Tag: Rule

  • Judges Rule Trump Can’t Completely Stop SNAP Aid – The 74

    Judges Rule Trump Can’t Completely Stop SNAP Aid – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Two federal judges on Friday ruled against President Donald Trump’s move to suspend food stamp benefits starting November 1 amid the month-long government shutdown, with each noting contingency funding is available. 

    It’s unclear if the Trump administration plans an appeal or how quickly food assistance can flow to the 42 million Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Sixteen million of them are children, putting pressure on schools to address their needs.

    U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to distribute the funds in a timely manner using contingency money. 

    “SNAP benefits have never, until now, been terminated,” McConnell said, as reported in The Hill. “And the United States has in fact admitted that the contingency funds are appropriately used during a shutdown, and that occurred in 2019.”

    In a separate ruling, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani of Massachusetts gave the Trump administration until Monday to decide whether it will provide at least some food stamp benefits to recipients. She indicated the suspension of SNAP benefits is contrary to law. 

    She found fault with the defendants’ assertion that the U.S Department of Agriculture is prohibited from funding SNAP because Congress has not enacted new appropriations for the current fiscal year.

    “To the contrary, defendants are statutorily mandated to use the previously appropriated SNAP contingency reserve when necessary and also have discretion to use other previously appropriated funds,” she wrote. 

    Despite the judges’ rulings, many advocates say some kids will go hungry in November because the process for obtaining the aid consists of multiple steps — some of which have already been missed for those who receive help at the start of every month. 

    On October 28, more than 20 states, the District of Columbia, and three governors sued the USDA for suspending November’s SNAP benefits. They called the move unprecedented and illegal.

    “SNAP is one of our nation’s most effective tools to fight hunger, and the USDA has the money to keep it running,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, long embroiled in her own legal battle with the president, said in a statement. “There is no excuse for this administration to abandon families who rely on SNAP, or food stamps, as a lifeline. The federal government must do its job to protect families.”

    Gina Plata-Nino, interim director for SNAP at the Food Research & Action Center, said her organization encouraged the USDA to tap into its contingency and reserve funds to save children and families from going hungry. By missing this opportunity, at least some recipients will likely miss their allotment. 

    Plata-Nino said states were directed by federal officials on Oct. 10 to stop reporting critical data — a list of household eligibility and food stamp allocation — information they send directly to electronic benefit transfer contractors, who are key in distributing the aid. 

    “Even in the best-case scenario, if the judge says, ‘We rule in your favor and we demand that this happens right now’, and the Trump administration doesn’t appeal…the process of getting benefits into recipients’ accounts would take time,” she said. 

    Arlen Benjamin-Gomez, executive director of EdTrust New York, a statewide education policy and advocacy organization, said it’s clear that serious damage has already been done to what is an essential program. 

    “We know from what has happened so far with this administration that when they make announcements like this, it does have a direct impact on programs and the ability to sustain them,” she said. “For example, there was an announcement of federal cuts to Head Start very early on in the administration, and the program actually shut down. It’s still recovering. So, we can’t predict the chaos that is spread by this most recent effort to cut benefits.”

    Benjamin-Gomez praised New York for declaring a state of emergency on the matter: Gov. Kathy Hochul is committing an additional $65 million in new state funds for emergency food aid to support state food banks. But not all states will do the same.  

    Ian Coon, spokesperson for Alliance for Education, an independent, local education fund that supports Seattle Public Schools, said his organization has already earmarked funding to bridge the gap for those in need. 

    He said the Alliance decided in late October to fund $150,000 in gift cards to area food stores for families in crisis. He said school staff will help identify children in need and offer the assistance of $25, $50 or $100. The $150,000 comes from a reserve fund.  

    “We are fully aware it’s not a long-term solution, but we needed to do something,” Coon said. 

    Carolyn Vega, associate director of policy analysis for Share Our Strength, which runs No Kid Hungry, said her organization also does not predict an abrupt or smooth end to the suffering of American families who rely on these benefits. 

    “We are not holding our breath for the money to start flowing today,” she said. “Kids can’t wait: Families have to eat every single day. We know from our extensive work with schools that teachers already see kids show up to school hungry on Monday mornings. We can only imagine how much worse that would be if a family came in and were expecting to see benefits on Saturday and they did not. It’s an unbelievable strain for food banks. We know that schools will be an important resource for many families, but they can’t fill in the gap.”

