WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is pushing forward with plans to expel certain nonprofits from a widely used student loan forgiveness program if their activities are seen as having a 'substantial illegal purpose', potentially impacting teachers, doctors, and various public sector workers who rely on federal loan forgiveness.
New regulations finalized on Thursday enhance the authority of the Education Department to ban organizations from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, a significant initiative originally established by Congress in 2007 to encourage college graduates to take lower-paying public sector jobs. Supporters of the administration's new measures argue that they are necessary to prevent taxpayer dollars from being funneled to organizations engaging in unlawful activities, yet critics warn this approach could devolve into political retribution.
Set to take effect in July, these policies primarily target nonprofits that provide support to immigrants and transgender youth, with stipulations that define illegal activities as including trafficking, 'chemical castration' of minors, and illegal immigration. The latter refers to the provision of gender-affirming care, which is increasingly contested in various states.
Under the new rules, the Education Secretary is granted broad authority to determine any organization’s eligibility for the program, which has previously provided loan forgiveness to over 1 million American public service employees. Employers could be expelled not only due to court rulings against them but also if they admit guilt even without legal findings.
Prominent associations in fields such as higher education, healthcare, and law have voiced strong opposition to these changes, citing concerns that they would undermine crucial support for essential services. The American Bar Association highlighted that it could reduce public defenders and legal representation for at-risk populations.
Critics fear these regulations may invite future administrations to adjust eligibility based on ideological grounds rather than legal frameworks. Proponents, including Rep. Tim Walberg, argue that taxpayer-funded loan relief shouldn't support organizations they consider radical or unlawful, suggesting that these measures are intended to redirect public service toward entities that uphold legal and ethical standards.
The Education Department has maintained that decisions regarding an organization's standing will be based on 'preponderance of evidence', seeking to ensure that taxpayer funds are used for legitimate public service without speculation, but many believe this approach leaves too much room for bias and arbitrary decision-making.
As the July date for implementation approaches, the broader implications of these regulations on public service workers, especially in contested fields, remain a point of concern and debate.
New regulations finalized on Thursday enhance the authority of the Education Department to ban organizations from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, a significant initiative originally established by Congress in 2007 to encourage college graduates to take lower-paying public sector jobs. Supporters of the administration's new measures argue that they are necessary to prevent taxpayer dollars from being funneled to organizations engaging in unlawful activities, yet critics warn this approach could devolve into political retribution.
Set to take effect in July, these policies primarily target nonprofits that provide support to immigrants and transgender youth, with stipulations that define illegal activities as including trafficking, 'chemical castration' of minors, and illegal immigration. The latter refers to the provision of gender-affirming care, which is increasingly contested in various states.
Under the new rules, the Education Secretary is granted broad authority to determine any organization’s eligibility for the program, which has previously provided loan forgiveness to over 1 million American public service employees. Employers could be expelled not only due to court rulings against them but also if they admit guilt even without legal findings.
Prominent associations in fields such as higher education, healthcare, and law have voiced strong opposition to these changes, citing concerns that they would undermine crucial support for essential services. The American Bar Association highlighted that it could reduce public defenders and legal representation for at-risk populations.
Critics fear these regulations may invite future administrations to adjust eligibility based on ideological grounds rather than legal frameworks. Proponents, including Rep. Tim Walberg, argue that taxpayer-funded loan relief shouldn't support organizations they consider radical or unlawful, suggesting that these measures are intended to redirect public service toward entities that uphold legal and ethical standards.
The Education Department has maintained that decisions regarding an organization's standing will be based on 'preponderance of evidence', seeking to ensure that taxpayer funds are used for legitimate public service without speculation, but many believe this approach leaves too much room for bias and arbitrary decision-making.
As the July date for implementation approaches, the broader implications of these regulations on public service workers, especially in contested fields, remain a point of concern and debate.
