Sound Off Louisiana

President Donald J. Trump (photo courtesy of Shutterstock.com).

This feature is the third installment of our continuing coverage of the May 4, 2026 meeting of the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC).

Our first feature, published on May 11, 2026, focused on Board Member Jean Pitre’s near-panic plea for cosmetology schools to flood the U. S. Department of Education with reasons they contend that a “Gainful Employment” provision should be removed from an addition to President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill passed in 2025.  That provision establishes earnings accountability for students in order for students to qualify for Federal Pell Grant funding to pay for their cosmetology instruction.

Today’s feature focuses on comments received by the U. S. Department of Education and where the matter stands at present.  First, however, we want to provide a short video clip of Pitre’s admission of how small the number of hours that a cosmetology school graduate works is and the average earnings of those graduates.  Here’s Pitre’s commentary in a 32-second video segment of his entire presentation:

5/11/26:  Pitre reveals that Louisiana cosmetologists make “$15,000 – $16,000” and adds that the average cosmetologist works “part time at 25 hours a week.”

Pitre clearly articulated the numbers!  Is it any wonder so many organizations concerned with gainful employment and holding cosmetology schools accountable with such abysmal earnings given that the student has to attend school for 1,500 hours at a cost of $14,000 – $20,000 plus to obtain the ability to make such enormous earnings?

Regarding comments that the U. S. Department of Education received on the provision as it pertains to cosmetology instruction, our sources indicated that, “concerns were expressed about the fact that tipped income component of cosmetology services would not be included in the reported numbers.”  Our sources also inform us that, “the Education Department performed an analysis of the claim” and concluded that, “tipped income incorporation wouldn’t meaningfully change many fail rates for cosmetology schools.”

The final rule is expected in the coming weeks or months in the early summer of 2026.  The rule is likely to take effect beginning July 1, 2026, or 27 days from the publication of this feature.  Data reporting, warnings to students, and potential loss of eligibility would be phased in based on earnings data.

The U. S. Department of Education’s analysis in the proposed rule projects high failure rates for many cosmetology programs under the earnings test and, as Pitre pointed out in his full version video (available at the May 11, 2026 feature link above), upwards of 90 percent of cosmetology schools will be at risk of closing as a result of taxpayers, who are footing the bill for these sky-high tuition fees to yield, by Pitre’s own admission, a “25-hour-a week part-time job making $15,000 – $16,000 a year.”

What’s the ultimate irony of the cosmetology schools shedding all these tears now?  Well, ironically, as evidenced by this letter drafted by Veteran’s Educational Access dated May 20, 2026 to U. S. Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon, it was the cosmetology schools which made all of this possible by suing the U. S. Department of Education in the first place (and losing in Federal Court)!  From the letter:

We, the 19 undersigned organizations working on behalf of students, consumers, veterans, service members, faculty and staff, civil rights, and college access urge the U.S. Department of Education to enact regulations that strengthen accountability in higher education and protect both students and taxpayers from low-quality programs.

We support the Department’s efforts to implement a consistent, commonsense accountability framework that ensures students and taxpayers receive positive returns from their investments in higher education.

We strongly support the Department’s application of the earnings metric for non-degree programs through its existing gainful employment statutory authority and urge the Department to maintain it in the final rule.

This estimate echoes a 2023 study that found most certificate-granting institutions left more than half of their students earning less than their peers with only a high school diploma. Low earnings and poor employment outcomes are of particular concern at for-profit, predominantly certificate granting colleges. The same study found that nearly three in four certificate-granting for-profit institutions leave the majority of their students earning less than the typical high school graduate, even ten years after enrollment.

As it noted in the proposed rule, the Department possesses clear legal authority to apply earnings metrics to non-degree programs in these regulations using the gainful employment authority. As the Department recognized in the proposed rule, a federal district court in American Assoc. of Cosmetology Sch. v. Dep’t of Educ.,² affirmed that the Higher Education Act provides the Department authority to issue earnings metrics pursuant to gainful employment statutory language. Critically, the judge in that case held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo does not preclude the Department from issuing rules consistent with the plain meaning of “gainful employment.”³ In determining the plain meaning of that term, the judge agreed with the
Trump Administration that “gainful employment” means training that is profitable for students—programs that “actually train and prepare postsecondary students for jobs that they would be less likely to obtain without that training and preparation.”⁴

So, we guess the moral of that episode is to be careful charging headstrong into Federal Court because in engaging in such an action, when the Plaintiff loses, unintended consequences can arise such has clearly transpired in this matter!

