Republicans Will Cut Off Student Loan Forgiveness For Medical Residents Under New Plan
UNITED STATES - FEBRUARY 5: Chairman Tim Walberg, R-Mich., attends the House Education and Workforce ... More Committee hearing on Wednesday, February 5, 2025. The committee passed a significant higher ed reform bill this week that would cut off student loan forgiveness for medical and dental residents (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
House Republicans this week unveiled sweeping legislation to remake the federal student loan system. Nearly every element of the federal student aid system, from grants to aid disbursement to repayment plans and loan forgiveness programs, would be impacted if the plan is enacted. And buried deep in the bill is a major change that would cut off a popular federal student loan forgiveness program for medical residents and interns.
'This bill set forth by Committee Republicans not only would save taxpayers over $330 billion but also bring much-needed reform in three key areas: simplified loan repayment, streamlined student loan options, and accountability for students and taxpayers,' said Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-MI) in a speech on the House floor on Tuesday. 'Moreover, it simplifies and improves the system going forward by streamlining repayment options and providing targeted assistance to struggling borrowers who need it rather than blanket bailouts for those who don't."
While not expressly called out in Chairman Walberg's speeceh, the bill explicitly cuts off medical and dental residents from key student loan forgiveness benefits, suggesting that the legislation's authors believe these individuals don't need the relief. The proposal is intended to become part of a massive reconciliation 'mega-bill' that Republican lawmakers hope to enact this summer. The reconciliation process, which allows legislation to pass with simple, party-line majorities in Congress without crashing into a Senate filibuster, would facilitate the GOP's expansion of expiring tax cuts and slash government spending to cover the associated costs.
Public Service Loan Forgiveness allows borrowers to qualify for a discharge of their federal student loans after making 10 years of qualifying payments. Under current law, a qualifying payment is one made on a Direct federal student loan under either a 10-year Standard plan or one of several income-driven repayment options, while the borrower is employed full-time by an eligible public service employer. This includes 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations and government or public entities. Many nonprofit and public hospitals and community health centers are PSLF-eligible employers.
The statute governing PSLF, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007, does not distinguish between different types of public service work, as long as the entity is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit or public organization and the borrower is meeting all of the program's eligibility criteria. That means someone who is employed at, for instance, a nonprofit hospital, could qualify for PSLF regardless of whether they are a medical technician, a nurse, a doctor, or an administrative support staff member. While doctors and nurses may earn significantly more income than other employees at the same organization, they likely would be earning comparatively much less than they would in a private practice setting. These borrowers also likely carry significantly higher student loan balances due to their education, and would have much higher monthly payments under income-driven repayment plans as a result.
But for the first time in the PSLF program's history, the House Republican bill – if enacted – would target a specific group of public service employees and cut them off from student loan forgiveness under the program.
'The term 'public service job' does not include time served in a medical or dental internship or residency program (as such program is described in section 428(c)(3)(A)(i)(I)) by an individual who, as of June 30, 2025, has not borrowed a Federal Direct PLUS Loan or a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loan for a program of study that awards a graduate credential upon completion of such program," reads the legislative text under the heading, 'Exclusion.'
This essentially would mean that if the bill becomes law, doctors and dentists would receive no PSLF credit during their residencies and internships. Typically, medical and dental residents work long hours (often at nonprofit or public hospitals) for very low pay for several years at the beginning of their careers, before moving into more permanent roles. Many medical residents repay their student loans under income-driven repayment plans during that time, given their low income, and interest accrual often means significant balance increases by the time the borrower completes their residency. Residency periods historically have counted toward student loan forgiveness under PSLF, as long as the borrower is meeting all of the program's eligibility rules.
The good news for PSLF borrowers is that the House Republican draft reconciliation bill would not make other significant changes to the program, such as by capping loan forgiveness or cutting off borrowers at certain income levels. Some advocates had been concerned that additional restrictions on student loan forgiveness under the program would be included in the GOP bill. But that's not the end of the story.
