A snapshot of those affected by the defunding of Icetex / Opinion column by Catherine Juvinao

Icetex is currently experiencing one of the most severe crises in its recent history. Citing budgetary constraints, the government has cut its budget for 2025 by 70% and is moving forward with the gradual elimination of the interest rate subsidy on student loans. At the end of last year, we warned that this decision would impact 136,300 low-income young people , thus revealing a deeply regressive policy that ignores the rescue guidelines for the institution outlined in the "Colombia, a World Power for Life" Development Plan.

Today we know exactly who these 136,000 affected people are. In an official response to our request, Icetex confirmed that 99.4% of these young people belong to social classes 1, 2, and 3. Furthermore, their monthly fees have increased significantly: in many cases, the increase exceeds 40%. The economic blow is devastating: more than 14 billion pesos per month have been transferred to the pockets of students and their families. There are scandalous stories, such as that of a student whose monthly fee went from 3.3 million pesos to more than 6.1 million pesos. Another 423 users saw increases exceeding one million pesos.

Icetex has many shortcomings—those of us who were beneficiaries know this well—but it has also been an instrument of social mobility for millions of Colombians who, thanks to student loans, were able to study a degree, specialize, and build a professional and life plan. Now the government has turned these loans into a financial trap by unilaterally and without prior notice eliminating the tuition subsidy. First, it was young people in the repayment phase; now, nearly 97,700 students with current renewals for the second semester of 2025 have been added.

And the drama doesn't end there. In the first half of 2025, Icetex only granted 5,853 new loans, and for the second half of 2025, it projects 5,056. This represents an 80% drop compared to the historical average of 50,000 new loans per year. Furthermore, the institution closed its long-term credit line this year, leaving some 40,000 young people without financing options, who will now have to resort to the traditional financial market—or even the drip system. An incomprehensible abandonment of the promises of social justice by Colombia's first leftist government.

The hardest hit students come from private universities in historically excluded regions, such as the Caribbean and Pacific coasts of Colombia. Among the institutions with the highest average tuition increases are the University of Sinú, Cesa, the University of the Pacific, the Technological University of Bolívar, the University of the North, and the Simón Bolívar University. Among the most extreme cases are the Metropolitan University, the University of Manizales, the University of Boyacá, and the University of Santiago de Cali. In the first half of 2025 alone, 54,895 affected students belong to stratum 1, 58,226 to stratum 2, and 22,362 to stratum 3. By the end of this year, the total number of affected users will reach around 234,000.

Although the National Government claims fiscal difficulties, the decision to defund Icetex is ideological and based on a flawed premise: that the State should not allocate public resources to young people attending private universities , even if they are low-income students who, in a social state governed by the rule of law, should be subject to redistributive policies. Therefore, this position is not only legally questionable—as it contravenes Article 69 of the Constitution and Law 1911 of 2018, which requires subsidizing loan interest for low-income families—but also ethically unsustainable.

Is it fair to exclude young people from financial aid who, due to a lack of places at public universities, must study at private universities? Isn't this a double punishment for those who have already been marginalized by a system incapable of guaranteeing them access to education? Is the fundamental right to free choice being violated in a coeducational education system? What is the ethical framework for a government that discriminates against young people when their social reality doesn't fit within its dogmas?

It is urgent to strengthen public, free, inclusive, and quality education. That's why I also co-authored the bill to reform Law 30. But insisting on the false dilemma between public and private universities is foolish. The Constitution establishes a mixed system; we must expand public education without abandoning vulnerable young people who, out of necessity, attend private universities. And Gustavo Petro 's government must stop its erratic messages: no one understands why it is possible to extend the State's kind hand to those who threaten through criminality, but at the same time, honest young people who get up early to study are punished and mistreated.

Addendum: In the coming weeks, the House of Representatives will debate in plenary session the Icetex reform bill, which seeks, among other measures, to diversify its funding sources. We congressmen must deliver for young people and fulfill the promise that President Petro betrayed.