Again, from the letter, let’s take a look at the 19 organizations which drafted the above letter:

AFT: Education, Healthcare, Public Services
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
Community Service Society of New York
Debt Collective
EdTrust
Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP)
NAACP
National Association for College Admission Counseling
New America Higher Education Policy Program
Partnership for College Completion
Project on Predatory Student Lending
Protect Borrowers
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
The Institute for College Access and Success
United States Student Association
University of California Student Association (UCSA)
UnidosUS
Veterans Education Success
Young Invincibles

We find the above list to be very intriguing, and we draw particular attention to the NAACP and the Project on Predatory Student Lending.  Organizations like this would not have drafted a letter of this nature if they had not seen the evidence from members about the havoc wreaked upon unsuspecting students who entered these for-profit schools dreaming to derive a genuinely rewarding career in cosmetology only to find out that the only ones to profit from their enrollment was the schools themselves!

We strongly salute President Trump for his steadfast stand that Federal taxpayer funds will be provided to these schools if and only if they demonstrate they provide a positive return on investment to taxpayers and the students they purport to benefit (but we contend are only interested in benefitting themselves with little or no regard for whether the student is ever able to repay the Federal loan).

Now that President Trump has clearly demonstrated his firm grasp on the need for these schools to demonstrate positive returns for students, it’s time for Gov. Landry to take a hint too.  We contend that when Gov. Jeff Landry and House Rep. Mike Johnson actively opposed reducing cosmetology hours from 1,500 to 1,000, Landry clearly demonstrated that he was as out-of-touch with President Trump as he was with the legacy lawsuits entailing the oil industry in Louisiana (which he’s now conveniently seeking settlements as fast as possible now that Trump prevailed at the U. S. Supreme Court level on that issue).

Prior to Landry’s efforts, we previewed the bill to reduce the hours from 1,500 to 1,000 on May 7, 2024.  Interestingly enough, let’s reproduce the lead photo of that article since the first young lady (appearing far left) has now become a very interesting player in this whole matter:

May 6, 2024 Cosmetology Board meeting at which Erin Marcaeaux (far left), then with Paul Mitchell School of Cosmetology, would voice her strong opposition to doing as Texas has done and reducing the hours for obtaining a cosmetology license from 1,500 to 1,000.

Incredibly, which school has screamed the loudest and even provided the stats of “up to 92 percent of for-profit schools” closing if the earnings accountability (a/k/a Gainful Employment provision) remains?  Well, that would be none other than Paul Mitchell School of Cosmetology.  Who knows?  Perhaps Marceaux saw the potential future for schools like Paul Mitchell and decided to pursue a safer and more stable position of being a governmental bureaucrat pulling in $75,000 a year to “regulate” the industry!

Nelda Dural, former owner of the New Iberia Cosmetology Institute, shares her concerns about the Louisiana State Board of Cosmetology (LSBC) with former Speaker of the Louisiana House of Representatives (now Gov. Landry’s Commissioner of Administration), Taylor Barras.  Dural was specifically concerned about the LSBC’s arbitrary and selective enforcement of a 2010 statute calling for a cosmetology school to have a minimum of two (2) instructors regardless of class size.  The LSBC relied extensively upon that two-instructor requirement to close Dural’s school in 2016.

In our ongoing series of matters discussed at the May 4, 2026 LSBC meeting, a week after the meeting, on May 11, 2026, we published this feature in which Board Member Jean Pitre conveyed a sense of emergency and near panic that the addition of an “earnings accountability” provision of President Trump’s  One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA, enacted 2025), if not removed, may cause “up to 92 percent” of for-profit cosmetology schools across the nation to close.

That was not the only matter Pitre voiced frustration over, to wit:

He also voiced concern over a “threatening” letter sent out by the Board to the schools it regulates and called for the letter to be rescinded; furthermore, his action, in the form of a Motion, created discord among some other Board Members, most especially with Member C. Nicole Gaudin:

5/4/26:  Pitre voices his sentiments that the letter sent out, which he formally read into the record, was “threatening,” and he sought for the Board to rescind the letter.

