already tapped. There needs to be public transparency and scrutiny about the processes. Right now, the regional review boards, if you survey—as the chairman mentioned, if you survey the make up of the judges, it's pretty clear that there's a heavy ideological tilt. That needs to be addressed. There need to be clear guidelines on the kinds of questions that should and should not be asked in the interview process. Really, what we need is somebody to approach this with the primary goal of reassuring all Americans, all students, all professors, that we are trying to create a heterodox, inclusive community of scholars who can lead us forward, rather than one that happens to be responsive to orthodoxy on campus.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY)SPEAKER_15

Well, thank you. That's one of my missions and one of the reasons that I requested for this position on the board, and I've been deeply concerned. One of the most egregious examples is there was a 2025 Truman Scholar who publicly espoused support for Hamas, a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization. As you know, I've been a leader in combating antisemitism in the higher education space, and we need to address this rise of antisemitism with some of the recipients of the Truman Scholarship Program. So thank you very much. Look forward to working with you to try to implement many of these policy reforms, and I yield back.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. I'd like now to recognize my friend from Georgia, Ms. McBath.

Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA)SPEAKER_12

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being with us today. I've already read your testimonies. Ms. Harrington, my father was president of the Illinois branch NAACP for over 20 years in Chicago, in Illinois, at the height of the civil rights movement. And I'm so glad to see you here today to continue the important work to help this country actually live up to its promise of liberty and justice for all people. That promise, despite being the culminating line of our Pledge of Allegiance, despite being recited by members of Congress in classrooms around the country every single day, is one that is increasingly under attack by my Republican colleagues in Congress and the White House. Time and time again, Republicans attempt to demonize programs that make people's lives better as politically biased, because they simply don't believe them to be an important role of our government. It isn't about evaluating these programs on their merits or the benefit that they provide. It's about trying to fulfill their narrow view of what the role of our Federal Government should be. It's about propping up the idea that their way of thinking is the only acceptable one, regardless of the outcomes of the policies that they support. They're so focused on those goals that they fail to see the benefits that the work of these scholars and other public servants provides to our country and actually for the world. It's why this administration would rather pay money to set food on fire and destroy it than to see it end up in the hands of hungry women and children. Wanting to represent your country on the largest stage in the, in order to share how your work makes this country a better place is not a progressive ideal. It's a uniquely American one. Wanting to lead in spaces like human rights, wanting to eradicate poverty at home and abroad so that all those that are made in God's image can live a decent and fulfilling life—these are not progressive or partisan ideals. These are the things that make millions of Americans take real pride in their lives every single day. It's what is supposed to make this country so special and better than others like it. It isn't just about where you were born or where you live. It's about what your country stands for, whether it's really fighting for the ideals or just talking about them out of convenience. Ms. Harrington, as you know, the Truman Foundation requires scholars to take a job in public service for at least 3 of the 7 years after their studies. This suggests the idea that the scholarship's focus on public service itself is the source of the misguided opinion that a disproportionate share of Truman Scholars are progressive. Can you please talk about how conservative attacks on the importance and the benefits of public service play a role in the makeup of Truman Scholarship recipients? And if you can do so quickly, I have such short time.

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

I think this is just an attack on, on dissent, and, and public service should have no ideology, as you mentioned. Um, and so with bipartisan, bipartisan Board of Trustees, bipartisan selection committee, bipartisan selection committee, this is— this— they have created a program that values people who are interested in public service, period. It's not about partisan identity, but they're also trying to do an attack on public service and dissent so that they can also impact the services that are provided by these entities. Right. And the communities that are impacted by these services. And so it's an idea of not just attacking the beliefs and ideologies, but what the— what hap— what, what organizations, governments can do for the communities they serve.

Rep. Lucy McBath (D-GA)SPEAKER_12

Thank you. So this is clearly just another episode of selective outrage over the use of public dollars. So let's put this in perspective. We are having a hearing today over an annual appropriation that's made by Congress of just $3 million. Just 3 million. An appropriation supported by Congress and signed into law by the president. President Trump just sent $20 billion, and that's billion with a B, to help his political allies in Argentina win a foreign election. And the Republican majority will not condemn that as a misuse of public funds. I don't believe any committee or subcommittee has had a hearing on that. Instead, we're using the people's time to examine $3 million specifically dedicated to scholarships meant for people trying to make this country a better and safer place to live. I don't believe this is a good use of this subcommittee or any subcommittee's time, and I hope that we recommit ourselves to real issues that have a positive impact on Americans' everyday lives. And I yield.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. And I'd like to recognize my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

Thank you very much. Ms. Kabbany, I found your testimony very interesting, particularly interesting given this is a public program. You mentioned that the people who run the program kind of scrubbed some information that you wanted and you couldn't really get all the information you wanted to adequately do the study. Could you comment on that a little bit and perhaps why the people who run the run the Truman Foundation want to hide things from Congress and the public?