    In fiscal year 2023, nearly 80% of SNAP households included either a child, an elderly person or a nonelderly individual with a disability, according to the USDA. About 39% of SNAP participants were children that year. 

    A statement on the federal agency’s website blames Senate Democrats for the shutdown. 

    “They can continue to hold out for healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance,” the statement read. 

    The department declined to comment on the judges’ rulings.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Education Department Rule Restricts Public Service Loan Forgiveness Eligibility

    Education Department Rule Restricts Public Service Loan Forgiveness Eligibility

    File photoThe Department of Education announced a new rule that would allow the agency to exclude certain nonprofit and government employers from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, targeting organizations that “engage in specific enumerated illegal activities” or do not align with the current administration’s priorities.

    The rule, which was published Friday in the Federal Register, grants Education Secretary Linda McMahon unilateral authority to determine which organizations are ineligible for the program. It takes effect July 1, 2026.

    According to critics, the rule could disqualify employees of sanctuary jurisdictions and nonprofit organizations that provide immigrant family support, gender-affirming care, diversity and equity programs, or assistance to protesters exercising First Amendment rights.

    The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program was established by Congress in 2007 on a bipartisan basis. Under the program, federal, state, local and tribal government employees, as well as workers for 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, can have their remaining federal student loan debt forgiven after making 10 years of qualifying payments while working in public service. More than one million workers have received loan forgiveness through the program to date.

    Two advocacy organizations, Democracy Forward and Protect Borrowers, issued a joint statement committing to challenge the rule in federal court.

    “This is a direct and unlawful attack on nurses, teachers, first responders, and public service workers across the country,” the organizations said. “This new rule is a craven attempt to usurp the legislature’s authority in an unconstitutional power grab aimed at punishing people with political views different than the administration’s.”

    Alexander Lundrigan, Higher Education Policy and Advocacy Manager at Young Invincibles, called the changes “illegal” and “politically motivated.”

    “The administration cannot unilaterally rewrite a program that was passed into law by Congress,” Lundrigan said. “PSLF eligibility is defined by law, not political ideology.”

    Jaylon Herbin, director of federal policy at the Center for Responsible Lending, agrees, adding that the regulation “is the latest in a long list of cruel tricks imposed on workers and groups who hold views or serve people this administration doesn’t like.”

    He added that the restrictions “will consign millions of student borrowers to decades of unaffordable debt repayment and will worsen existing shortages of teachers, police and emergency services workers, and nonprofits who help local residents thrive and contribute to building vibrant, economically resilient communities.”

     

     

    Source link

  • ED Finalizes PSLF Rule Limiting Who Gets Forgiveness

    ED Finalizes PSLF Rule Limiting Who Gets Forgiveness

    Employees at any company the Trump administration deems as having “a substantial illegal purpose” will no longer qualify for Public Service Loan Forgiveness under a new set of regulations finalized Thursday by the Department of Education.

    The final rule is very similar to the first draft released in August—both of which have been heavily criticized. The policy change, in the works for months, stemmed from an executive order issued in March. Lawsuits challenging the new rule, which takes effect July 1 of next year, are expected as soon as next week.

    “My first reaction when reading the rule was that we will see them in court,” said Brian Galle, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who submitted a comment along with at least a dozen other scholars of tax law.

    Collectively, the commenters called on department officials to conduct an extensive review and study over the rule, none of which were completed. So now, Galle said, the department will face the consequences.

    “I know that firsthand,” he explained. “A rule that I wrote for the Securities and Exchange Commission was sent back by the Fifth Circuit because there was one statistical study that the agency didn’t do.”

    Under the new rule, illegal activities will include: aiding and abetting violations of immigration or civil rights law, supporting terrorism, providing gender-affirming care, or “trafficking” children from one state to another for purposes of emancipation. The education secretary will decide whether an employer violates the rule based on a “preponderance of the evidence.”

    Many Democrats, industry leaders and student borrower advocates who have spoken out against the rule say it is vague and could allow Trump and future presidents to abuse executive power, essentially choosing which organizations qualify based on ideological preferences.

    Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat and ranking member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, told Inside Higher Ed that the rule “opens the door for all kinds of mischief.”

