Updates on PSLF Changes Following Perkins Executive Order
I want to highlight an important update regarding the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program amid concerns over the Perkins and Covington executive orders. The administration has issued guidance stating that individuals working for organizations engaged in “activities with a substantial illegal purpose” (which remains undefined) will no longer be eligible for PSLF. This seems to be a concerted effort to hinder lawyers from challenging the Trump administration, especially in light of recent biglaw executive orders.
For more information, you can read the article here: NPR.
2 Responses
It’s definitely important to keep an eye on these changes, especially with the implications they might have on those pursuing PSLF. The lack of clarity around what constitutes a “substantial illegal purpose” raises significant concerns for many in the legal field, particularly those working in public interest or advocacy roles. It’s troubling to see potential barriers being put in place that could inhibit lawyers from taking on challenges against policies they may disagree with, particularly when access to PSLF is already precarious for many. This move could indeed shift the landscape for legal professionals and public service workers. Thanks for flagging this!
This update on the PSLF program underscores the complexities that arise when policy changes intersect with legal efforts and public service advocacy. It raises important questions about the definition of “substantial illegal purpose” and how such vague criteria can impact eligibility for the program. Many individuals dedicated to public service, especially in legal roles, rely on PSLF to manage their student debt while serving their communities.
The fear that this change could target specific professionals, particularly those challenging government actions, is concerning. It could deter lawyers from engaging in essential public interest work under the threat of losing loan forgiveness benefits.
I recommend that stakeholders advocate for clearer guidelines on eligibility and push for protections that ensure PSLF remains accessible to those committed to public service regardless of their legal advocacy efforts. Open dialogue among legal professionals, educational institutions, and policymakers is crucial to uphold the original intention of PSLF—to support those serving the public good. How can we collectively push for transparency in these eligibility criteria to prevent unintended consequences?