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

Okay, kind of that contempt for for the public. Okay, other couple comments. As far as the Argentina thing, I don't mean to get into that, but I believe it was a currency swap. It wasn't a guest, and at least as of a couple months ago, the US was ahead of the game in that. Do you guys know—one of you mentioned the already ideological bias that conservatives have to put up with from the faculty of the universities around the country. I think one of you threw out, but I'd like to repeat, what are the percentage of faculty in this country, particularly liberal arts faculty, that are kind of of the progressive bent?

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

Okay. Ms. Harrington, when she talked, she mentioned that DEI was mentioned as a favorable thing. Is anybody familiar with where the DEI philosophy came from or familiar with Christopher Rufo's writings? You want to elaborate a little on who came up with DEI and what their ultimate goal is?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

Critical theory started as a school of literary thought more than half a century ago. It was brought into particularly law as a way of pushing back on some of the assumptions of the US Constitution and of established federal law and state law.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

What is the goal of labeling people by where their ancestors come from? From? Why is this so obsessed over today?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

You know, I mean, I think there are obviously 2 schools of thought when it comes to equality. One is that Americans need to be equal under the law. A second is a philosophy of equity.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

We'll give Jennifer one more question. What pushback has there been against the left turn from the Truman Foundation? Has there been pushback?

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

Okay, Ms. Harrington, you want diversity. The country right now is about one-half Republican, one-half Democrat, about. Do you think it'd be a good goal for the Truman Foundation to have approximately one-half of their recipients more of a conservative bent and one-half more of a progressive bent?

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

I think the best goal for all programs, and particularly for this committee to focus on, is ensuring that we are taking down barriers and improving access for all. And that is the point of diversity, equity, inclusion, and access programs, which are help— which helps universities and will help this and will help institutions actually comply with their civil rights obligations and ensure that they're providing equal opportunity. So this is about taking down barriers and not continuing to put barriers up.

Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI)SPEAKER_02

We know who the barriers are against, but in any event, thank you.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. I'd like now— excuse my— I have my And now it's my friend from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)SPEAKER_14

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. I have to say, it's pretty disappointing and also pretty tone-deaf for the majority to use this committee's valuable time to talk about this politicized issue. I have been on this committee for more than a dozen years, and, Dr. Hess just talked about bridging divides, I can't remember a hearing that hasn't that has felt more divisive than this with these labels: left, right, conservative, liberal. My constituents back home aren't looking at labels. They want us to fix problems. They don't want us to label each other and label ideologies. And I have to say that Republicans want to talk about this scholarship program, but what we should be talking about is how we make higher education more affordable and accessible. We got the big ugly bill that wiped out federal support for student aid, the final rule on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program now is subjecting public service workers to unfair political litmus tests and unnecessary limits on loan forgiveness. Let's talk about that. The administration is doing everything it can to undermine and shut down the Department of Education and the programs it administers that help students like TRIO and GEAR UP. Let's talk about the harmful and nonsensical declaration by the Trump administration that certain fields of study, including nursing, are no longer professional. Now it's going to make it harder for people to enter into this necessary and honorable work. And last week, the Department of Education announced another six interagency agreements are going to move several core functions to other agencies that are unequipped and underfunded and don't have the staff to operate these programs. This includes everything in the Office of Postsecondary Education, which administers critical higher education grant programs and technical assistance. And I want to ask you, Ms. Harrington, what's the role of the Office of Postsecondary Education in implementing higher education policy and overseeing student-centered grant programs? And what's at stake if students and colleges aren't able to access those services provided by the Office of Postsecondary Education in a timely manner?

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

It will be incredibly— it could be catastrophic. Their role is to not just determine who, who, how grants are awarded, to determine the, the qualifications. They work directly with institutions to implement the programs. They work directly with institutions to answer questions, to make sure that the programs are operating effectively, that they're getting to the students that they're supposed to get to, and evaluating their programs. So if you move them to another department that has no experience and doesn't have the staff to do this, then you're going to directly impact those institutions and their ability to carry out the programs and the students that relied on those programs. Which

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)SPEAKER_14

is just closing the doors of opportunity to many. And Ms. Harrington, I trust we can agree that public service workers, like teachers, nurses, first responders, service members, those are critical jobs despite the low wages and understaffing. So the new Public Service Loan Forgiveness rule will continue the Trump administration's legacy of abandoning public service workers by allowing the Secretary to determine who's eligible for Public Service Loan Forgiveness based on political ideology, which is not what the country expects or needs. Public service workers deserve transparency in a system that works for them. So with that in mind, how will the new final rule on Public Service Loan Forgiveness affect the ability of public service workers to remain in their roles and achieve meaningful debt relief, and will it reduce the number of nurses, for example, that will help maintain our healthcare system? And if you could be brief, because I have another question for Dr. Hess.