    “If you’re on the Trump side of the partisan political agenda on an issue, you get loan forgiveness. If you’re on the other side of the controversy, you don’t,” he explained. “A group promoting civil rights may be in jeopardy.”

    The National Council of Nonprofits went as far as declaring the new rule “unlawful” and saying it sets “a troubling precedent.”

    “Federal law makes clear that eligibility under PSLF applies to all charitable nonprofit organizations,” the organization wrote. “The Education Department does not have the authority to change eligibility. By unlawfully excluding certain nonprofits, the final rule opens the door to government overreach and abuse.”

    The Trump administration and fellow Republicans, however, say it has nothing to do with partisan politics and instead is focused on terminating unlawful actions that by their “very nature run contrary to the public good.”

    “As the name suggests, Public Service Loan Forgiveness was intended to help meet workforce needs for employers who serve the public good. Unfortunately, the open-ended nature of PSLF has forced taxpayers—many of whom never went to college, to foot the bill for employees at radical organizations that violate state and federal laws,” Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, said in his statement about the rule.

    Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent also chimed in, saying in a statement that “the Trump Administration is refocusing the PSLF program to ensure federal benefits go to our nation’s teachers, first responders, and civil servants who tirelessly serve their communities.”

    In addition to defining what activities are illegal, the rule outlines types of evidence that the secretary may consider in the decision process, establishes an appeals process and states that the department must provide “prompt notification” to both borrowers and employers when their eligibility is at risk. It also notes that, in general, employers with “minor compliance issues” and “no concerted practice of illegal activity” will be safe.

    The department estimates that fewer than 10 employers will be affected each year. But critics say that estimate is based on little research and worry the effect will be much broader.

    The National Council of Nonprofits said ultimately the rule could harm millions, as countless communities depend on their local nonprofits. By putting the nonprofit workforce at risk, they added, the rule jeopardizes nonprofits’ ability to meet those needs and provide essential services.

    A collection of half a dozen physicians’ groups echoed that point, arguing that if hospitals and the medical professionals they employ lose access to PSLF, it could jeopardize both physicians’ financial stability and patients’ access to care.

    “PSLF is not just a loan program; it is a lifeline that allows medical graduates to choose primary care or psychiatry careers in high-need areas without being weighed down by insurmountable debt,” the group wrote in a news release. “We strongly urge the Department of Education to preserve physicians’ access to the PSLF program and recognize that a healthy America depends on a strong physician workforce.”

    Galle from Berkeley believes that this lack of awareness regarding the scope of impact will become evident in court. He said that such a lack of evaluation, along with what he sees as the department’s executive overreach in issuing the rule, will give any plaintiffs a strong case in court.

    “The Supreme Court in the last eight years has really been at pains to say that Congress doesn’t give agencies … the authority to be way outside their lane,” he said. “And you couldn’t possibly be further outside your lane and your expertise than ED is with this rule.”

    Shortly after the department announced the final rule, multiple legal groups said they intend to sue over it.

    Democracy Forward, which has led a number of lawsuits against the Trump administration this year, and Protect Borrowers, a student loan advocacy group, described the new policy as “a craven attempt to usurp the legislature’s authority in an unconstitutional power grab.”

    Student Defense, a policy, litigation and advocacy organization, accused the president of “playing political football with the financial well-being of people who have dedicated their lives to public service.”

    All three said a lawsuit can be expected in a matter of days.

    “Congress created the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program because it is important for our democracy that we support the people who do the hard work to serve our communities,” Democracy Forward wrote in its release. “In our democracy, the president does not have the authority to overrule Congress.”

    Galle said the key question in the legal fight will be whether the Supreme Court will enforce those checks and balances.

    “Under any judge or justice who was applying the law as it is today, I don’t think this rule would have any hope of being upheld,” he said. “The only room for doubt is that it seems like the Supreme Court is willing to ignore most of what current law is.”

    Source link

  • Federal judge dismisses legal challenge to gainful employment rule

    Federal judge dismisses legal challenge to gainful employment rule

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief: 

    • A federal judge dismissed a case Thursday that challenged the legality of the Biden administration’s gainful employment rule, which aims to ensure that graduates of career education programs earn enough to pay off their student loan debt. 
    • U.S. District Judge Reed O’Conner — a George W. Bush appointee — rejected arguments from cosmetology school groups that the gainful employment rule overstepped the U.S. Department of Education’s authority and violated their constitutional rights. 
    • Although the Biden-era rule survived the legal challenge, the Trump administration is considering potential changes to the gainful employment regulations in the coming months. 

