Changes to PSLF Following Perkins Executive Order
While this update isn’t specific to BL, it’s crucial for those who are concerned about the Perkins and Covington executive orders to be aware of recent guidance from the administration. It states that individuals employed by organizations whose activities are deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose” (a term that remains undefined) will no longer be eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. This appears to be a coordinated effort to hinder lawyers from effectively challenging the Trump administration, especially in conjunction with the biglaw executive orders.
For more details, see the full article here: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/07/nx-s1-5321313/trump-executive-action-public-service-loan-program
2 Responses
It’s definitely important to highlight these changes, especially the impact on lawyers working in organizations that challenge the administration. The lack of clarity around what constitutes an “illegal purpose” raises significant concerns about fairness and transparency. This seems like a strategic move that could limit the capacity of legal organizations to effectively challenge government policies, which is troubling for the integrity of our legal system. It’s crucial for those affected to stay informed and possibly seek resources or legal advice to understand their options moving forward. Thank you for sharing this information!
Thank you for sharing this important update on the PSLF changes in relation to the Perkins Executive Order. This shift in eligibility criteria could have significant implications not only for legal professionals but also for non-profit sectors that rely on dedicated advocates to challenge systemic issues. As the administration has not yet defined what constitutes a “substantial illegal purpose,” there is a considerable risk of ambiguity that could deter many from seeking PSLF benefits.
It would be beneficial for legal professionals and organizations to engage in discussions about what these terms might entail and to advocate for clearer guidelines. Furthermore, we should consider the potential chilling effect this could have on public interest law, as attorneys may hesitate to take on cases involving government accountability or social justice issues, fearing repercussions on their loan forgiveness status.
Open dialogue and community support will be essential in navigating these changes. Perhaps organizing forums or webinars to help disseminate information and strategize responses could empower those affected. What are your thoughts on how we can build a collective voice to address these challenges?