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

Definitely, it's going to determine if we—if folks can—if the Trump administration can take away status as being a PSLF employer, that means fewer folks are going to be able to go into those industries, go into those organizations, and that has direct impact on communities.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)SPEAKER_14

Thank you very much. Dr. Hess, I just have a couple of yes-or-no questions. You wrote an article called "Do the Rhodes and Truman Scholarships Have Any Room for the Right?", and you wrote that with a Mr. Joe Pitts. Is that correct?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

Correct.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)SPEAKER_14

And does Mr. Joe Pitts identify as a conservative?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

I believe so.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)SPEAKER_14

Is it correct that Joe Pitts was a Truman Scholar nominee who did not get a scholarship?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

I believe so.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)SPEAKER_14

And was that fact disclosed in the article that you wrote?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

I don't believe so.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)SPEAKER_14

And you don't think it would be helpful for people reading that article to know that there was a disgruntled Truman scholar who was participating in the report? You don't think that would be helpful for them to know?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

It didn't seem material to me.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)SPEAKER_14

Okay. In your May 2025 op-ed called The Truman Foundation Must Embrace Civic Seriousness, you were the sole author of that, I understand. But at one point you quote an unnamed recent Truman finalist. Was that finalist you quote, but did not name, Mr. Pitts?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

No.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)SPEAKER_14

Okay, I just wanted to clarify that. I submit that many people would be interested in knowing that there was a—it was a disgruntled Truman nominee who did not get the scholarship who participated in the report. I think that's important information. And I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. I'd like to recognize my friend from Guam, Mr. Moylan.

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_04

Thank you, Chairman Owens and Ranking Member Adams. Thanks for hosting today's important hearing on Truman Scholarship Program, and since its inception, the program has provided critical financial support for students in the territories, including 27 scholars from Guam, 22 of which were from the University of Guam, which coincidentally established when Harry Truman was president. And the program has also supported an additional 75 students from the other territories and commonwealths. In comparison, other public service scholarships like Rhodes, Marshall, and Fulbright select far fewer, if any, awardees from the territories. Now, while college affordability is a problem everywhere, higher education costs and geographic barriers mean that it is especially challenging for students from Guam to access higher education. Receiving the Truman Scholarship can and has been transformational for students who receive it. So that is why I'm concerned to hear instances of political bias in federally funded program. This is the type of behavior that can threaten the program's long-term sustainability, and we must ensure that it is being administered fairly without regard for political affiliation, ensuring students across the political spectrum have a chance to succeed. So Ms. Kabbany, conservative students may be less likely to pursue degrees in social science and more likely to pursue degrees in things like business, criminal justice, engineering, fields that aren't typically associated with the traditional public service. From what I heard, the scholarship program can sometimes have limited outreach to programs that tend to have conservative students in them. What reforms can be made to ensure broader outreach and therefore greater intellectual and political diversity?

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_04

Thank you, Mr. Hess. In your testimony, you touched on political bias problem with a specific focus on the awardees' political leanings. This seems to also indicate that there could be bias in some of the panels selecting finalists and winners. You mentioned this briefly in your written testimony, but did you also do research into political leaning of these panels? If so, what did you find?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

I have not delved deeply into the makeup of the regional review boards. If one looks at the publicly available names and tries to identify their ideological leanings, it's roughly 4-to-1, left to right. I think it's useful to understand I've had a number of former Truman fellows and Truman board members reach out over the last year or so since I wrote this. And one former Truman board member explained that when this question comes up of why there are not more right-leaning folks involved in the program, there generally are two responses, he indicated. One was that, look, Republicans and conservatives just aren't interested in public service. That's why they're not here. They just don't want to be here. And the second is conservatives and Republicans are just not as academically accomplished. They're just not as credentialed. So they are losing out in a merit-based competition. Personally, having been a teacher, a professor, and a scholar at AEI for decades, I have not found either of those defenses to ring true.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Oh,

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_04

one last thing as a follow-up also. What steps might Congress be able to take to ensure balanced and fair representation on these review and award panels?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

Honestly, I'm less concerned about representation than I am about fairness and merit. For instance, of the 182 awardees in the— between 2021 and 2023, just 4 looked at cybersecurity and technology. This says to me that the priorities of what judges are looking for and asking about are askew. And so I think what we need is careful scrutiny to ensure that it is public service in the national interest with an eye to forging inclusive, healthy conversation.

Rep. James Moylan (R-GU)SPEAKER_04

Thank you very much to the panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You go back.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. I'd like to recognize my friend from from Arizona, grijalva.

Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ)SPEAKER_10

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm deeply frustrated that we're sitting in this committee room listening to Republicans recite the same culture war talking points instead of discussing how we can address college affordability and that crisis. This year, congressional Republicans slashed over $300 billion in federal student aid on top of cuts to Medicaid and SNAP, all to give billionaires a permanent tax break. As a member on the Education and Workforce Committee, I'm disappointed that my Republican colleagues choose to spend taxpayer dollars this way rather than reinvesting in our higher education system to lower student costs. Ms. Harrington, what message are congressional Republicans and the Trump administration sending to students and families and colleges by diverting over $300 billion from students towards tax cuts for the ultra-rich?

