Time: 10.00

Biden Management Rule Change to Public service Loan Forgiveness faces Likely Legal Challenge, Critics Say

Washington D.C. – A forthcoming rule change to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, expected to deny forgiveness to borrowers working for organizations deemed to be pursuing “considerable illegal purposes,” is drawing sharp criticism and is almost certain to face legal challenges, according to experts. The potential rule, which hasn’t been officially published, is sparking concerns that the administration is leveraging federal student loan programs to advance a political agenda.

The proposed change builds on existing PSLF eligibility requirements,which require borrowers to work full-time for qualifying employers – typically government organizations or non-profits – and make 120 qualifying payments. Tho, the new interpretation introduces a perhaps broad definition of “substantial illegal purposes” that could disqualify employees of organizations engaged in activities the current administration disfavors.

Ancient context: Weaponizing Student Debt

This isn’t the frist time student debt has been used as a tool for political or social control. The tactic has deep roots in american history. During the Vietnam War era, then-California Governor Ronald Reagan, alongside political allies, significantly reduced funding for state universities. This led to the introduction of tuition fees, a purposeful move to curb student activism perceived as radical. Roger A. Freeman, Reagan’s education advisor, explicitly stated the concern of creating “an educated proletariat,” arguing for selective access to higher education, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle in 1969.

“There is a very robust history about how debt has been used as a lever of social control,” explains Toby Yu,a senior policy analyst at The Institute for College Access & Success,a non-profit research and advocacy association. “[Student debt] is a force that can keep people in place, keep people in line. … That is why it is indeed being wielded as a weapon against people who work in fields that they don’t like,and rewarding folks who work in fields that they do like.”

Specific Concerns & Potential Impacts

According to legal expert Melissa Partridge, a staff attorney at the Student Borrower Protection Center, the rule’s vagueness is a key concern. She anticipates a lawsuit challenging its legality. “I’m sure there’s going to be a lawsuit against it, but still,” Partridge stated, “it’s a major abuse of power for the government to wield this tool to advance its political ends and to propose denying loan forgiveness to borrowers who work for organizations that this administration disfavors.”

The rule is expected to disproportionately impact individuals working in fields such as:

Immigrant Legal Services: organizations providing legal assistance to immigrants could be targeted if their work is perceived as conflicting with stricter immigration enforcement policies.
Gender-Affirming Healthcare: Providers of gender-affirming care, notably those facing legal challenges in certain states, could be deemed to be operating in violation of state law.
Protest Support & Advocacy: The broad definition of “substantial illegal purposes” could potentially encompass organizations supporting protesters, even if the protests themselves involve minor infractions like trespassing. Partridge specifically noted the historical use of trespassing charges against activists.

The Institute for College Access & Success: Mentioned as a source for historical context on student debt as a tool for social control. ronald Reagan’s Education Advisor, Roger A. Freeman: Named and quoted regarding the concerns about an “educated proletariat” during the Vietnam War protests. specific examples of impacted fields: Expanded on the types of organizations potentially affected by the rule change (Immigrant Legal Services