Pitre repeatedly stated that the rule calls for “one teacher per twenty (20) students.”  We are about to demonstrate in a very authoritative manner that Pitre’s statement is NOT (repeat NOT) historically how the “two-instructor rule” has been viewed by LSBC Legal Counsel Sheri Morris, nor is that how the rule has been enforced.  One of the benefits of following the LSBC as long as we have is that it enables us to know more than many Board Members, and this is one such instance of us having superior knowledge on the two-instructor rule and its parameters and (sometimes selective) enforcement

The LSBC has enforced a statutory two-instructor requirement for cosmetology schools which was enacted in 2010. This rule, unlike what Pitre states in the above video, mandates a minimum of two instructors regardless of how small a school’s enrollment may be!  That 2010 statute replaced a prior threshold which indeed did function as Pitre indicated in the above video.  

We have extensively reported upon this two-instructor requirement as a key factor in actions against smaller or public-school programs, which appear to us to be nothing short of direct efforts to limit competition for larger, established cosmetology schools operated by some board members and/or their associates.

Key Cases:

• Nelda Dural Case (circa 2015–2016): Dural, a former cosmetology instructor and school operator in New Iberia, faced enforcement leading to a Cease and Desist order and revocation of her school license. The LSBC cited noncompliance with the two-instructor rule. Critics, and that included Dural, noted that the Board had granted an exception to the very same rule the LSBC was utilizing to shut her school down for another school (L.B. Landry/Walker High School) just mere weeks earlier, in its April 2015 minutes. Dural incurred substantial costs (which were assessed against her as expenses the Board incurred in its relentless efforts to shut her school down), including nearly $43,000–$56,000 in administrative expenses, fines, and legal fees, ultimately leading her to have little choice but to file for personal bankruptcy. The case involved multi-day hearings which we attended, filmed, and bluntly described as a “kangaroo court;” furthermore, it was apparent to us from that episode that the LSBC is fraught with instances of selective enforcement, blackballing by LSBC staff, and outright cronyism.
• Raynetta Frazier Case (2016): A public-school cosmetology instructor faced similar pressure to comply with the two-instructor mandate, which threatened closure of her lower-cost program. Frazier pleaded with the Board to avoid shutdown. Unlike Dural’s case, her program did manage to continue operating notwithstanding the LSBC’s full-court press to shut her public school down over failing to have two instructors in her classroom.

Our Broader Context:

Our coverage of the two-instructor rule and its (often selective) enforcement has, in our firm opinion, contributed to higher barriers for affordable training options (e.g., Dural’s $8,000 tuition versus $20,000+ at larger schools reliant on federal grants).  We have been very blunt in our assessment and ongoing critiques of the LSBC entailing its selective application and/or enforcement of statutes, protection of larger operators, and impacts on small businesses and aspiring cosmetologists. While Board attorney Sheri Morris has emphasized the statutory nature of the two-instructor requirement, she has failed miserably to explain why, as the attorney, she permitted one or more exceptions to be granted during Board meeting(s) for which she served as legal counsel for the Board.  Morris is smart enough to know that a statute is a statute (and it was Morris herself, which we have captured on video, who emphasized that the minimum two-instructor requirement is a statute)!  During the ongoing Dural matter, Sound Off Louisiana’s Burns admonished Morris and the then-Members of the Board that a statute is a statute and that the Board had no authority whatsoever to grant “exceptions” as it had done, even documenting the granting of at least one “exception” in its own minutes (which we’ll publish shortly).

Okay.  That is the quick overview of the two-instructor matter but, as everyone knows, this is a video blog, and the beauty of videos is that their content is irrefutable and they are forever.  So, with that, here are links to features, links to documents, and video clips to substantiate what we have indicated above:

1. Short video clip of a portion of an administrative hearing on October 3, 2016 (the hearing actually lasted several days, and we filmed it all) showing just how emphatic the LSBC and its attorney, Sheri Morris, were about enforcing the two-instructor rule as a means to shut Dural’s School down:

As Morris and the LSBC Members are emphatic that they are going to enforce the two-instructor mandate against Dural, Dural challenges Morris and the Board on why they permitted an exception in April of 2015 to that same two-instructor requirement.

2.  Here is the excerpt from the April 13, 2015 LSBC Minutes memorializing the exception Dural references.  From those minutes:

L.B. LandrylWalker High School
Addition of an Instructor

Lora Moreau made the motion to accept LB Landry to use only one instructor as long as a substitute is available on standby provided that there are no more than 20 students in one class and they must send a letter from the substitute teacher to the Board. Michelle Hays seconded, motion carried by unanimous voice vote.

Dural openly asks Morris near the end of the video, regarding the Board using a very different standard for her vis-a-vis the school referenced above, “What’s really going on in here?”