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

The concern is that they are not concerned about equal opportunity for all, that they're putting the folks who need it most against the wealthiest of Americans. If folks can never go to college, they'll never be able to apply for a Truman Scholarship anyway. So the real focus should be on how we expand affordability across the board.

Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ)SPEAKER_10

Yeah, I think this hearing is really part of an ideological agenda, taking a quote from Dr. Hess introduction speech. I have a concern in Arizona's CD-7. We have a lot of rural communities. Rural students and local colleges are already facing shrinking resources and limited access to higher education. The Big, Ugly Law worsens these challenges by making college less affordable and undermining the institutions that serve as economic anchors in rural areas. Many of the policy changes in this law deepen educational and workforce disparities, pushing rural communities further behind. I think those communities in my district in Southern Arizona like Douglas, Nogales, Ajo, Somerton, and San Luis that are affected as a direct result of these policies. With communities like this in mind, Ms. Harrington, how do the changes to the student loan program and Pell eligibility in the Big, Ugly Law harm rural communities, and what unique challenges do rural students and colleges face?

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

It puts it— it puts college even further out of reach if they have fewer resources to go to school. The institutions themselves have fewer resources to provide services. And in rural communities, oftentimes these institutions, just like many others, are the drivers of that economy as well. And so if these institutions are struggling, the entire community struggles, and that will have ripple effects across that community.

Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ)SPEAKER_10

Thank you. Ms. Kabbany, you mentioned left-leaning careers when you were talking about the kinds of your assessment. I'm wondering if an immigration attorney would be considered a left or right-leaning career.

Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ)SPEAKER_10

Okay. And what about a public school teacher teaching in an urban public school setting? Would that be a left-leaning or right-leaning career?

Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ)SPEAKER_10

I'm just really curious about how, we're having a lot of big numbers and discussing what this looks like for all of the Truman Scholars, who's being selected, and knowing personally a Truman Scholar, understanding the transformative nature of this scholarship. I think it's really important for us to get through what this process looks like and that on every college campus it's competitive. It's competitive. And so to suggest that because someone is interested in a career when you look at them after having all the education that they've collected, I think that it's important for us to see that these opportunities that we have in these spaces really influence people. And maybe they started out with one career in mind and ended up with another one. And so I'm very concerned about how we're categorizing a left-leaning and a right-leaning career. If you're a member of Congress, it shouldn't be either one, right? That should just be—it is what it is. So I want to thank you all for your time here. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. I'd like to recognize my friend from North Carolina, Mr. Harris.

Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC)SPEAKER_05

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all of you serving on the panel today. Apologize for being in and out, but other hearings taking place in other committees. I did have the pleasure of reading your testimonies and knowing what you have shared, and have a couple of questions that I want to just address. Ms. Kabbany, you mentioned that the Truman Program spawns 35 Democratic jobs for every one Republican job. That number was simply stunning to me. Could could you say more about why we should all, regardless of our political party, find that number so concerning?

Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC)SPEAKER_05

Gotcha. And, Mr. Kissel, you mentioned that one source of bias is the sample responses the Truman Foundation posts on its website, and you mentioned that two of the examples of, quote, substandard responses involved an applicant interested in military history and a Christian who is interested in serving in the military. Now, you mentioned this in your testimony, but does the website list any positive examples you found of Christian or military-focused applicants?

Mr. Adam KisselSPEAKER_09

Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, there are zero examples of such people who are considered to have had a successful application?

Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC)SPEAKER_05

Uh, okay. Well, listen, today we're talking about a federally funded scholarship program for graduate degrees that honors the legacy of President Harry Truman. But, in fact, I don't know if any of the witnesses, or if it's even been mentioned earlier today, know what school President Truman graduated from. And the answer is he didn't. This program was created to honor President Harry Truman, a man who left college after one semester and never earned a degree, yet went on to become president. So, it's deeply ironic to me that taxpayers who also never attended college, just like Truman himself, are now forced to fund elite postgraduate degrees for a handpicked few. In my opinion, the federal government has no business running a scholarship program at all. And with our national debt over $38 trillion, which I just left a hearing where that conversation was being discussed, we literally cannot afford these luxury academic subsidies. In 2024, taxpayers spent $3 million to send about 60 people to graduate school through the Truman Scholarship. And the federal government should not be making decisions about which students are the best or the most promising, nor should it be using taxpayer dollars to shape the future leadership class through targeted scholarship programs. This is not the role envisioned by our founders, nor is it—we find it well outside our Constitution's limits. I don't fault any of the students. I certainly don't fault the alumni who've taken advantage of this program, because if the government offers free money, people will understandably accept it, but that does not make the program wise, nor does it make it justified. It simply means it is time for Congress to stop the gravy train. At a time when our nation is drowning in debt, every dollar must be scrutinized. The American people are calling for every dollar to be scrutinized, and for this reason, I believe we should no longer fund this program. And today's hearing, I think, if anything else, has exposed the liberal bias within the program, adding just one more reason we should not spend any more money on it. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you so much. I'd like to now recognize my friend from California, Mr. DeSaulnier.