    Dive Insight: 

    The Biden administration finalized the gainful employment rule in 2023. Under the rule, career education programs must prove that they provide graduates with an earnings bump and don’t leave borrowers with more debt than they can manage. 

    To do so, the gainful employment rule establishes two separate tests. Under one, the median program graduate must pay no more than 8% of their annual earnings or 20% of their discretionary income toward their debt. Under the other, at least half of a program’s graduates must outearn workers in their state with only a high school diploma. 

    College programs that fail either of these metrics in two out of three consecutive years risk losing access to federal financial aid. The rule primarily impacts programs at for-profit colleges, but also applies to certificates at all institutions. 

    Thursday’s ruling addresses two consolidated lawsuits against the rule. The cosmetology school groups had argued that the Education Department had overstepped its authority when issuing the regulations, as the Higher Education Act doesn’t define gainful employment.

    However, O’Connor wrote that the Education Department’s rule follows the plain meaning of the statute. 

    “Although the 2023 Rule is in the form of an equation, it no less does the same work as the words ‘gainful employment,’ by ensuring the programs lead to profitable jobs, instead of loan deficits,” O’Connor wrote. 

    The plaintiffs had also alleged that they would be unfairly penalized by the rule, arguing that a large share of income in the cosmetology industry goes unreported because it is earned through cash tips. Because of that, they said, the Education Department’s calculations would fail to accurately capture how much their graduates earn. 

    O’Connor rejected those arguments, noting that the Education Department had cited studies showing that underreporting is not widespread. 

    National Student Legal Defense Network, an advocacy and legal group for students, praised the ruling Thursday. 

    “Higher education is supposed to offer students a path to a better life, not a debt-filled dead end,” Student Defense Vice President and Chief Counsel Dan Zibel said in a statement. “The 2023 Gainful Employment Rule reflects a common-sense policy to ensure that students are not wasting time and money on career programs that provide little value.”

    Jason Altmire, president and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities, an association that represents the for-profit college sector, decried Thursday’s ruling but sounded optimistic about forthcoming regulatory changes under the Trump administration. 

    “Although we strongly disagree with the ruling today, we look forward to this issue being revisited by the current Department of Education,” Altmire said in a statement that day. “We are confident the Biden Gainful Employment Rule will be revised to incorporate a fairer accountability measure that will apply equally to all schools, ensuring all students can benefit.”

    Source link

  • Duration-of-Status Rule Prompts Opposition From Commenters

    Duration-of-Status Rule Prompts Opposition From Commenters

    A slew of public commenters derided the Department of Homeland Security’s proposal that would restrict how long international students can stay in the country.

    The measure would alter the long-standing policy known as duration of status, which allows international students to stay in the U.S. until their course of study is complete. Among other concerns, commenters argued that the rule would unnecessarily restrict international students, who are already closely monitored by the government and their institutions of study. Many commenters also drew attention to the potential consequences for the health-care system and employers.

    The proposed rule would instead cap the amount of time students could stay in the U.S. to just four years, though they would be able to request an extension from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It would also prevent international students from changing their majors or transferring between U.S. institutions.

    According to DHS, the proposal aims to lessen the number of students who overstay their F and J visas. However, NAFSA, the international education association, argued that research has shown that DHS overestimates overstay rates. The organization, along with other commenters, also noted that the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System—the online system that monitors international students—already alerts Immigration and Customs Enforcement if a student overstays their visa.

    The comment period closed on Sept. 29. DHS will now have to review and respond to more than 15,700 comments before deciding whether to move forward with the elimination of duration of status.

    More Than 4 Years

    Numerous commenters noted that a significant number of students take more than four years to complete their undergraduate degree—and it’s incredibly rare to complete a Ph.D. in that length of time. That means a significant number of students will be at risk of being unable to complete their programs if they are unable to secure extensions.

    Commenters noted a range of reasons they, their peers or their students have struggled to finish a degree in under four years, including medical and family emergencies, the death or departure of a faculty mentor, completing cooperative internships, and more.

