Tag: Restricting

  • Trump Administration Proposes Restricting Public Service Loan Forgiveness for Organizations with ‘Illegal Purpose’

    Trump Administration Proposes Restricting Public Service Loan Forgiveness for Organizations with ‘Illegal Purpose’

    The Trump administration on Friday released a proposed rule that would exclude organizations deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose” from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, a move that could disqualify thousands of borrowers working for advocacy and legal aid organizations from having their student debt canceled.

    The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published in the Federal Register and scheduled to take effect July 1, 2026, follows President Trump’s March executive order directing the Department of Education to revise PSLF eligibility criteria. The proposed changes would give the Secretary of Education broad authority to determine which employers qualify for the program that has provided loan forgiveness to more than one million public servants.

    Under the proposed rule, organizations could lose PSLF eligibility for activities including “aiding or abetting violations of Federal immigration laws,” “engaging in a pattern of aiding and abetting illegal discrimination,” or “engaging in violence for the purpose of obstructing or influencing Federal Government policy.” The Department would use a “preponderance of evidence” standard to make determinations, and employers found ineligible would face a 10-year waiting period before they could regain qualifying status.

    The rule specifically targets several types of activities the administration considers problematic, including providing certain medical treatments to transgender minors, assisting with immigration cases, and various forms of protest activity that result in state law violations such as trespassing or disorderly conduct.

    Kristin McGuire, President and CEO of Young Invincibles, characterized the proposal as “continuing its attacks on education, deliberately targeting advocacy organizations whose work doesn’t align with its ideological agenda.”

    “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. “This is an illegal move by the administration; eligibility for Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) is defined by law, not political ideology.”

    The proposed rule emerged from a contentious negotiated rulemaking process that concluded in July without consensus. According to the Department’s documentation, the negotiator representing civil rights organizations dissented from the draft regulations, preventing the committee from reaching agreement.

    The Department of Education estimates the rule would result in budget savings of $1.537 billion over 10 years by reducing the number of borrowers who achieve loan forgiveness. Administrative documents suggest the changes could affect borrowers in multiple sectors, including legal services, healthcare, social work, and education.

    Organizations operating under shared federal tax identification numbers could see entire agencies lose eligibility if one component is found to engage in disqualifying activities. The rule includes provisions allowing the Secretary to separate organizations under shared identifiers, but grants ultimate authority to the Department to make such determinations.

    The proposed rule draws heavily on the Internal Revenue Service’s “illegality doctrine,” which denies tax-exempt status to organizations with substantial illegal purposes. The Department argues this approach ensures consistency across federal agencies and prevents taxpayer funds from subsidizing activities the government aims to prevent.

    Employers would be required to certify on PSLF application forms that they do not engage in activities with substantial illegal purpose. Those who fail to provide such certification would immediately lose qualifying status.

    The rule includes safeguards requiring notice and opportunity to respond before final determinations, and allows employers to maintain eligibility if they submit approved corrective action plans before losing qualification.

    According to the Department’s regulatory impact analysis, implementation would cost between $1.5 million and $3 million annually during the first two years. The analysis acknowledges that compliance costs for employers would vary significantly, with larger organizations potentially facing higher expenses for legal consultation and operational adjustments.

    The Department projects reduced confusion among borrowers due to clearer eligibility criteria, though it acknowledges potential disruptions during the transition period. The analysis notes that borrowers working for disqualified employers would need to find new positions with qualifying organizations to continue progress toward loan forgiveness.

    The proposed rule will undergo a 30-day public comment period following publication in the Federal Register on August 18. The Department must review all submitted comments before issuing a final rule.

    If implemented as proposed, the new eligibility requirements would apply only to activities occurring on or after July 1, 2026. Borrowers whose employers lose qualifying status would receive notification from the Department and would no longer earn qualifying payment credit while employed by those organizations.

    The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, established in 2007, allows borrowers to have remaining federal student loan balances canceled after making 120 qualifying monthly payments while working full-time for eligible government agencies or qualified nonprofit organizations. The program has faced criticism and administrative challenges since its inception, with many borrowers initially denied forgiveness due to complex eligibility requirements.

    Young Invincibles and other advocacy organizations indicated they plan to submit detailed comments opposing the rule and may pursue legal challenges if the final version proceeds as proposed.

    Source link

  • President Issues Proclamation Restricting Entry of Foreign Nationals From 19 Countries – CUPA-HR

    President Issues Proclamation Restricting Entry of Foreign Nationals From 19 Countries – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 5, 2025

    On June 4, 2025, President Trump issued a presidential proclamation titled “Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” The proclamation, citing national security concerns, suspends or limits entry into the United States for certain foreign nationals from 19 countries identified as having inadequate screening and information-sharing practices. The restrictions take effect on Monday, June 9, 2025.

    This proclamation implements directives from Executive Order 14161, issued on January 20, 2025, which stated that it is U.S. policy to deny entry to foreign nationals who may pose national security or public safety threats. That order required federal agencies to review global vetting practices and recommend countries for entry restrictions based on insufficient identity management or cooperation.

