Back in March, President Trump announced an executive order to revoke Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) eligibility from public service workers employed at organizations engaged in work opposed by his administration—a blatantly illegal attempt to use public service workers as pawns in his right-wing political project to destroy civil society.
Shortly after, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced its plans for a Negotiated Rulemaking (Neg Reg) process to put these dangerous policies into the PSLF regulations. Today marked Day 1 of the only 3-day committee session for this Neg Reg—and ED has already doubled down on this campaign to weaponize debt to silence speech that does not align with President Trump’s MAGA playbook:
- ED’s first draft of regulatory language, to put it bluntly, serves Trump’s fascist agenda. It empowers Secretary McMahon to block all government workers with student debt, including first responders, social workers, and teachers, from receiving PSLF in retaliation if she decides that a local or state government policy conflicts with her extreme, right-wing views on immigration, civil rights, or free speech. More on that here.
- ED excluded borrowers and key experts from the rulemaking committee.
- Despite overwhelming public demand for stronger borrower protections, discussions focused on weaponizing and restricting critical relief programs like PSLF.
Session Summary:
- The day started off on a bad foot. Abby Shafroth, alternate negotiator for the Consumers, Legal Aid, and Civil Rights seat, requested to add a seat dedicated to civil rights because the proposed changes to PSLF directly affect the ability of marginalized communities to access higher education. Civil rights advocates Chavis Jones and Jaylon Herbin were present and ready to join the table—but ED denied the request.
- After this inaugural miscarriage of justice, most of the day was spent running through definitions outlined in ED’s proposed language. Does ED actually have the authority to exclude certain groups from PSLF when Congress has already specially outlined some but not others? Hint: they don’t. Who would be excluded from PSLF based on “illegal activities”? Would military members be excluded if the military were found in violation of state tort laws? If a city’s Health Department were specifically found guilty of substantial illegal activity, would all workers employed by that entire city be disqualified?
- Put plainly: ED did not have sufficient answers for these questions. At times, ED chastised negotiators for asking questions at “inappropriate times.” Other times, ED assured folks that everything would become clear once the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking language was issued. ED also refused to provide any examples of application of, or answer any “hypothetical” questions about their proposal. In our opinion, if you’re going to put forth a prospective rulemaking to decide the fate of millions of people, you should at the very least be able to explain how it would work.
Missing From the Table: ED refused to seat Satra D. Taylor, a student loan borrower, Black woman, and SBPC fellow, who wants to know:
“Why didn’t ED include anyone who would be most affected by these policy changes to negotiate—not a single public service worker, civil rights advocate, first responder, social worker, or teacher? Also, what is ED’s legal authority to propose these regulations in the first place? Congress defined in law that government and 501(c)(3) non-profit employers are categorically eligible for PSLF, and yet ED’s current proposal would exclude government and non-profit employers that it determines no longer engage in public service. This is a foundational issue for the Neg Reg, and ED refused to provide a clear answer.”
Public Comment Mic  Drops: Our legal director, Winston Berkman-Breen (also excluded from the committee), called out ED during the public comment period:
“Although this is not a serious proposal, it is a dangerous one. If the Administration has true concerns about whether employers across the country are engaged in unlawful activity, its law enforcement offices could conduct thorough investigations and then allow courts to determine the merits of those allegations. Instead, it has proposed letting the Secretary of Education police American society.” | 
No comments:
Post a Comment