This week, the Department of Education held its first public hearing as part of negotiated rulemaking, a lengthy process that allows the department to update, change, or repeal regulations governing federal student loan programs. And PSLF is explicitly a topic for negotiated rulemaking this year. The department is considering enacting new rules to implement President Donald Trump's executive order in March that would cut off student loan forgiveness eligibility under PSLF for organizations that engage in certain 'illegal' activities. Advocacy groups have warned this is not allowable under the PSLF statute passed by Congress, and that the definition of 'illegal' in the President's order is so vague and broad that it could wind up sweeping up untold numbers of nonprofit organizations and government entities whose mission or actions the Trump administration simply disagrees with.
'This month, the Department of Education began a process called negotiated rulemaking or 'neg reg' that will decide the future of student loan programs including Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF),' said the Student Debt Crisis Center in an email this week. 'The current Trump Administration is seeking to end PSLF eligibility for public service workers working at certain non-profits or serving certain communities.'
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is taking additional steps that could jeopardize student loan forgiveness under PSLF. Earlier this month, the administration began targeting the nonprofit status of Harvard University, which could be a prelude to a broader effort to eliminate the tax-exempt status for other nonprofit organizations that the administration has clashed with. So far, that has not yet happened, but advocates remain concerned. In the meantime, Republican lawmakers are considering a separate proposal that would remove the tax-exempt status from nonprofit hospitals, which could make additional healthcare workers ineligible for PSLF.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
My father helped create public media. He'd say we need it now, more than ever
Now the Trump administration is not only trying to end public media but also attempting to claw back more than $1 billion in public media funds that Congress has already approved. Those who support this move Advertisement But there are problems with that argument. First, commercial media executives understand that attention is currency, and Advertisement Second, paid subscriptions are expensive, and many Americans simply can't afford them. Public media is a bargain by comparison. Third, commercial media companies don't have the incentive to operate in the public's best interest; they do have the incentive to convert eyeballs into revenue sources. For example, in youth programming, the focus is often on the commercials, selling toys and sugary snacks to kids. And content for kids on platforms such as YouTube can range from vapid to dangerous at a time when busy parents often use screen time to supplement entertainment or education. For these parents, it has become exhausting to choose what's OK for their children, and even more exhausting to know which platforms are trustworthy. The truth is, at a time when half of kids don't have access to preschool, federally funded, responsible content is a great investment in the next generation. Lastly, the commercial market has also collapsed for news. According to the Advertisement Access to reliable information is crucial in a democracy. As Bill Moyers once Like libraries and schools, public media offers access to knowledge and critical thinking, which is essential for learning and for democracy. The government should strengthen — not undermine — nonprofit educational media, especially now. I hope that my Dad's call for 'public interest' media prevails, rather than the alternative: an expensive wasteland even more vast — and dangerous — than he could have ever imagined.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
DHS wants National Guard to search for and transport unaccompanied migrant children
A Department of Homeland Security request for 21,000 National Guard troops to support "expansive interior immigration enforcement operations" includes a call for troops to search for unaccompanied children in some cases and transport them between states, three sources briefed on the plan tell NBC News. Having National Guard troops perform such tasks, which are not explained in detail in the DHS request, has prompted concern among Democrats in Congress and some military and law enforcement officials. The tasks are laid out in a May 9th Request for Assistance from the Department of Homeland Security to the Pentagon. The document states that, 'this represents the first formal request by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the deployment of National Guard personnel in support of interior immigration enforcement operations.' The request calls for National Guard troops to be used for 'Search and Rescue for UACs [Unaccompanied Alien Children] in remote or hostile terrain,' and 'Intra- and inter-state transport of detainees/ unaccompanied alien children (UACs)," without clearly explaining what that would entail. Most of the troops, about 10,000, would be used for transporting detained individuals, the DHS said. Roughly 2,500 troops would be used for detention support but the document does not specify where. Another 1,000 troops would be assigned to administrative