Well, let us explain it in very simple terms.  Dural was charging a mere $8,000 in tuition for her school, and the larger schools simply were not going to tolerate any undercutting of their pricing in such an authoritative manner.

The LSBC has an extensive (and we do mean extensive) past history of targeting schools for closure simply because they impede market share for larger schools which often have direct representation on the LSBC.  Want another prime example?  How about this October 1, 2018 Sound Off Louisiana feature in which the owners of the now-defunct D’Jay’s Cosmetology School in Baton Rouge flatly stated on camera that former long-time LSBC Chairman Francis Hand sought to drive their school right out of business (which, as we state above is “now defunct”).  From that feature:

Regarding the issue of the timing of when the alleged harassment began, as the above video depicts, Ed and Paul contend there was a direct correlation to the timing of them moving their school, which used to be located on Government Street in Baton Rouge, to its present location which, according to Mapquest, is a mere 8.8 miles and estimated 16-minute drive from former long-time LSBC Chairman Francis Hand’s school.  Hand remains as an LSBC member today (the only one other than Jill Hebert to survive the transition from Jindal to Edwards).  Are the sudden “problems” Paul references above about trivial issues such as too wide of grout separation between tiles coincidental to that move?  We’ll let our subscribers be the judge.

3. Here is the assessment of costs and fees totaling $43,000 (not including the $5,000 fine) against Dural which forced her to file for personal bankruptcy. We would point out that the $39,000 in legal fees does not even include subsequent legal fees incurred as Dural asked for Judicial Review of the Board’s ruling in the 19^th JDC.  When tallied up, the costs which the LSBC spent merely shutting down Dural would have paid for the new roof recently installed by the Board (after it made grossly exaggerated Legislative testimony of the costs of such a new roof as it pled for a fee increase).

4.  During the same exact timeframe that the LSBC was pushing so hard to close Dural’s school, it also put on the full-court press to close another school offering students instruction at no cost, and that was Raynetta Frazier’s public school in New Orleans. Here is video of those efforts:

6/13/16 LSBC Meeting (four months before Dural’s administrative hearing to shut her school down), Raynetta Frazier addresses the Board about its efforts to shut her school down over the two-instructor rule.

So, we have very little doubt that smaller schools contacted Pitre and voiced their concerns over the letter that was sent out.  Furthermore, given the past illustrations outlined above, we can very easily see how they viewed such a letter as a threat.

Additionally, being formerly associated with a very large school, Paul Mitchell, we have little doubt that concerns exist regarding the present leadership of the LSBC siding with big schools at small schools’ expense as has so extensively been done in the past.

Further, we openly question the appropriateness of a secretive, behind-the-scenes efforts of one person, LSBC Chairman Jennifer Reed, simply hand picking former Executive Director Steve Young’s replacement and then just saying, “I’m asking the Board Members to go along with my recommendation.”  We are becoming increasingly uneasy about the way this selection transpired (with it even having to be added to an agenda rather than properly disclosed beforehand for public input), so we can only imagine that much more so being the case with small school owners!

Here’s the bottom line:  From everything we have been told, the cosmetology school business is dog-eat-dog and, even when everything may appear rosy and glowing on the outside, as evidenced by our October 5, 2021 feature wherein then-LSBC Chairman Edwin Neill III had to literally sue his financial savior and accused him of launching a “hostile takeover” of his operations at a time of extreme financial distress, looks can very often be deceiving.  Who knows exactly why Erin Marceaux may have even been tempted to depart Paul Mitchell School to become the LSBC’s Executive Director?

We know that Pitre expressed near panic at the thought of Federal funds being eliminated and many schools (perhaps his?) being forced to possibly close.  Maybe Pitre and others now have a better appreciation for how Dural and others who faced such closure felt as they saw their passions and livelihoods being vigorously pursued for closure on what we bluntly assess as selective enforcement entailing a “kangaroo court administrative hearing!”  Further, knowing of such practices may very well explain why existing smaller school owners would indeed view the letter Pitre references as a “threat.”  We would if we were in their shoes!

Lastly, we committed to periodically publishing a table showing the LSBC’s financial condition.  Here is the latest iteration of the table:

We look forward to the next meeting on June 8, 2026!

Evangelist Donnie Swaggart prepares to express joy that incumbent U. S. Senator Bill Cassidy got “thumped big time,” and, without even naming her by name, states that, “since Trump knows her, I’ll vote for her.”  Swaggart made his declaration during morning church services of Sunday, May 17, 2026, the day after Cassidy’s defeat (or “thumping”).  [Note:  Photo published in conformity with Fair Use.]