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)SPEAKER_07

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses. I represent a district in the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area, right next to the University of California at Berkeley, and we've had a long history of these type of issues. I remember Prop 209 almost 30 years ago. The university system has always embraced the public university system, CSU and UC, diversity, but it's also based on merit. And just in terms of return on investment, there's—we have lots of numbers in California with the return on investment for everybody. So the idea of merit-based but ignoring the fact that not everyone starts at the same place. Ms. Harrington, in that regard, we've had lots of challenges at UC in the system and at CSU, but particularly Berkeley. Having just gone there for a football game, Mr. Chairman, where Berkeley upset SMU, trying to protect this but also doing it. We have history in California is my point. And of course the stereotype is, particularly for Berkeley, and we just went through this with UCLA, from the administration is that it's left-leaning. But the reality is we've had a long time dealing with civil rights issues, not just for Truman, but for everything. So Ms. Harrington, in this particular program first, how does this continued erosion just deal with the reality that the taxpayers get a lot of value out of getting people from these communities protected and getting them a bachelor's degree or a graduate degree?

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

I think the Truman Scholarship—Truman Scholars are selected by bipartisan groups of individuals. They really seek to pick people based on their commitment to public service. This is not a question of ideological bias. And so the idea is that folks who are going to contribute, who want to give back to the entire community, to the public, to the society, is very, very important. And the goal is to take down barriers, not to put up more.

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)SPEAKER_07

But a lot of the folks that would be targeted, from my perspective, in what the administration is doing, the value to the taxpayers is enormous of getting people high degrees in every group, but particularly protected classes.

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

Absolutely. We all benefit when fewer barriers are erected, when more folks have access, when we don't leave talent on the table. The entire society benefits. There have been numerous studies that by not doing something about these barriers, by keeping people out of post-secondary education, by keeping them out of employment opportunities, for instance, we lose trillions of dollars to our economy, actually. And so we all benefit, both in terms of real dollars but also in terms of the society that we're trying to create.

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)SPEAKER_07

And just in, in in general, young people go in to get a bachelor's degree to be special ed teachers. We need— now, they're not part of this right now, but moving that out of the Department of Education, which has been proposed as well, is there is a level of expertise in getting diverse groups, irrespective of their ideology, and different perspectives in society, poverty, but also specific needs in our education system. So could you briefly talk about that? When we lose these revenue sources so people can compete for them, irrespective of their political ideologies, that's just another barrier for getting a return on investment. And I constantly think of— separate subject, but having spent a lot of this as the ranking member of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Commission— the president's budget wants to cut NIH, even though return on investment for the National Institutes of Health are almost $3 for every dollar taxpayers put into this. So that's sort of where I'm getting in this question line with you is we get value out of the Truman Scholarship, just like Harry Truman would want, I would think.

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

I think so. And I think, uh, the bigger issue is that we also get value out of creating more opportunities for more folks. And so while we sit here focusing on this one scholarship, we should be thinking bigger picture. We should be thinking about how we create opportunities across the board so that we can increase that value.

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)SPEAKER_07

And it certainly seems targeted at a particular group or groups of Americans, this overall initiative that Truman is just a part of. I would I would think that the NAACP would feel that way, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

I think we believe in the value of public service, and so we support making sure that there are pathways for folks to go into public service, whether it be through the Truman Scholarship, through other programs. Folks who are just trying to go through grad school with regular federal student loans, regular federal grants, who have to navigate this complex system, this more expensive system that's being created by this big beautiful bill. And so what we are concerned about is how we make sure that more pathways are being created and not focusing on trying to close one small pathway.

Rep. Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA)SPEAKER_07

Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. And I'd like to recognize chairman of the full committee, Chairman Walberg.

