
Some workers would be excluded from student loan forgiveness program for 'illegal' activity
The Education Department took aim at nonprofits or government bodies that work with immigrants and transgender youth, releasing plans to overhaul the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program . Opponents fear the new policy would turn the loan forgiveness benefit into a tool of political retribution.
The proposal would give the education secretary the final say in deciding whether a group or government entity should be excluded from the program, which was created by Congress in 2007 to encourage more college graduates to enter lower-paying public service fields. The proposal says illegal activity includes the trafficking or 'chemical castration' of children, illegal immigration and supporting foreign terrorist organizations. 'Chemical castration' is defined as using hormone therapy or drugs that delay puberty — gender-affirming care common for transgender children or teens.
President Donald Trump ordered the changes in March, saying the loan forgiveness program was steering taxpayer money to 'activist organizations' that pose a threat to national security and do not serve the public.
The public will be given 30 days to weigh in on the proposal before it can be finalized. Any changes would take effect in July 2026.
Under current rules, government employees and many nonprofit workers can get their federal student loans canceled after they've made 10 years of payments. The program is open to government workers, including teachers, firefighters and employees of public hospitals, along with nonprofits that focus on certain areas.
The new proposal would exclude employees of any organization tied to an activity deemed illegal. The Education Department predicts that fewer than 10 organizations would be deemed ineligible per year. It doesn't expect a 'significant reduction' in the percentage of borrowers who would be granted forgiveness under the program, according to the proposal.
Yet the agency acknowledges that not all industries would be affected evenly. Schools, universities, health care providers, social workers and legal services organizations are among those most likely to have their eligibility jeopardized, the department wrote.
It did not give more specifics about what 'illegal' actions those groups were taking that could bar them from the program. But the proposal suggests that performing gender-affirming care in the 27 states that outlaw it would be enough.
If a state or federal court rules against an employer, that could lead to its expulsion from the program, or if the employer is involved in a legal settlement that includes an admission of wrongdoing.
Even without a legal finding, however, the education secretary could determine independently that an organization should be ejected. The secretary could judge whether an organization participated in illegal activity by using a legal standard known as the 'preponderance of the evidence' — meaning it's more likely than not that an accusation is true.
Once an organization is barred from the program, its workers' future loan payments would no longer count toward cancellation. They would have to find work at another eligible employer to keep making progress toward forgiveness. A ban from the Education Department would last 10 years or until the employer completed a 'corrective action plan' approved by the secretary.
Critics blasted the proposal as an illegal attempt to weaponize student loan cancellation. Kristin McGuire, CEO of the nonprofit Young Invincibles, which advocates for loan forgiveness, called it a political stunt designed to confuse borrowers.
'By using a distorted and overly broad definition of 'illegal activities,' the Trump administration is exploiting the student loan system to attack political opponents,' McGuire said in a statement.
The Education Department sketched out its plans for the overhaul during a federal rulemaking process that began in June. The agency gathered a panel of experts to help hash out the details — a process known as negotiated rulemaking. But the panel failed to reach a consensus, which freed the department to move forward with a proposal of its own design.
The proposal released on Friday included some changes meant to ease concerns raised by the expert panel. Some had worried the department would ban organizations merely for supporting transgender rights, even if they have no direct involvement in gender-affirming care. The new proposal clarifies that the secretary would not expel organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights.