    Others pointed out that some programs are even intended to take longer than four years. Jessica Goswick, an architect and a lecturer, wrote that a B.Arch., a professional bachelor’s degree in architecture, is intended to be completed in five years. The University of Illinois system—one of several dozen institutions that opposed the rule in written comments—said that its main Urbana-Champaign campus has over 30 undergraduate programs requiring more than 120 credit hours.

    “Limiting initial entry to four years would require students in these programs to take more than 15 credits every semester for four years, which would reduce performance and graduation rates,” the system’s comment reads. “Undergraduate students should be encouraged to take course loads appropriate for success rather than rush toward an arbitrary completion date determined by their date of entry to the United States.”

    Several researchers and current Ph.D. students also stressed that graduate students frequently need more time to complete their research.

    “Reducing this time for foreign student scientists would make it impossible for them to earn a Ph.D. in many fields, including my own field of neuroscience. Science takes years to build, develop, execute, and compile in order [to] share the information with the world and enrich the scientific community,” wrote Grace Swaim, a postdoctoral researcher at Yale University.

    Although students would have the option to get their visas extended beyond the four-year cap, experts warned that doing so is costly, time-consuming and uncertain, and it would add to USCIS’s already-lengthy processing time—about 6.5 months—for such extensions, according to NAFSA. The University of Illinois system also emphasized that the rule would force the system to hire 13 new full-time and one part-time employee and spend over $2 million in the first year alone to apply for these extensions.

    These added barriers could ultimately lead fewer students to want to study in the United States, commenters warned, which many faculty said would be a loss for their labs, their larger institutions and the country as a whole.

    “These students not only make crucial contributions to the fundamental research in our department, but often end up filling important roles in industry, academia and national labs in the U.S. Others contribute to the international efforts unraveling the nature of matter and developing novel technologies even after returning to their home country,” wrote Sebastian Kuhn, chair of the physics department at Old Dominion University. “International graduate students are an indispensable contribution to the success of the U.S. research enterprise and the international standing of our country.”

    Beyond the Campus

    Other commenters shared that the rule could have an impact outside of the classroom and the lab. Physicians and hospital administrators said the roughly 17,000 J-1 visa holders currently working in hospitals as part of their medical training would be affected and detailed in comments how the change could ultimately disrupt Americans’ access to health care.

    “It is important to recognize that the 17,000 J-1 physicians training in the U.S. do not displace domestic medical graduates; rather, they fill residency slots that would otherwise remain unfilled each year,” wrote the American Hospital Association in a comment. “These physicians disproportionately train in high-need specialties that continue to be in substantial shortage, such as internal medicine, pediatrics and family medicine. They also frequently work in rural and underserved communities, and many who train in those settings continue to work in them when their training is complete. J-1 physicians not only help sustain the physician workforce pipeline but also help expand patient access to essential care.”

    Numerous commenters who identified themselves as leaders in industries from financial services to pharmaceuticals also explained how their companies and industries at large rely on the contributions of international students.

    “The maximum stay restrictions are especially problematic for Ph.D. students and those conducting long-term clinical trials, which often span five to seven years,” wrote an anonymous commenter who identified themself as a senior executive in a global pharmaceutical company. “Reducing this flexibility would disrupt important research in drug efficacy and public health. Students engaged in such long-term research projects would be forced to abandon their work prematurely, leading to a waste of time, resources, and intellectual capital that the U.S. cannot afford to lose.”

    A seemingly small number of comments were in favor of the change, with many of the supportive comments claiming international students are taking jobs and spots at colleges away from Americans.

    One higher education association—the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities—did not outright oppose the measure, but rather encouraged DHS to limit it just to colleges with admission rates under 30 percent. The council’s president, David A. Hoag, argued that those are the institutions at which the administration is concerned about “foreign students potentially displacing American students.”

    “This approach directly addresses the administration’s stated concern by focusing on the subset of institutions where foreign student enrollment is most likely to impact domestic applicants,” he wrote. “By limiting the rule’s scope in this way, DHS can more effectively target its regulatory efforts while minimizing unnecessary restrictions on less selective schools where this displacement issue is less pronounced.”

