Trump's student loan forgiveness overhaul may block immigrants, transgender support groups & more — here's what's changing
Millions already got help from this program
Live Events
Trump says some groups are harmful
Government didn't give clear answers
FAQs
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
Trump is changing student loan forgiveness rules. He wants to stop giving loan forgiveness to some groups and organizations. The rule targets immigrant and transgender support groups. These groups might lose access to student loan help if the government says they're involved in 'illegal activities', claims reports.The Education Department wrote a draft plan for the change. It would let the Secretary of Education decide which groups are doing something 'illegal.' The draft focuses on 3 big things: immigration, terrorism, and transgender issues, as per the report by Associated Press.These are the main areas the government is watching to decide what counts as 'illegal.' Advocates are worried this gives too much power to the government. Betsy Mayotte from the Institute of Student Loan Advisors said it might be used for 'political punishment', as per the reports.Over 1 million Americans have already had loans canceled under this program. These include teachers, nurses, firefighters, and more. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program started in 2007, according to the report by Associated Press.It forgives the rest of your student debt if you work 10 years in public service and make 120 payments. Right now, nonprofits that work in education, law, or health also qualify. This includes groups that help transgender youth or immigrants, as per the reports.Trump said in March the program supports 'activist organizations' that harm national security. He ordered changes to remove groups he says break the law, especially those that support immigrants or transgender youth, according to the report by Associated PressHis plan could force many people to leave their jobs or lose loan forgiveness. If your job becomes 'ineligible,' your loan progress stops. Big groups like hospitals, schools, and nonprofits could all be affected, as per reports.Even if just one department in a hospital helps transgender kids, the whole hospital might become ineligible. The draft says 'illegal activities' include things like helping undocumented immigrants or giving hormone therapy to minors, as stated by Associated Press.Even if these are legal in some states, they could still be called illegal under this plan. This means even cities or states that don't work closely with immigration officials could be targeted.Alyssa Dobson from Slippery Rock University warned that 'entire cities' could lose access. The plan gives the Education Secretary final say, even without a court case. There doesn't need to be a legal conviction — just a decision from the department, as mentioned in the report by Associated Press.Experts said this could cause doctor and nurse shortages. Emeka Oguh from PeopleJoy said the rule might hurt hospitals and clinics if used too broadly. Some experts asked the department for clear examples, but got vague answers. For example, it's unclear how schools teaching diversity (DEI) lessons will be judged, as stated in the reports.There's also a new rule where employers must 'certify' they don't break laws. If they mess up the paperwork, employees could lose loan relief. The Department said they are open to making changes. But they still have the power to shape the final rule however they want, according to the report by Associated Press.The final rule will go through public comments and should be ready by July 2026. This means people can speak up before it becomes official. Last week, the Department said they are keeping Trump's promise. They said they're working to make sure the program doesn't help lawbreaking organizations, as per the reports.Groups that help immigrants or transgender youth could lose access if labeled as doing 'illegal activities' by the Education Department.The new rules are expected to take effect in July 2026, after public comments are reviewed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Jeffrey Epstein case: Elon Musk targets Donald Trump again; asks US president to 'release the files as promised'
Elon Musk and Donald Trump (File photo) Reacting to Donald Trump 's long Truth Social post on the Jeffrey Epstein case, the US president's estranged ally, billionaire Elon Musk , on Sunday demanded that the MAGA leader "release the files as promised." Replying to an X user's post on Trump's Truth Social rant, Musk wrote, "He said 'Epstein' half a dozen times while telling everyone to stop talking about Epstein. Just release the files as promised." Elon Musk X post Musk's remark comes days after the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) closed their investigation into the death of the convicted sex offender, concluding that he was not murdered. The two agencies also denied the existence of the disgraced financier's "client list" - the so-called "Epstein Files" - which allegedly names Trump, among others. Trump and Musk have been feuding publicly following their split, which was triggered by the latter's opposition to the former's "big, beautiful bill." Also Read: Who do Kash Patel, Pam Bondi work for? Epstein's brother makes explosive claim The Republican has consistently denied allegations that he was named in the files or had any direct connection to Epstein, despite being seen in at least one decades-old video alongside the late financier at a party. On the other hand, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO is among those who allege that the real estate baron is named in the files. According to the US media, Dan Bongino, an influential right-wing podcast host whom Trump appointed FBI deputy director, has threatened to resign over the administration's handling of the issue.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Trump's birthright citizenship ban faces new problem: Class actions
