Texas GOP Urges Veto Of Counselor Loan Program
(Texas Scorecard) – A coalition of 34 Republican lawmakers is urging Gov. Greg Abbott to veto a Democrat-authored bill that would expand state-funded student loan repayment programs—this time, specifically for school counselors and mental health professionals.
Senate Bill 646, authored by Democrat State Sen. Royce West, would broaden eligibility for Texas' loan repayment assistance program to include school counselors, marriage and family therapists, and other behavioral health professionals.
The bill drew fierce opposition from conservatives when it reached the House floor, especially in light of social transitioning in public schools—a practice whereby school counselors and staff assist children in adopting a new gender identity without parental knowledge or consent.
'This expands a Biden-style student loan repayment program,' reads a letter sent to Abbott signed by 34 Republican House members. 'There are many laudable things that the legislature funds and expands during the session, but few that receive such significant opposition as SB 646.'
The effort is being led by State Rep. Brent Money (R–Greenville), who criticized the growing reliance on taxpayer-funded programs to forgive personal debt—especially for public sector jobs.
Supporters argue the bill is meant to address Texas' ongoing shortage of school-based mental health professionals, but opponents say it sets a dangerous precedent.
'Loan repayment programs' should not be a routine feature of state policy, the letter states. 'We humbly ask that you veto this legislation and in so doing encourage the legislature to make 'loan repayment programs' and their expansion something we avoid in future sessions,' the letter concludes.
58 Republicans voted against the bill in the House.
Unless Gov. Abbott issues a veto, the legislation is set to take effect September 1, 2025. The deadline for gubernatorial action is June 22.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
15 minutes ago
- Fox News
NY Times says 'real emergency' is Trump sending troops to Los Angeles
The New York Times editorial board argued on Sunday that the "real emergency" with regard to the Los Angeles anti-ICE demonstrations was that President Donald Trump sent troops to quell the unrest. The editorial board wrote that the National Guard was typically called in for natural disasters, civil disturbances or for support during a public health crisis, adding, "There was no indication that was needed or wanted in Los Angeles this weekend, where local law enforcement had kept protests over federal immigration raids, for the most part, under control." Trump sent the National Guard to California over the weekend as anti-ICE riots escalated, with participants vandalizing vehicles and buildings and assaulting police officers to protest the ICE raids in LA. The Times editors argued that sending the National Guard in was creating "the very chaos it was purportedly designed to prevent." "Past presidents, from both parties, have rarely deployed troops inside the United States because they worried about using the military domestically and because the legal foundations for doing so are unclear. Congress should turn its attention to such deliberations promptly. If presidents hesitate before using the military to assist in recovery after natural disasters but feel free to send in soldiers after a few cars are set on fire, the law is alarmingly vague," the editors wrote. The FBI is searching for a suspect accused of assaulting a federal officer and damaging government property during the anti-ICE demonstrations in Los Angeles. On Saturday, the suspect allegedly threw rocks at law enforcement vehicles on Alondra Blvd. in Paramount, Calif., resulting in injury to a federal officer and damage to government vehicles. While The New York Times discouraged violence from protesters, it argued that Trump's move to send in the National Guard was not helping. "Mr. Trump's order establishes neither law nor order. Rather it sends the message that the administration is interested in only overreaction and overreach. The scenes of tear gas in Los Angeles streets on Sunday underscored that point: that Mr. Trump's idea of law and order is strong-handed, disproportionate intervention that adds chaos, anxiety and risk to already tense situations," the editorial board wrote. The Los Angeles Police Department declared an "unlawful assembly" Sunday night as protesters failed to disperse in the downtown area. California Gov. Gavin Newsom also criticized Trump for deploying the National Guard, accusing him of making it worse. "Let's get this straight: 1) Local law enforcement didn't need help. 2) Trump sent troops anyway — to manufacture chaos and violence. 3) Trump succeeded. 4) Now things are destabilized, and we need to send in more law enforcement just to clean up Trump's mess," Newsom wrote on social media. During a press conference Sunday evening, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell called the anti-ICE riots happening in the city and violence against law enforcement "disgusting."
Washington Post
27 minutes ago
- Washington Post
What to know after weekend of L.A. protests over immigration raids
Hundreds of National Guard troops arrived in Los Angeles on Sunday after President Donald Trump mobilized them to quell anti-ICE protests, as clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement entered a third day. Protesters gathered in L.A.'s downtown, as well as in the nearby cities of Compton and Paramount over the weekend, in response to a series of deportation raids in areas of the city with large immigrant populations.