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this hearing. I think the answer why we're looking at one specific issue today, one specific entity, is it's just illustrative of so much that goes on that we definitely ought to have concern about. That monolithic entity called the US Department of Education has failed, failed, failed. And all that is surrounding that, we're starting to find there's a lot of cancer in the system. And today, as we talk about liberal bias versus conservative bias, I think even more importantly, we're seeing a bias in opposition to the American idea. That isn't liberal or conservative, it's American, that certainly speaks to merit and all the rest that goes with it. Dr. Hess and the rest of the panel, thank you for being here. But let me ask you, I want to talk about the Truman Foundation's response to your research. Thank you for that research. After you found liberal winners outnumbered conservatives 12 to 1, the Truman Foundation responded by hiding the evidence. That never works too well. Can you talk more about what they hid and why that makes it more difficult to replicate your study?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much for the question, sir. What's so frustrating about their response is they said nothing to see here, and then they made sure that nobody could see anything. So, what they did is, for as long as I've been aware, certainly for a number of years, at least to 2015, they have routinely had bios of Truman Fellows on the website, intended primarily to show off these folks. What Joe Pitts and I did was we said, all right, let's just look at what these people are studying. Let's not talk about their politics. Let's talk about what they're studying and whether it seems reflective of the kinds of issues that are important to this country and that reflect the broad swath of views and values of American college students and of the American taxpaying and voting public. They removed those. They also then went ahead and hid past press releases bragging about the winners so that only those with a Truman account can actually go back and look at this. So then, when they complain about the nature of the study, they complain about the study at the same time they've made it impossible for anybody to actually assess the virtue.

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Yeah, except those they want to see the system. Okay, thank you. Ms. Kabbany, you mentioned that the Truman Foundation selects students from almost every state. Why has that practice failed to ensure that conservative students get a fair chance?

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Yeah. Yeah. And certainly it doesn't even come close to, in many states, the percentage of the makeup of the congressional delegation as well. And we're not asking for that, but we're asking for a fair approach to it. Thank you. Mr. Kissel, one downstream effect of Truman bias is that students at universities considered right-leaning are effectively disqualified, at least it appears, from competing for the award. You touched on this in your testimony, but in history, how many Truman winners have come from colleges such as, in my district, Hillsdale College or Liberty University or Patrick Henry College?

Mr. Adam KisselSPEAKER_09

Thank you for the question. Out of the entire history of the Truman Scholarship Program, only one out of any of those universities you mentioned, one from Hillsdale, has won a Truman Scholarship, zero from the others. And if you look at right-leaning or faith-based institutions, it's an extremely, extremely small number.

Full Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI)SPEAKER_06

Okay, thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. And now I recognize my friend from Virginia, ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Scott.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we heard one of the reasons we have the budget out of whack is we had one of our colleagues just complain about this $3 million expenditure while saying nothing about his vote that increased the debt by $3.5 trillion. $3.5 trillion.

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

I

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

And you round off the $3.5 trillion, you round off to the nearest $100 billion, and he's complaining like $3 billion this $3 billion expenditure is affecting the future of the budget. Mr. Kissel, you mentioned the colleges that didn't get any Truman Scholars. How many colleges are there, and how many of them, how many others had no Truman Scholars?

Mr. Adam KisselSPEAKER_09

I appreciate the question. I think there's something like, if you include community colleges and every accredited institution, somewhere around 6,000. 4,000 that might have names that anyone would recognize and then 2,000 others that are also accredited. So when there's only 50 per— 55, 57, uh, per— in the country per year, most institutions will not have any.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

So 99% won't have any,

Mr. Adam KisselSPEAKER_09

right? It's the— it's the more the elite institutions that get them, and those are the ones that skew most to the left.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

99% won't get any if they're randomly distributed. Um, Mr. Hess, did you study any other fellowship programs to see if they have this kind of bias?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

The Rhodes Scholarship, sir.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

And what did you find there?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

Similar findings, sir.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

Similar finding?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

Yes, sir.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

Well, you consider left-leaning if you have an interest in racial justice.

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

That's right. DEI in particular was coded as

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

racial justice. That's not a universal kind of idea, but that's a left-leaning disqualifying fact. Do you need to balance that off with people that oppose racial justice?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

No, sir. It was a priority. For instance, religious liberty tends to be coded as right-leaning, sir.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

Religious liberty. Now, by religious liberty, do you. You mean like charitable choice that allows grantees of federal contracts to discriminate based on religion, so that if you have a federal contract, if a religious organization has a federal contract, they can have a policy that we don't hire Catholics, Jews, and Muslims?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

No, I mean that in the biographies of the Truman Fellows, when they describe their research interest as related to advancing religious liberty—

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

that's what I mean by religious liberty. That's the conservative position on charitable choice. Did you allow discrimination based on religion?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

None of the Truman Fellow bios got into the question of at that level of specificity.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

Okay. Climate change is a left-leaning idea, is that right?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

That's how we coded it, sir, that's right.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

Okay, now how many college students fail to recognize the scientific fact of climate change?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

I

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

don't know. What portion of college faculty can— prospective college faculty can get hired if they say they don't believe in science?

SPEAKER_UNKNOWN

Yes.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

Not many. Let me ask Ms. Harrington a couple of questions. In terms of access to education, you've said a lot about what that big ugly bill did. Just generally, what does that do to access to education?

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

Puts it further out of reach. It makes college more expensive, more inaccessible, and it makes it harder for people to go and to stay and to stay stay in repayment, in positive repayment, once they get, once they get out of college, if they're able to go.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

And what about medical school in particular?