When the Supreme Court ruled in President Trump's favor two weeks ago in a case arising from his efforts to ban birthright citizenship, he called the decision 'a monumental victory.' But the victory may turn out to be short-lived. To be sure, the 6-to-3 ruling severely limited a key tool federal trial judges had used in checking executive power — universal injunctions that applied not only to the plaintiffs but also to everyone else affected by the challenged program nationwide. But the justices made clear that another important tool remained available — class actions, which let people facing a common problem band together in a single lawsuit to obtain nationwide relief. The differences between the two procedures may at first blush seem technical. But universal injunctions have long been criticized across the ideological spectrum as a judicial power grab without a basis in law. Class actions, on the other hand, are an established mechanism whose requirements are set out in detail in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Joseph N. Laplante, a federal judge in New Hampshire, embraced class actions on Thursday, opening a new front in the battle to deny Mr. Trump's effort to redefine who can become a citizen. The move was also a new sign that Mr. Trump's win at the Supreme Court may turn out to be less lasting than it at first appeared. The judge provisionally certified a class of all children born to parents who are in the United States temporarily or without authorization. Then he entered a preliminary injunction in their favor barring the enforcement of Mr. Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. It applied nationwide. That means Mr. Trump's executive order, which has never come into effect and may never will, remains blocked. The ban would upend the conventional understanding of the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.' A White House spokesman called Judge Laplante's ruling 'an obvious and unlawful attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court's clear order against universal relief.' But the court's decision specifically contemplated the alternative, and it gave challengers 30 days to pursue it and other options. The key difference between universal injunctions and class actions is that the former is a shortcut that benefits parties and bystanders alike, letting judges provide relief to people who are not before them. A class action, by contrast, brings into the lawsuit everyone similarly situated to the lead plaintiffs, but only if they meet criteria detailed in the rules. Judges must certify a class based on several factors in the rules. If they do, their rulings apply to all class members. Legal experts said class actions are well suited to address questions like the one posed by the proposed birthright citizenship ban. 'The goal of the class action is to generate a single answer to a recurring problem,' said William B. Rubenstein, a law professor at Harvard and the author of a treatise on class actions. 'And there's at least one legal question in this case that applies to everybody across the country, which is the constitutionality of the approach.' Mila Sohoni, a law professor at Stanford, said that 'even after the Supreme Court's recent restriction on universal injunctions, the class action remains as an essential mechanism for courts to address constitutional violations of this scope and urgency.' After an appeals court considers the matter, the New Hampshire case will very likely head to the Supreme Court. The court has so far not addressed whether Mr. Trump's executive order is constitutional. The Trump administration may well ask the justices to take up only the threshold issue of whether the mechanism the judge used is legal while again ducking the more fundamental constitutional question. There is reason to think that this time the justices will say the tool used to block the ban was lawful. When the birthright citizenship case was argued in May, several of the justices seemed taken by the idea that class actions have a role to play. Class actions were, Professor Sohoni wrote in a newsletter at the time, 'the breakout star of the oral argument.' Class actions came up at least 35 times. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said they could provide 'a mechanism to do what's needed here in terms of getting relief to people.' He added that even a putative class action — one merely proposed by the plaintiffs and untested by the courts — may be enough to allow a court to issue an injunction blocking a government program. It was not clear at the time why that particular issue was on his mind. But it turned out that the justices were at work on an order concerning the administration's efforts to deport Venezuelan migrants using the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime law. The order, issued the day after the argument, did precisely what Justice Kavanaugh had contemplated. The majority barred the migrants' removal, explaining that 'courts may issue temporary relief to a putative class,' here two detainees said to be members of Tren de Aragua, a violent gang, and 'similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas.' The court shielded them from deportation without deciding 'whether a class should be certified.' The move was unusual because courts do not generally provide a class of people relief until they have considered who belongs in the class. It did not sit well with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who filed a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. 