support, such as processing detainees. The request also asks for up to 3,500 troops to 'Attempt to Locate — Fugitives' and to conduct 'surveillance and canvassing missions,' as well as 'night operations and rural interdictions.' It also asks for support for ICE in 'joint task force operations for absconder/fugitive tracking,' according to the three sources familiar with the plans. NPR first reported the details of the DHS request. Democrats in Congress and military and law enforcement officials have expressed concern about the use of National Guard troops to perform what they say are civilian law enforcement duties. One characterized the plan as the Trump administration 'finding a way to get the National Guard into the streets and into American homes,' saying, 'I fear it's going to look like a police state.' A second source said, 'Trump has said he wants to use the National Guard for law enforcement, and the Pentagon and other entities have always said, 'Oh, don't worry, it will never come to that.' But this is it.' Defense officials say the request has not been approved and is being evaluated by Pentagon policy officials, the General Counsel's office, and other Pentagon leadership. The officials say the most likely course of action would be for some parts of the request to be approved and others rejected. But one source briefed on the plans said that Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth is close to approving some elements of the request and considering which state governors to approach first regarding National Guard units. 'We are so much closer to this being real,' said the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. DHS is requesting the National Guard troops under Title 32 status, which means they would remain on state active duty under the command of their governor but would be federally funded. Title 32 status generally allows National Guard troops to conduct law enforcement activities without violating the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that bars the use of federal troops in law enforcement operations. A National Guard member who opposes troops performing such tasks told NBC News, 'I plan to leave the National Guard soon over this.' The Pentagon is also being asked by DHS to pay the full cost of deploying the 21,000 National Guard troops. That comes amid growing tension between the Pentagon and DHS over the cost of border and other immigrant-related operations. The DHS request for National Guard troops arrives when the Pentagon is already footing a $23-million-a-month bill to hold as many as 2,500 undocumented immigrants in a military facility in Texas. Defense officials say they are frustrated that the camp is holding far fewer individuals than they were told to expect and they would like a reprieve. The Defense Department is in a contract with the DHS to help support DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, officers who are under pressure from Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to arrest 3,000 undocumented immigrants a day. But it has been slow going for ICE agents, resulting in fewer arrests of undocumented immigrants across the country. That has resulted in many empty beds at facilities like the one in El Paso, owned and operated by the Defense Department. Military officials say the facility has been holding an average of 150 undocumented immigrants each day over the last several weeks — a fraction of its 2,500 beds. On one recent day, they said, the facility housed fewer than 80 people. Pentagon officials are asking to cut the number of beds in the facility from 2,500 to about 1,000, which they say would save $12 million per month. It is not clear if the DHS request for National Guard troops will increase the need for beds in the El Paso facility. The DHS request also comes as the Pentagon is struggling to fund critical projects to support U.S. troops. 'Congress is aware that the department is redirecting funds from existing military construction projects like barracks improvements for lower enlisted personnel and longstanding infrastructure projects elsewhere in the world in favor of southwest border missions,' a Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity told NBC News. 'They are pretty frustrated with the way that the department is ordering them to support DHS out of their own pockets for a grossly disproportionate cost compared to what ICE facilities would cost the government,' added the aide, referring to military officials. Last month, the Pentagon notified Congress that it planned to transfer more than $1.74 million in the current DOD budget to the southwest border mission, as step that will take money away from renovating barracks and base facilities. Service member advocacy groups have criticized the move. Rob Evans, the founder of Hots&Cots, where services members can post reviews of barracks, dining areas and other facilities, says he sees evidence daily of barracks with sewage leaks, mold, failing HVAC systems, and more. 'When funding is pulled from this line, troops pay the price in real ways: delayed repairs, worsening conditions, and a growing sense that their well-being comes second to optics and operations,' Evans said. 'Service members deserve clean, safe, and dignified living conditions. They've earned at least that much.' This article was originally published on
2 hours ago
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON -- Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.'