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

It's going to put it out of reach for many students of color. And so we're going to have a dearth of Black and brown doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, all because of these caps that are made and the lack of investment put back into these, into these professions and communities.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

Are you familiar with what the Department of Education is trying to do with the Public Service Loan Forgiveness in terms of eligibility based on ideology?

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

Yes, sir.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

And how does that— how does that work?

Ms. Ashley HarringtonSPEAKER_11

It has the same chilling effect in terms of which folks are able to go into these professions and whether they're going to be able to stay in them, and then what these— what services these organizations will be able to provide.

Full Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA)SPEAKER_13

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. I would now like to recognize my friend from Missouri, Mr. Onder.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_03

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. When Congress established the Truman Scholarship, it made this finding: Because of the desirability of encouraging young people to recognize that political— and provide service in the highest and best traditions of the American political system at all levels of government, it is especially appropriate to honor former President Harry S. Truman through through the creation of a perpetual education scholarship program to develop increased opportunities for young Americans to pursue and prepare careers in public service. Congress did not say left-wing students, did not say students interested in climate change or DEI. It said to prepare and pursue careers in public service, and I think that should include all students, left, right, and center. But we've got to ask ourselves today, is the Truman Scholarship encouraging young people to participate in public service at the highest levels, or at least equally? And I think, unfortunately, the answer is no. The program only encourages some young people to serve the public. Mr. Hess, as you mentioned in your testimony, over the past 10 years, Truman Scholars pursuing careers in left-wing politics outnumbered those pursuing conservative politics at a 56:1 ratio. That speaks for itself. I mean, prima facie, I looked at this testimony preparing for this hearing, and I just said, Okay, we just need to get rid of this damn thing. We just need to get rid of it. It's irredeemable. Whenever there's a pot of money, the left manages to get in there and take it over. And this Truman Scholarship—and I'm from Missouri. I have an affection for Harry Truman—is it's just one more example of that happening. But I'm trying to be more positive today, Mr. Hess. So how how can we change the culture on college campuses to help conservative students feel like applying to the Truman Scholarship is worth their time? Because it seems part of the problem, at least, is that colleges are encouraging their left-wing students to apply or even that the colleges play a role in the recommendation process and they're just recommending the left-wing students and not the conservatives?

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

Yeah, it's a wonderful question. You know, one of the, one of the healthy developments on college campuses I think we're seeing as we come out of many of the excesses of identity politics of the last 5 or 10 years is there's an understanding that there's a difference between identity politics and wanting to ensure that everybody feels welcome.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_03

Amen.

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

included, so that we we see colleges taking more seriously: How do we reach out to folks who are not on campus? How do we recruit them, thinking about them as individuals and not as members of identity populations? That's what I would encourage Truman to do. How can it reach out to campuses that are not historically sending nominees forward? How can it reach out to faculty who may have felt frustrated or tuned out in the past? How can it, as Mr. Kissel suggested, take a look at its materials to ensure that they are inviting to Ameri— to young, talented Americans who are passionate about public service, regardless of their ideological priors? Those seem to me the kinds of steps that move us in a healthier direction.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_03

Very good. And, Ms. Kabbany, how can we change? Are there changes we need to make in the application and selection process to make sure this program is free of left-wing bias? Because it certainly seems that that's the case right now. Is it just a matter of changing personnel, or are there other structural changes we need to make here?

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_03

because another option is to zero it out.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_03

and as has been testified, they worked hard at making sure you didn't have the information so you could make those findings.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_03

No, I do as well. And as it occurs to me, Mr. Hess, the problem with the Truman Scholarship is not only that conservative students are being sidelined. I think a lot of our discussion is centered on that, but also that left-wing students are being given a leg up, a leg up as the farm club for the next generation of left-wing activists or left-wing politicians. That just seems antithetical to a free democratic society.

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

I think it does. I also think it represents something of a distortion of the mission of the Truman Fellowship. One of the points Congress made half a century ago in establishing the program was it recognized President Truman's commitment to national well-being, to national security. Well, if you look at the winners of Truman Fellowships today, they tend to be much more focused on current cultural advocacy. And you find remarkably few who are focused on cybersecurity, on national defense,

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_03

Sure.

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

So what's happening is part of the reason you're seeing this bias is because we're leaning away from the exact kinds of national imperatives that this program is supposed to cultivate.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_03

Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you. I'd like to recognize my friend from Florida, Mr. Fine.

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL)SPEAKER_08

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And And we've talked a lot in this hearing about the rise the left and the left's pernicious influence over this program. I'd like to talk about something that arguably is worse, and the Truman Fellowship's embrace of Muslim terror. I will not have any questions for Mr. Kissel, given his institution's views on antisemitism and its embrace of it, but I will have a couple of questions to Dr. Hess and Ms. Kabbany. Last year, a student at Harvard, who immediately after the worst day for Jews in the world since the Holocaust—1,200 were killed as thousands of Hamas terrorists and, to be clear, Gaza Arab civilians streamed across the border, engaged in a genocide to kill as many Jewish men, women, and children as they could find, a genocide that only stopped because the IDF repelled it several days later—a student at Harvard who embraced this and embraced Muslim terror was awarded one of these scholarships. I'm curious from either of you any insight you have, any description you can have, because this to me is beyond liberal bias. This is a flat-out embrace of Muslim terror and the fact that US taxpayer dollars are being used to fund it, fund terrorists. So I'm curious if either of you have any insight to share on this situation.

