Observing on what are happenings in the US Higher Ed, one might notice that the future/current policy is formulated under the assumption that market alone will not be able to increase the efficiency of resource allocations.  Selective interventions need to be done, (1). especially in the supply side;  (2). DOE’s roles need to be reduced to a minimum level, and (3) business/private players will help Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand to work.  This surely a testable hypothesis which can be proved as time passes.  The impacts of these new policy shifts depend on how reactive the market forces are.  Due to the assets fixity, excess supply and technological advancements, supply will not change much from its current condition, despite the policy interventions, at least in the short-run.  However, in the (very) long-run, supply may consolidate i.e., only selective players (state-owned institutions) will survive.  Any policy aims to affect the supply will have minimum impacts. However, reactions in the demand side as results of the supply changes will have more profound effects as shown below.  Future demand, but not the supply will determine the sustainability of US higher education institutions, especially for tuition-dependent organizations.