Forbes
27 minutes ago
- Forbes
Is Trump Eliminating Student Loan Forgiveness Under PSLF? Advocacy Groups Raise Alarms
US President Donald Trump talks to reporters at on June 8, 2025, en route to Camp David. The Trump ... More administration has taken steps to limit student loan forgiveness under the PSLF program, advocacy groups warn. (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP) (Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images) Student loan borrower advocacy organizations are warning that the Trump administration is taking concrete steps to try to limit student loan forgiveness for public servants under a popular debt relief program. And the groups are increasingly raising the alarm. Public Service Loan Forgiveness, or PSLF, allows borrowers to receive a complete discharge of their federal student loans after making the equivalent of 10 years of qualifying payments. These payments must be made under certain repayment plans while the borrower works full-time in eligible nonprofit or government employment. To date, more than a million borrowers have received student loan forgiveness through PSLF, most through improvements to the program implemented during the Biden administration. But President Donald Trump has taken a different approach, arguing that PSLF is wasteful, costly, and rewards organizations whose interests are not aligned with the administration's. And the Department of Education may be moving towards limiting the program. Here's the latest. In March, President Trump issued an executive order to limit student loan forgiveness under PSLF by cutting off organizations that engage in certain activities. He characterized the move as eliminating fraud and waste for taxpayers, and protecting American interests. 'The PSLF Program has misdirected tax dollars into activist organizations that not only fail to serve the public interest, but actually harm our national security and American values, sometimes through criminal means,' said Trump in the order. 'The PSLF Program also creates perverse incentives that can increase the cost of tuition, can load students in low-need majors with unsustainable debt, and may push students into organizations that hide under the umbrella of a non-profit designation and degrade our national interest, thus requiring additional Federal funding to correct the negative societal effects caused by these organizations' federally subsidized wrongdoing.' The order would bar student loan forgiveness eligibility under PSLF for organizations that engage in certain activities, such as 'aiding or abetting" violations of federal immigration laws, 'child abuse" (which the order appears to define as facilitating gender-affirming care for transgender youth), and 'aiding and abetting illegal discrimination' which could be read to include diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Student loan borrower advocacy organizations warned that the order is vague and broadly worded, and could be used to 'weaponize' PSLF against organizations and institutions whose policy aims simply don't align with the Trump administration. This could, for instance, include any immigrant rights organization, hospitals that provide medical treatment to transgender youth, or state governments that maintain diversity programs. President Trump's executive order does not have immediate effect. Rather, it directs the Department of Education to draft regulations implementing the order. To do that, federal law requires that the department go through a lengthy process called negotiated rulemaking. This process, which can take a year or longer, involves the creation of a rulemaking committee comprised of key stakeholders, and opportunities for individuals and organizations to submit public comments. In May, a coalition of nearly 200 organizations submitted a formal public comment to the Department of Education as part of the initial phase of negotiated rulemaking, arguing that the rulemaking process was simply a pretext to rubber stamp President Trump's PSLF executive order and restrict student loan forgiveness under the program. 'We write in strong opposition to the Trump Administration's attempts to implement Project 2025, which calls for gutting Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) options and ultimately eliminating PSLF, which will only push borrowers further into debt and relief further out of reach,' wrote the organizations. The coalition echoed the responses of other student loan borrower groups, which have argued that the Trump administration's proposed changes to PSLF are unlawful. Only Congress can change PSLF, the contend, and the statute governing the PSLF program does not confer any authority on the department to pick and choose which otherwise-qualifying organizations can be eligible for student loan forgiveness under the program. 'We were incredibly troubled to see President Trump's executive order aimed at limiting access to PSLF for public service workers employed at organizations engaging in work that is not in line with President Trump's agenda,' wrote the group. 'The Department's efforts to engage in rulemaking to make unlawful changes to PSLF eligibility are directly related to the goals of this executive order, exceed the Administration's authority outright, and have already had a chilling effect on public service organizations doing necessary work on behalf of our most vulnerable communities. The Higher Education Act is crystal clear that a 'public service job' includes any employment in government or at a 501(c)(3). We strongly oppose any effort by the Trump Administration to limit PSLF eligibility to cherry pick organizations that they may not agree with.' With the initial public comment period complete, the Department of Education is now in the process of creating a formal negotiated rulemaking committee to proceed with regulatory changes to student loan forgiveness under the PSLF program. The rulemaking committee is supposed to include representation from key stakeholders. But student loan borrower advocacy groups are raising alarms that the department is trying to limit the participation of pro-PSLF voices. In the past, department rulemaking committees have included representatives from key constituent groups such as legal assistance organizations, state officials, consumer advocates, individuals with disabilities, and student loan borrowers in repayment. While the department confirmed in its committee nominations announcement that some of these constituencies would have representation on the committee, others were not clearly included. Last week, dozens of organizations wrote to the department, demanding that additional representatives be allowed to participate in the negotiated rulemaking process to voice support for preserving student loan forgiveness under the PSLF program. 'We are concerned that the Trump Administration is using this negotiated rulemaking session to make harmful changes to Income-Driven Repayment plans and the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program— both of which act as critical components of the student loan safety net and provide critical debt relief to workers in public sector jobs,' wrote the group in its letter. 'Given the breadth of experiences that will be affected as a result of this rulemaking, borrower voices, whether directly or through advocacy organizations, must be prioritized. In particular, entities that represent legal aid organizations, consumer advocacy organizations, and civil rights organizations should be separate and distinct categories to ensure proper representation for each of these essential stakeholder groups. Individuals with disabilities or groups representing them should also be included.' 'The Trump Administration's proposal to cram civil rights, legal aid, and consumer advocacy groups into fewer seats is a naked attempt to stack the decks against borrowers and engineer a predetermined outcome for this rulemaking," said Student Borrower Protection Center Deputy Executive Director and Managing Counsel Persis Yu in a statement last week. 'The financial lives of millions of borrowers are at stake.' For now, there are no changes to student loan forgiveness under PSLF. 'We are reviewing the recent Executive Order regarding the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program,' says a banner notice on the Department of Education's website. 'There are no changes to PSLF currently, and borrowers do not need to take any action.' Any changes to student loan forgiveness eligibility that result from Department of Education updates to PSLF regulations are likely at least a year away. And depending on the scope of those changes, some observers expect there to be legal challenges, given that the PSLF statute passed by Congress nearly 20 years ago does not provide clear authority to the Department of Education to limit eligibility to otherwise-qualifying nonprofit and public organizations. In the meantime, borrowers should keep an eye out for subsequent negotiated rulemaking developments, as there will be additional opportunities to submit a public comment in the coming months.