___
The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
AT&T's $17 Million Data Breach Settlement Offers Payouts Up To $7,500, Here's How To Claim
AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T) customers, both present and past, stand to receive up to $7,500 as part of a proposed $177 million settlement. This settlement is in response to two significant data breaches that affected millions of AT&T customers. What Happened: AT&T Inc. has suggested a settlement amounting to $177 million. This sum includes $149 million for the initial class-action lawsuit and an additional $28 million for the second one. The first data breach, revealed in March 2024, impacted 73 million account holders, with hackers obtaining personal information and disseminating it on the dark web. A subsequent breach in July 2024 compromised the call and text records of almost all AT&T customers. According to the report by New York Post, the settlement is yet to receive approval, with a final hearing set for December 3 in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Customers who had their data compromised can apply for compensation before the hearing. They will be notified via an email from Kroll Settlement Administration and must submit a claim form by November 18. Also Read: GameStop to Pay $4.5 Million Over Alleged Privacy Violations Involving Facebook Data Sharing Customers affected by the March 2024 breach can claim up to $5,000, while those impacted by the July breach can claim up to $2,500. Customers who were affected by both breaches could be eligible for up to $7,500. AT&T will require evidence of losses associated with the breaches. Payouts are anticipated to commence by the end of the year, but may be postponed if appeals are lodged after the hearing. Why It Matters: This settlement proposal comes as a significant development for AT&T customers who were affected by the data breaches. The proposed compensation not only acknowledges the inconvenience and potential harm caused by the breaches, but also serves as a reminder of the importance of robust data security measures for companies handling sensitive customer information. The outcome of the final hearing will be closely watched, as it could set a precedent for future data breach settlements. Read Next Wall Street's Most Accurate Analysts Give Their Take On 3 Tech And Telecom Stocks Delivering High-Dividend Yields UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? AT&T (T): Free Stock Analysis Report This article AT&T's $17 Million Data Breach Settlement Offers Payouts Up To $7,500, Here's How To Claim originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House Backs Off 'Hostile Takeover' of D.C. Police
WASHINGTON, DC - AUGUST 14: Members of the National Guard walk on the National Mall on August 14, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump announced plans to deploy federal officers and the National Guard to the District in order to place the DC Metropolitan Police Department under federal control and assist in crime prevention in the nation's capital. Credit - Anna Moneymaker—Getty Images The White House has backed off plans for a full takeover of the D.C. police force and will allow for the city's police chief to remain in charge after a judge indicated they would block the move. President Donald Trump this week invoked emergency powers to take control of the D.C. police department and call in the National Guard to a city that he claimed is overrun by "bloodshed, bedlam and squalor"—a claim that is disputed by experts. Read More: Trump Paints a Picture of D.C. as a Crime-Ridden Hell-Hole. Here Are the Facts As part of the federal takeover, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Drug and Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Terrance C. Cole as 'Emergency Police Commissioner,' a move that would have given the White House extraordinary powers over policing. The city's Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit calling for an emergency restraining order to block the move, accusing the Trump Administration of implementing a 'hostile takeover' of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) that would lead to 'imminent, irreparable harm'. 'In my nearly three decades in law enforcement, I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive,' Smith wrote in the lawsuit Judge Ana Reyes said in a Friday hearing that, according to the Home Rule Act, the Department of Justice needed to rewrite the section of the executive order that placed Cole in charge, and that he needed to go through the city's mayor. Reyes stopped short of issuing a restraining order, but indicated that if the DOJ did not rewrite the section, she would. Read More: Trump Took Over the D.C. Police. He Can't Do It In Other Cities, Legal Experts Say 'The statute [The Home Rule Act] would have no meaning at all if the president could just say 'we're taking over your police department,'' Reyes said. In a press conference after the hearing, Schwalb touted the result as a 'very important win for Home Rule today.' A new directive by Bondi following the lawsuit allowed for Chief Pamela Smith to remain in charge of the force, though the city will still be under the Administration's control, and orders will be sent through the city's Mayor Muriel Bowser. The Trump Administration will still essentially have control over the city, but Smith will maintain control of the day-to-day operations of the MPD. In Bondi's new directive, though, she also required MPD to comply with the Trump Administration's aggressive immigration tactics, rescinding two police practices that limited MPD's immigration enforcement—also known as 'sanctuary policies.' D.C's At-Large Councilmember Christina Henderson reacted on X that, 'Respectfully, the Attorney General does not have the authority to revoke laws.' In the first week alone of the Trump Administration's federal takeover, nearly 200 arrests have been reported in the city, including many undocumented immigrants, which has alarmed civil rights groups. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Execution date set for Florida man who killed estranged wife's sister and parents, set fire to house
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A Florida man who fatally stabbed his estranged wife's sister and parents and then set fire to their house is scheduled for execution in Florida under a death warrant signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. David Pittman, 63, is set to die Sept. 17 in the record-extending 12th execution scheduled for this year. DeSantis signed the warrant Friday, as two other men, Kayle Bates and Curtis Windom, await execution later this month. The highest previous annual total of recent Florida executions is eight in 2014, since the death penalty was restored in 1976 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Florida has already executed nine people this year, more than any other state, while Texas and South Carolina are tied for second place with four each. A total of 28 people have been executed so far this year in the U.S., exceeding the 25 executions carried out last year. It ties 2015, when 28 people were also put to death. Pittman was convicted and sentenced to death in 1991 on three counts of first-degree murder, according to court records. Jurors also found him guilty of arson and grand theft. Pittman and his wife, Marie, were going through a divorce in May 1990, when Pittman went to the Polk County home of her parents, Clarence and Barbara Knowles, officials said. Pittman fatally stabbed the couple, as well as their younger daughter, Bonnie. He then set fire to the house and stole Bonnie Knowles' car, which he also set on fire, investigators said. A witnessed identified Pittman as the person running away from the burning car. A jailhouse informant also testified that Pittman had admitted to the killings. The Florida Supreme Court is already scheduled to hear an appeal. An appeal will also likely be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.