Introduction
The damage to intervention systems on college campuses has caused a drastic decline in students’ mental health, exponentially heightening the demand for improved mental health services provided by universities. With increased pressure on college administrations, telehealth appointments—providing faster and wider access to care—have become more widely used within universities. While digital mental health services have decreased anxiety and depression in students, the gaps in continuous care caused by holidays and semester breaks impede this.
Thus, the College Students Continuation of Mental Health Care Act of 2025 was introduced to address such issues by requiring virtual mental health coverage for all students enrolled in participating institutions. The Act focuses on two core issues: geographic barriers and insurance. By allowing students to access treatment remotely and regardless of insurance status, this legislation guarantees the permanent and continuous care needed to prevent and de-escalate students’ mental health struggles. Despite the plan’s potential benefits, issues arise when it comes to students’ varying preferences for care and technological inaccessibility.
Arguments in Favor of the Act
Pro-telehealth arguments often highlight the success of online mental health services in boosting wellness in college students. A meta-analysis confirmed that digital mental health interventions have been linked to decreased severity in symptoms of anxiety and depression among college students. By removing financial and logistical impediments, the Act becomes more suitable than in-person methods for mental health care for students.
Advocates also praise the Act’s ability to heighten accessibility for student mental health services. Through telehealth, universities will eliminate the geographic barriers faced by students in rural areas, students with scheduling conflicts, and students without reliable transportation. Many students have to commute long distances to reach most in-person mental health providers, making telehealth support especially valuable—they are now able to access treatment wherever they are located.
Importantly, the Act allows students to continue receiving treatment throughout breaks, minimizing gaps in care. This is essential for college students, most of whom are at increased risk of worsening symptoms when treatment is interrupted during winter or summer breaks. By allowing providers to offer interstate telemental health services, supporters assert that the Act will close the current gap in university mental health systems.
Critiques of the Act
A primary concern is that virtual appointments may not be as high-quality or effective as traditional mental health care. Opponents often highlight how many studies show that participants prefer face-to-face services over digital ones. In a national survey, a large majority of students interviewed favored speaking to someone in person about their mental health concerns, claiming discomfort toward online methods for a multitude of reasons. For one, students who lack reliable technology or private spaces may struggle to engage fully in telehealth sessions. Many have shared concerns about privacy and confidentiality due to living with roommates or family.
Additionally, many argue that the inconsistent infrastructure across higher education poses a significant challenge. Not all colleges have the resources to successfully administer and support widespread telehealth services—especially those that are underfunded or understaffed. Smaller institutions and those with limited resources often experience a limited ability to offer virtual mental health services at no cost to all students. The implementation of digital mental health systems requires continued investment in human and financial resources, which may not be a possibility or priority for all institutions.
Finally, critics point out that mental health services often require a more complex level of intervention than standard screen-to-screen services can provide, arguing that telehealth cannot simply replicate and replace the benefits of in-person methods such as counseling, group therapy, and on-site crisis intervention. Campus counselors exist to aid students with concerns and critical issues, including suicidal ideation and trauma. Many believe that these services require intense and continuous support that goes beyond the scope of many telehealth designs.
Conclusion
Ultimately, advocates support that the College Students Continuation of Mental Health Care Act of 2025 is a beneficial step toward addressing the mental healthcare access crisis in higher education, praising its convenience and effectiveness as solutions to core issues. On the other hand, critics say its implementation needs to take into account the large preference for in-person treatment, as well as how the bill creates room for technological and confidentiality problems. Future policy work must focus on improving the varying infrastructures on college campuses while exploring other options that serve as a middle ground between in-person and digital methods.
Ensuring Care on Campus: Inside the College Student Continuation of Mental Health Care Act was originally published by the Alliance for Civic Engagement and is republished with permission.
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."