    Source link

  • Judge Upholds Biden-Era Gainful Employment Rule

    Judge Upholds Biden-Era Gainful Employment Rule

    A federal judge rejected an effort to overturn the gainful-employment rule, which was put in place during the Biden administration.

    In an opinion issued Thursday, Judge Reed O’Connor from the Northern District of Texas sided with the Education Department on every point. One of the plaintiffs, a trade association representing cosmetology schools, had argued in its lawsuit that the regulations jeopardized the “very existence” of cosmetology schools and used flawed measures to determine whether graduates of career education programs are gainfully employed.

    Under the rules, for-profit and nondegree programs have to prove that their graduates can afford their loan payments and earn more than a high school graduate. Those that fail the tests in two consecutive years could lose access to federal financial aid. The regulations also included new reporting requirements for all colleges under the financial value transparency framework. 

    The lawsuit started under the Biden administration, and Trump officials opted to defend the regulations in court and urged the judge to keep the rules in place. 

    Similar gainful-employment rules survived a legal challenge in 2014 but were ultimately scrapped by the first Trump administration. However, in recent years, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have become more interested in finding ways to hold colleges accountable for their students’ career outcomes. Under legislation that Congress passed this summer, most college programs will have to pass a similar earnings test. How the Education Department carries out that test will be subject to a rule-making process set to kick off later this year.

    Jason Altmire, president and chief executive officer of Career Education Colleges and Universities, which represents the for-profit sector and opposed the Biden rule, said in a statement that he looks forward to revisiting the issue during the rule-making process.

    “We are confident the Biden Gainful Employment Rule will be revised to incorporate a fairer accountability measure that will apply equally to all schools, ensuring all students can benefit,” he said. “We look forward to a full consideration of these issues during the months ahead.”

    Dan Zibel, vice president of the legal advocacy group Student Defense, applauded the court ruling in a statement. 

    “Higher education is supposed to offer students a path to a better life, not a debt-filled dead end,” he said. “The 2023 Gainful Employment Rule reflects a common-sense policy to ensure that students are not wasting time and money on career programs that provide little value.”

    Source link

  • Government Shutdown Could Delay ED Rule Making

    Government Shutdown Could Delay ED Rule Making

    All rule-making sessions for the Department of Education were held online from the start of the COVID pandemic to the beginning of the second Trump administration.

    J. David Ake/Getty Images

    If the government shuts down Wednesday, it’s not clear whether the Department of Education will be able to continue with the meetings it had planned to iron out a batch of regulatory changes this week.

    The advisory rule-making committee began its work Monday and was originally slated to continue through Friday. But at the start of Monday’s meeting, department officials noted that if the government runs out of funding Oct. 1, the remainder of the session would be delayed and the plan would be to resume virtually in two weeks. (This was consistent with a pending notice that was posted to the Federal Register in the morning.) 

    That all changed once again moments before Monday’s meeting ended when Jeffrey Andrade, the deputy assistant secretary for policy, planning and innovation, said the department was reconsidering its earlier statement and that the negotiated rule-making committee might be able to continue operating in person through the end of the week.

    “There is a possibility that we can work through this,” Andrade said, adding that he had just received word of the possibility himself. 

    The department is planning to furlough nearly 87 percent of its employees, according to its shutdown contingency plan. But officials are planning to keep employees who are working on the rule-making process on board as well as those working to implement Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed in July.

    This rule-making session is focused on clarifying the details of new graduate loan caps and a consolidated version of the multiple existing income-driven repayment plans.

    Going into this week’s meetings, multiple higher education experts said that finalizing new regulations before the caps and repayment plans take effect July 1, 2026, would be difficult no matter what. A government shutdown, one added, could throw a wrench into the already tight timeline.

    “With such a crunched timeline for finishing the rules in the first place, this makes the department’s job much more challenging,” said Clare McCann, managing director of policy for the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University. 

    One of this week’s rule-making committee members, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity, said that while they were still uncertain how the rest of the week will play out, Andrade’s last-minute announcement gave them hope.

    “I’m not sure what to make of it and will be waiting for clearer answers in the morning,” the committee member said. “But I know the department is working hard to get as much done as possible.”  

    That said, if the session does end up moving online, it wouldn’t be too out of the ordinary for department staff members. All sessions prior to the start of the second Trump administration were held online since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2020.

    The real challenge, McCann noted, would likely be having enough staff to facilitate the session, regardless of its modality. 