Our site visitors will recall our March 22, 2026 feature in which we stated that, “arguably” the most Trump-obsessed pastor in America, Evangelist Donnie Swaggart, in a way only he could manage to do, “endorsed” fellow Preacher and State Senator Rick Edmonds for what was then a rapidly-approaching election for the Fifth Congressional District from Louisiana.

As everyone knows, once the U. S. Supreme Court made its ruling declaring that the U. S. Sixth Congressional District, specifically drawn and advanced AND DEFENDED at the Court by Gov. Landry AND AG Liz Murrill to get Cleo Fields back in Congress, was a racially gerrymandered map, Gov. Landry issued an Executive Order cancelling the U. S. Congressional elections in Louisiana.

That action on Landry’s part has absolutely infuriated black voters across Louisiana, to wit:

5/14/26 NOLA article:  New Orleans area residents line up to support recall effort against Gov. Jeff Landry.  From that article:

A line of residents snaked across three rooms Wednesday inside the tight corners of Gwangi & Hollywood Community Center in Algiers.

But the final straw, residents say, was the governor’s decision last week to cancel to postpone the ongoing U.S. House primary election to make way for a new congressional map that might eradicate two majority-Black districts.

Per state law, organizers have 180 days from their filing date to collect signatures from 20% of registered Louisiana voters – some 500,000 people — on a petition asking the state to call a referendum on Landry as governor. If enough people sign, the state would be forced to put the issue on a ballot.

The chances of a recall are slim…….“They’re going to have to raise a lot of money, and they’ll have to run it like a traditional political campaign to even have a shot,” said Robert Collins, a political analyst and Dillard University professor.

Even if they fail, their efforts could drive more turnout in the upcoming U.S. Senate election and other elections. Turnout numbers statewide have persistently been low, he added.

To Collins’ last point, we can’t even begin to count the number of Tik Tok videos we’ve seen stating that voters (black voters in particular) need to view all five of the Constitutional Amendments which were on yesterday’s ballot no differently than if each said, “Keep Jeff Landry as Governor,” and vote on each amendment as if answering that question.

The results are unmistakable:  Amendment One (remove some civil service protections) failed by a margin of 78-22; Amendment Two (permit City of St. George to form its own school system) failed by a margin of 64-36 (with it failing in East Baton Rouge Parish [passage was necessary in addition to statewide passage] by an even larger margin of 69-31); Amendment Three (“permanent” teacher pay raise via debt paydown and interest savings) failed by a margin of 58-42; Amendment Four (repeal of business inventory tax) failed by a margin of 66-34; and Amendment Five (raise mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75) failed by a martin of 77-23.

Hence, there can be no debate whatsoever that dramatic voter turnout by black voters vis-à-vis the 2023 election for Governor (which we assert on this link referenced above was suppressed via a joint agreement between Fields and Landry) was dramatically higher, and we have little doubt whatsoever that the trend will continue through Landry’s re-election efforts should he decide he wishes to pursue such a re-election in the face of such massive distrust and disdain which exists regarding him throughout the State of Louisiana.  It’s a decision only he can make, but as our good friend Rev. Freddie Lee Phillips is fond of saying, “It don’t look good for the home team.”

As far as the “big feature” race on yesterday’s ballot, the Republican Primary of the U. S. Senate race, Congresswoman Julia Letlow led the pack by 45-28-25 over former Congressman, former Trump Assistant Chief of Staff, and current Louisiana Treasurer John Fleming, and incumbent U. S. Senator Bill Cassidy, respectively.

At today’s (Sunday, March 17, 2026) service at Family Worship Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Evangelist Donnie Swaggart provided his take on yesterday’s Senate election in Louisiana:

5/17/26:  Swaggart states he’s “glad” that Cassidy was “thumped big time” and states he’s “not big fans” of either of the runoff opponents (Letlow and Fleming) but that, since “Trump knows her,” he’ll be voting for Letlow.  [Note:  Video published in conformity with Fair Use.]

We’ll find out on June 27, 2026 whether the Republican nominee for U. S. Senate is Letlow or Fleming but, if many other voters share Swaggart’s sentiments, it would appear that, with the main goal accomplished (i.e. ousting Cassidy), there may he a high level of indifference for whomever that nominee may turn out to be.