社区黑料

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

For the 29th time so far this year, Arizona is suing the Trump administration, this time to block the U.S. Department of Education from cancelling public service student loan forgiveness for employees of government agencies and organizations that help undocumented immigrants, promote diversity, equity and inclusion or take part in political protest.

鈥淧ublic service should never be weaponized for political games,鈥� Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a statement. 鈥淭his rule undermines the very spirit of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and threatens workers who dedicate their careers to public service. I鈥檓 proud to join my fellow attorneys general in suing to block it.鈥�

On Monday, Mayes joined a coalition of 21 other Democratic attorneys general challenging the new rules from the U.S. Department of Education. The states asked a federal judge in Massachusetts to declare the rule unlawful and block the department from implementing it.

The rule, finalized Oct. 31, allows the department itself to decide that agencies or organizations are ineligible for student loan forgiveness if the Trump administration says they have a 鈥渟ubstantial illegal purpose.鈥� The rule is scheduled to go into effect in July 2026.

But the Department of Education鈥檚 description of an illegal purpose is based on its own ideological agenda, the attorneys general wrote.

鈥淚n seeking to crack down on specific activities disfavored by this Administration, the true intent behind the Rule is clear,鈥� the attorneys general wrote. 鈥淭he Department seeks to chill the activities of public service employers by discouraging their employees from what it deems objectionable forms of public service.鈥�

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program was created by Congress in 2007 to encourage professionals to go into public service careers with lower pay than private sector jobs, where they might not otherwise be able to pay off their student loan debt. After 10 years of regular payments while working in public service, the federal government forgives remaining student loan debt for those in the program.

鈥淥ver the years, (the program) has enabled more than one million public servants to pursue careers that might have otherwise been out of reach,鈥� Mayes鈥� office wrote in a statement. 鈥淔or state governments, (the program) is a critical tool to recruit and retain qualified professionals in vital fields like education, health care, and law enforcement.鈥�

In addition to the lawsuit from the attorneys general, a group of more than a dozen cities, labor unions and nonprofit organizations from across the country in federal court in Massachusetts on Monday seeking 鈥渢o restore the promise that a bipartisan Congress made to public-service workers and their employers in establishing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program nearly 20 years ago.鈥�

The Arizona Education Association, the largest teachers union in the state, was unavailable for comment, but its parent organization, the National Education Association, joined in the suit alongside other labor unions.

鈥淭he new rule imposes harsh and illegal restrictions, makes repayment less affordable, and silences the voices of educators and other beneficiaries of the programs,鈥� NEA President Becky Pringle said in a statement. 鈥淲e refuse to stand by while politicians trap dedicated educators in generations of debt.鈥�

Congress was clear, the attorneys general wrote in their lawsuit, that all government employees 鈥� except for elected members of Congress 鈥� were eligible for public service student loan forgiveness.

The states have benefited greatly from the loan forgiveness program, Mayes and the other attorneys general argued, because it helped them to recruit 鈥渇irst responders, early childhood educators, librarians, nurses, public defenders, and public prosecutors鈥� who might otherwise have gone to work in the private sector to ensure they could pay off their student loans.

鈥淩esidents and State employees have planned their lives and careers around receiving (federal student loan) forgiveness,鈥� the attorneys general wrote.

The loan forgiveness program applies to a wide range of workers beyond those employed by state government and municipalities, including those who work for some nonprofit organizations.

鈥淭o be clear, (the public service loan forgiveness program) is not merely a convenient recruitment tool for State employers,鈥� the attorneys general wrote. 鈥淔or many employees with debt loads that reach into the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, (the program) is the only reason they can afford to work in public service in the first place.鈥�

In March, Trump issued an executive order instructing the U.S. Department of Education to change eligibility rules for the public service loan forgiveness program based on the administration鈥檚 view of 鈥渟ubstantial illegal purpose.鈥� The new rule disqualifies employees of government entities or organizations that 鈥渁id and abet鈥� violations of federal immigration law, support protests against the Trump administration or back gender-affirming care for transgender youth. (The administration denigrated health care for trans children as聽 the 鈥渃hemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children or the trafficking of children to so-called transgender sanctuary States for 鈥榩urposes of emancipation from their lawful parents.鈥欌��)

The attorneys general argue that Trump鈥檚 executive order and the Department of Education rule attempt to give power to the department that has not been conferred to it by Congress.

鈥淭he Department redefines 鈥榪ualifying employer鈥� in a sharp departure from the corresponding definition of 鈥榩ublic service job鈥� that Congress put in place in 2007 鈥� and that has remained substantively intact since then 鈥� but provides no adequate justification for this grant of unfettered discretion,鈥� the AGs wrote.

The rule also targets state government entities while exempting federal government entities, without explanation, the attorneys general claimed.

鈥淧ut simply, the Final Rule is nothing more than a laundry list of this Administration鈥檚 policy priorities designed to attack lawful conduct it does not agree with,鈥� the attorneys general wrote.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: [email protected].

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 社区黑料鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.