    “Certainly the department will be able to keep some of this moving, but they will undoubtedly also have some employees who are not considered essential and are furloughed during a shutdown,” McCann said. “It takes many people at the department to make a rule making happen, and so any loss of personnel is going to present a challenge, even if they’re able to keep some of the core team that’s involved.”

    Under the contingency plan, student aid distributions will not be paused and loan payments will still be due. The department will, however, pause civil rights investigations and cease grant-making activities, though current grantees will still be able to access funds awarded by Sept. 30.

    Source link

  • ED Rule Making Will Move Online if Government Shuts Down

    ED Rule Making Will Move Online if Government Shuts Down

    All rule-making sessions for the Department of Education were held online from the start of the COVID pandemic to the beginning of the second Trump administration.

    Screenshot/Alexis Gravely

    The Education Department’s current rule-making session, in which committee members are determining how to implement new student loan policies, will be delayed by two weeks if Congress fails to pass legislation to keep the government open, Trump officials announced Monday morning.

    “There is the possibility—which seems to be growing by the hour—of a lapse in appropriations,” one department official said during the rule-making session’s commencement Monday. “Have no fear, however,” he added, “we do have a contingency plan for that.”

    The official, Jeffrey Andrade, deputy assistant secretary for policy, planning and innovation, went on to explain that if the government does shut down Oct. 1, the remainder of the session would take place online from Oct. 15 to 17. (The plans were also posted to the Federal Register on Monday.)

    Managing a virtual negotiated rule-making session, however, would be nothing new to the department staff, as all sessions prior to the start of the second Trump administration have been held online since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2020.

    “Again, fingers crossed,” Andrade said. “But the oddsmakers, when I last checked, were in the high 60s in favor of them not passing a continuing resolution in time. So that’s a plan.”

    The department was already facing a tight timeline to negotiate the various regulatory changes, and some are worried that the two-week delay could further complicate the effort.

    “A government shutdown throws a wrench into the rule making,” said Clare McCann, managing director of policy for the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University. “Even assuming a shutdown is over in two weeks, as the department hopes, almost all of the Education Department’s staff will be furloughed in the meantime and unable to continue working on the draft regulations. With such a crunched timeline for finishing the rules in the first place, this makes the department’s job much more challenging.”

    If the government were to shut down, about 87 percent of the Education Department’s nearly 2,500 employees would be furloughed, according to the agency’s contingency plan. The department is planning to keep on employees who are working on the rule-making process and to carry out other provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was signed into law over the summer.

    Student aid distributions will not be paused and loan payments will still be due, but the department will cease grant-making activities and pause civil rights investigations. Grantees, though, can still access funds awarded over the summer and before Sept. 30.

    Source link

  • Energy Department withdraws controversial Title IX athletics rule

    Energy Department withdraws controversial Title IX athletics rule

    The U.S. Department of Energy canceled plans to issue a rule that would have removed a regulatory requirement for colleges and schools receiving funding from the agency. The requirement in question is meant to level the playing field between women and men in athletics. 

    The Energy Department’s rule would have no longer required colleges and schools receiving Energy Department funding to provide women or girls a chance to try out for contactless men’s or boys’ sports teams in cases where no equivalent sports team exists for them.

    Under current requirements, for example, girls must be allowed to try out for spots on the boys’ baseball team if there is no girls’ softball team. 

    In May, the Trump administration quietly proposed rescinding this requirement, along with a handful of other regulatory changes, by issuing a “direct final rule.” That process is usually reserved for uncontroversial regulations that are not expected to receive pushback, allowing an agency to issue new policies without incorporating changes based on public feedback. 

    On Sept. 10, however, the Energy Department said it was withdrawing the proposed change entirely after it received over 21,000 comments — many of them opposing the changes. The rescission came after the administration initially delayed the rule’s July 14 effective date until Sept. 12 amid significant pushback. 

    The withdrawal was celebrated by Title IX civil rights advocates, who worried the rule would reverse progress for girls and women in sports.

    However, a handful of other changes remain — albeit delayed — on the Energy Department’s docket that would impact colleges and schools receiving the agency’s grants. 