    Following that review, the secretary of state, in consultation with the attorney general, secretary of homeland security and director of national intelligence, recommended entry restrictions on foreign nationals from 19 countries.

    Countries Affected

    The proclamation imposes:

    • Full entry suspensions (both immigrant and nonimmigrant visas) for nationals of: Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.
    • Partial entry suspensions (specific visa types, including B-1/B-2 and F/M/J visas) for nationals of: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

    The administration cites overstay rates, lack of cooperation in accepting removable nationals, and terrorist activity or governance instability as justification.

    Exemptions and Waivers

    The proclamation includes a number of exemptions, including lawful permanent residents of the United States; dual nationals traveling on a passport from a non-restricted country; holders of certain visa categories such as diplomatic, NATO, and adoption-related visas; immediate family-based immigrant visa applicants with verified relationships; and Special Immigrant Visa recipients, including Afghan and U.S. government employees. Also exempt are individuals traveling to participate in major international sporting events — such as the World Cup or Olympics — including athletes, coaches, support staff and immediate relatives, subject to determination by the secretary of state.

    In addition, case-by-case waivers may be granted if the secretary of state or attorney general determines that the individual’s travel would serve a critical U.S. national interest, including participation in legal proceedings or for humanitarian reasons.

    This action reflects a return to policies implemented during President Trump’s first term. In 2017, the administration issued an executive order restricting entry from several predominantly Muslim countries. The order was revised multiple times following legal challenges and was ultimately upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018). The Biden administration reversed the policy on its first day in office in 2021.

    The partial suspensions affect several nonimmigrant visa categories common in higher education, including F (students), M (vocational students), and J (exchange visitors) from the listed countries. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor developments related to this proclamation and its potential implications.



    Source link

  • The Case for Restricting Cell Phones in the Classroom 

    The Case for Restricting Cell Phones in the Classroom 

    A 2024 National Education Association poll found that 90% of teachers support prohibiting student cell phone use during instructional hours.


    Devon Espejo did not enter the teaching profession to spend her time policing cell phones in her classroom. An art teacher at Santa Marcos High School in Santa Barbara, CA, she has watched as phones and social media have tightened their grip on her students.  

    Educators are deeply concerned about the impact social media has on students’ mental health and believe those negative effects are another reason to limit access to phones at school. However, is the relentless, intolerable, and exhausting disruptions that have made their presence untenable. 

    “It takes up too much time. I don’t want to be the phone police,” she says. “I want to teach.”  

    Protecting the learning environment

    Santa Barbara educators took their case to the district, and the district, eventually, listened. In the 2024-25 school year, Santa Barbara Unified School District (SBUSD) enacted a new cellphone policy called “Off and Away” that requires all high school students to park their phones in “cell phone hotels” — numbered pouches hanging either on classroom walls or over doors — before they sit down in class. 

    For educators in the district and an overwhelming majority nationwide, these restrictions are welcome and overdue.  

    A 2024 National Education Association poll found that 90% of teachers support prohibiting student cell phone use during instructional hours. Seventy-five percent favor extending restrictions to the entire school day.  

    A 2023 student survey by Common Sense Media found that, on a typical day, the average student receives hundreds of notifications on their phone, about a quarter of which arrive during the school day. 

    “Students are so reassured by that sound. They’re flipping it over and looking at the screen without even realizing that they’re doing it,” says Noelle Gilzow, a science teacher in Columbia, MO, where a new restrictive cell phone policy was introduced in middle and high schools in 2024. 

    It is a step more schools are taking. Cell phone bans never went away, but prior to the pandemic, many districts were looking for a middle ground. Current trends, however, suggest that any lingering patience with the devices has faded.  

    “We’re definitely seeing more schools tighten up their policies,” says Elizabeth Keren-Kolb, professor of educational technologies at the University of Michigan. “The question is how far these bans should go.” 

    Considering all perspectives

    Currently, these bans or restrictions are limited to the classroom, where, says San Marcos English teacher Frank Koroshec, there really isn’t any convincing pedagogical reason to allow student access. “We have other resources in classrooms — iPads, Chromebooks — so I don’t think we need phones in the classroom for learning.”  

    Still, when designing and implementing a new policy, the voices of all stakeholders must be considered, says Victor Pereira, co-chair of the Teaching and Technology Leadership Program at the Harvard University Graduate School of Education. “You need to listen to everyone. This is a complex issue, and all those folks come with very different perspectives.”  

    Many parents’ fear that they will not be able to reach their children during an emergency has fueled some opposition to more ambitious cell phone restrictions.  

    Ken Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services, cautions that cell phone communication during emergencies can increase safety risks. “During a lockdown, students should be listening to the adults in the school who are giving life-saving instructions, working to keep them safe,” Trump explains.  

    So far, parent support for the restrictions in place at San Marcos High has been encouraging, and educators there report that the learning environment has improved since “Off and Away” went into effect.  

    There are some holdouts among the parents, says Espejo, “but if they were to sit through a class with kids who have access to their phones and then sat through one where phones were not allowed, they would endorse it. It’s like night and day.” 

    Source link