Dr. Frederick HessSPEAKER_17

What's more troubling is that this is not an isolated phenomenon. Shortly after the 2023 barbaric Hamas attacks on Israel, a letter was issued by winners of many prominent fellowships, Rhodes Scholars, Truman Scholars. If I There were hundreds of names affixed. If I recall right, it was about 55 or 57 Truman winners from the prior three years signed a letter lamenting Israeli genocide and calling on the need for the US to refuse to provide support for Israeli self-defense. No such letter, either denouncing or responding to the Hamas atrocities, was forthcoming from any of these individuals. So I think there absolutely is a pathology that we have seen on campus, much of it supported with foreign money, and we have seen it bleed into winners of these elite programs. And for a program established to honor President Truman with a primary goal to providing public service in the US national interest, it is an appalling state of affairs.

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL)SPEAKER_08

And I would note that President Truman was the person who recognized the state of Israel. Ms. Kabbany, do you have any thoughts on this?

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL)SPEAKER_08

Well, I can only give my view on this. I have zero desire to reform the Truman Fellowship. I'm not interested in borrowing $3 million from my children and grandchildren to give it to people who would like to kill them. So I believe that we should shut down the program and be done with it. So thank you all for being here, and I yield back my time.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you so much. We'll now move to closing remarks. I'd like to recognize Ms. Adams for her closing remarks.

Ranking Member Alma Adams (D-NC)SPEAKER_00

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses. Today's hearing could have been an opportunity to work together to tackle the real challenges facing students and families, but instead we've seen a partisan attempt to manufacture outrage over a respected scholarship program while ignoring the the growing crisis of college affordability and student debt. So let's not lose sight of what's at stake. The average cost of college has skyrocketed. Tens of millions of Americans are carrying student debt that impacts every aspect of their lives, from starting a family to saving for retirement. This burden falls heaviest on those already facing systemic inequality: women, first-generation students, and communities of color. And yet, instead of offering solutions, Republicans passed a big, ugly law, a policy that slashes financial aid, eliminates key protections, and increases monthly payments for most borrowers. All while the Trump administration is illegally dismantling the Department of Education, including the Office of Postsecondary Education. Together, these actions by Republicans make it harder to go to college, harder to stay in college, and harder to recover financially after graduation. Democrats are offering a better way forward. The Lowering Obstacles to Achievement Now—LOAN—this act would double Pell Grants, it would lower interest rates, and ensure student loan repayment is fair and manageable. It's a real plan to fix a real problem. The American people don't want political theater. They want us to lower costs, expand opportunity, and give every student a fair shot. And that's what we're fighting for. Thank you again to all of our witnesses. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT)SPEAKER_16

Thank you so much. Uh, this is a very insightful— I will say a very timely hearing. You know, as I was listening to the comments, there's 4 things that I, I wrote down that is very, very evident, evident as we look at it. One is, number one, our country is built on the concept of freedom of speech. That's who we are. We're that people that might disagree, but if we feel confident about ourselves, our education, we can have tough conversations knowing that in the long run, if we just work respectful and thoughtful, that we can bring somebody to our side. I also realize this: numbers don't lie. Number two, those numbers, whether it be 14 to 1 against conservatives or 56 to 1 depending on what's looked at, is very, very discriminatory. It says very simply that the Truman committee and this entire process is anti-conservative. 14 to 1 or 56 to 1 is not embracive. It's not bringing people into the process. And this has been a pipeline for Democrats, no question about it. So I think we have a problem here that is not— I don't think it's fixable. As we try to address it, try to have conversations, try to say, well, how can we come to this place of being fair, they change the goalposts. They go someplace else. But this is the way it will continue to work. We have something that I think is systemic. We need to— even though it's $3 million, I think it's part of its muscle memory. If we can stop wasting $3 million, we can figure out how to stop wasting 16 and 20 and 300 million. And we start here. This program is not working for our country. Our country works only when we have a diverse process of thinking, of backgrounds, and we see that's not happening right now. So I'm thankful, first of all, for this time we're having to have this conversation for the public to see it. I thank each and every one of you guys for your thoughts, your study, your commitment to our country, our commitment to fairness. And I think as we move forward, we have to figure out how to now, I think, end a program that's not working for America anymore. So with that, I'd like to thank our witnesses again for taking the time to testify before our subcommittee today. Without objection, there being no further business, the subcommittee stands adjourned.