'The federal rules do not permit such a shortcut,' he wrote. Last month, when the court issued its decision in the birthright citizenship case, Justice Alito returned to the fray. In a concurring opinion joined by Justice Thomas, he warned that the lower courts should not simply replace universal injunctions with class actions. 'District courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors' of class-action rules, he wrote. 'Otherwise,' he added, 'the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of 'nationwide class relief,' and today's decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.' Brian Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt and the author of 'The Conservative Case for Class Actions,' said he had 'grave misgivings about these quick-and-dirty provisional class certifications,' adding that 'they recreate all of the problems of universal injunctions under a different name.' 'But,' he added, 'the Supreme Court has already blessed this approach by doing it itself,' in the Venezuelan migrant case. 'So the district judge in New Hampshire can certainly be forgiven,' Professor Fitzpatrick said. 'Indeed, the judge was more conscientious than the court.' Judge Laplante, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, issued a 38-page decision on Thursday methodically analyzing the four factors required by the rules governing class actions and provisionally concluding they supported a national class. The class was sufficiently numerous, he wrote, as 'the executive order would deny citizenship to thousands of children.' The case presented a common question 'about the constitutionality and lawfulness of the executive order.' The lead plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the rest of the class, he wrote. And their lawyers, including ones from the American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the judge wrote, 'have sufficient experience and qualifications to serve as class counsel.' Should the Supreme Court rule that the constitutionality of Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order can be tested in a class action, it will represent a shift, as the court has sometimes been hostile to such suits. In 2011, for instance, it threw out an enormous employment discrimination class action against Walmart that had sought billions of dollars on behalf of as many as 1.5 million female workers, saying that the
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Trump Assassination Attempt The Result Of Secret Service Missteps: Report
New Delhi: The Secret Service "failed to implement security measures" that could have prevented the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt on US President Donald Trump, according to a newly released report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The report, requested by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, outlines a series of critical failures by the agency during Trump's campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. It highlights poor planning, communication breakdowns, insufficient agent training, and a lack of clear operational guidance. While senior Secret Service officials were reportedly aware of a potential threat to Trump ahead of the event, the report noted that the information was not specific to the rally or the gunman. Due to the agency's "siloed practice for sharing classified threat information," agents on the ground and local law enforcement were left unaware. "Making changes to Secret Service policies to require it to proactively share threat information internally could help ensure its agents and partners will have information needed to provide effective protection," the GAO recommended. In a statement accompanying the report's release, Grassley said the failures were the result of "a series of bad decisions and bureaucratic handicaps." "The Secret Service's failure on July 13th was the culmination of years of mismanagement and came after the Biden administration denied requests for enhanced security to protect President Trump," he said. "Americans should be grateful that President Trump survived that day and was ultimately reelected to restore common sense to our country." The report also noted that several Secret Service officers experienced limited cellphone service during the rally, which may have impacted their ability to communicate effectively in real time. The attack killed one person, rally attendee Corey Comperatore, and two injuries. Trump was grazed by a bullet. The gunman was killed on site by a Secret Service sniper. Grassley highlighted a $1.17 billion allocation to the Secret Service as part of the newly passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, saying it would be used to address the agency's shortcomings. "I'm hopeful this significant injection of resources will go a long way in bringing the agency up to speed," Grassley added. Earlier, six Secret Service agents were suspended for security failures linked to the assassination attempt. The suspensions, ranging from 10 to 42 days, involved personnel from both supervisory and line agent levels, according to Deputy Director Matt Quinn.