    For example, the agency still plans to move forward with a rule that would no longer require colleges and schools to prevent systemic racial discrimination that may result from seemingly neutral policies.The Energy Department has twice delayed that proposal’s effective date as a result of pushback, most recently to Dec. 9. 

    “Withdrawing the athletics rule shows that public pressure works, but continuing forward with the other rules shows this administration is still determined to chip away at opportunities for women, girls, and communities of color,” said Shiwali Patel, senior director of safe and inclusive schools at the National Women’s Law Center, in a Sept. 9 statement. “Rescinding these other rules will deepen inequities in education and beyond.” 

    Patel and other education civil rights experts have expressed concern over the rules being issued through an expedited process. 

    The Energy Department did not comment in time for publication. However, it said in its notice of the proposal’s withdrawal that it is allowed to propose a rule in the future “that may be substantially identical or similar to those previously proposed.” 

    The administration’s decision to release the proposed rules through the Energy Department and attempt to push them through quickly marks a shift from typical K-12 policymaking, which is usually left to the U.S. Department of Education, some education experts said in July. 

    It could have been a trial run: Had the Energy Department’s proposals gone uncontested, it’s possible other agencies would have also tried setting education policy this way, they said. 

    “This is a paradigm shift on the part of how the federal government articulates and connects some of these tools to their education priorities,” Kenneth Wong, an education policy professor at Brown University, said in July, when the rules were originally set to take effect. “Basically every single school, in practically every single school district, has some grants from one of the many agencies in the federal government.” 

    Source link

  • Energy Department withdraws controversial Title IX athletics rule

    Energy Department withdraws controversial Title IX athletics rule

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The U.S. Department of Energy canceled plans to issue a rule that would have removed a regulatory requirement for schools receiving funding from the agency. The requirement in question is meant to level the playing field between boys and girls in athletics. 

    The Energy Department’s rule would have no longer required schools receiving Energy Department funding to provide girls a chance to try out for contactless boys’ sports teams in cases where no equivalent sports team exists for them. Under current requirements, for example, girls must be allowed to try out for spots on the boys’ baseball team if there is no girls’ softball team. 

    In May, the Trump administration quietly proposed rescinding this requirement, along with a handful of other regulatory changes, by issuing a “direct final rule.” That process is usually reserved for uncontroversial regulations that are not expected to receive pushback, allowing an agency to issue new policies without incorporating changes based on public feedback. 

    On Sept. 10, however, the Energy Department said it was withdrawing the proposed change entirely after it received over 21,000 comments — many of them opposing the changes. The rescission came after the administration initially delayed the rule’s July 14 effective date until Sept. 12 amid significant pushback. 

    The withdrawal was celebrated by Title IX civil rights advocates, who worried the rule would reverse progress for girls and women in sports.

    However, a handful of other changes remain — albeit delayed — on the Energy Department’s docket that would impact schools receiving the agency’s grants. 

    For example, the agency still plans to move forward with a rule that would no longer require schools to prevent systemic racial discrimination that may result from seemingly neutral policies.The Energy Department has twice delayed that proposal’s effective date as a result of pushback, most recently to Dec. 9. 

    “Withdrawing the athletics rule shows that public pressure works, but continuing forward with the other rules shows this administration is still determined to chip away at opportunities for women, girls, and communities of color,” said Shiwali Patel, senior director of safe and inclusive schools at the National Women’s Law Center, in a Sept. 9 statement. “Rescinding these other rules will deepen inequities in education and beyond.” 

    Patel and other education civil rights experts have expressed concern over the rules being issued through an expedited process. 

    The Energy Department did not comment in time for publication. However, it said in its notice of the proposal’s withdrawal that it is allowed to propose a rule in the future “that may be substantially identical or similar to those previously proposed.” 

    The administration’s decision to release the proposed rules through the Energy Department and attempt to push them through quickly marks a shift from typical K-12 policymaking, which is usually left to the U.S. Department of Education, some education experts said in July. 

    It could have been a trial run: Had the Energy Department’s proposals gone uncontested, it’s possible other agencies would have also tried setting education policy this way, they said. 

    “This is a paradigm shift on the part of how the federal government articulates and connects some of these tools to their education priorities,” Kenneth Wong, an education policy professor at Brown University, said in July, when the rules were originally set to take effect. “Basically every single school, in practically every single school district, has some grants from one of the many agencies in the federal government.” 

    Source link