By Amy Czulada | July 10, 2025
Last week, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) held a three-day session of Negotiated Rulemaking (Neg Reg) to make changes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) Program. Specifically, the Trump Administration called this session to codify President Trump’s March executive order calling on ED to limit PSLF eligibility for public service workers employed at organizations or state/local governments doing work that conflicts with the Administration’s right-wing agenda. This work includes supporting undocumented immigrants and protecting access to gender-affirming care. I was in the room last week, and there was a lot going on beyond the livestream.
As a reminder, the Neg Reg process involves ED convening negotiators representing different constituencies to help inform potential regulatory changes to different government programs. Historically, ED has tried to ensure there is a diverse set of stakeholders around the table so that folks most impacted are well represented. ED chose differently this time, unveiling a list of negotiators that notably included only one seat to represent borrowers at the table. The panel also included a single seat to represent consumer advocates, legal aid, and civil rights organizations—quite the list of constituencies to be represented by only one person.
This Neg-Reg was always a lose-lose.
From the start, it was clear that this Neg Reg was always going to be a lose-lose situation for borrowers. For negotiated rulemaking language to be approved—at which point it would be presented to the public for input before being finalized—all of the negotiators must come to consensus; if they don’t come to consensus, ED can write and present to the public whatever rules it wants. In this case, the very premise of the Neg Reg was illegal and unconstitutional (more on this later). Beyond the illegality, we don’t want to give power to any administration to weaponize PSLF in an attempt to punish civil society organizations, quell dissent, and prevent our most marginalized communities from accessing the care and support they need.
The Neg Reg vibes were bad right from the get-go. The seat for consumer advocates, legal aid, and civil rights organizations, represented by Betsy Mayotte of The Institute of Student Loan Advisors (TISLA) and alternate Abby Shafroth from the National Consumer Law Center, asked for an additional seat to represent just the civil rights constituency. They nominated civil rights representatives, who were in the room, ready to go, but ED denied this request.
Another thing that struck me about the vibes in the room was that ED acted as though it was operating in a “business as usual” manner. At times, ED representatives even made jokes “to make the process more enjoyable” for negotiators. Pretending that this Neg Reg process was normal or an appropriate way for a government agency to conduct its business lends credibility to the blatant fascism underpinning the whole exercise.
Even worse, when negotiators started pushing back on the language of the proposal and on the need for ED to conduct this Neg Reg at all, ED started bullying the negotiators. ED representatives said things like “this deal goes away if you don’t come to consensus”—implying that it would be much worse if consensus weren’t achieved. There seemed to be a lot of pressure on negotiators to provide an affirmative vote on the proposed language, and many folks caved to this pressure even though they brought up points and questions during the discussion that indicated they disagreed with the premise. This was shocking and inappropriate behavior from ED.
Ultimately, negotiators did not reach consensus on the language presented by ED. Betsy Mayotte was the only person who voted no, and Scott Buchanan, representing Federal Family Education Loan Lenders and/or Guaranty Agencies, abstained. The final proposal is a disgusting and illegal attempt to weaponize the PSLF program to punish organizations doing work that the Administration doesn’t agree with or simply doesn’t like—and it would cause mass harm to millions of people across this country by blocking their access to PSLF and leaving public service workers saddled with debt.
Why was this Neg Reg illegal?
ED’s proposal would change the definition of a qualifying employer for the purposes of PSLF. If an organization engages in activities with what the Trump Administration deems a “substantial illegal purpose” inspired by the Project 2025 Playbook—the proposal would render all of its employees ineligible for PSLF unless they quit and found a new job at a qualifying employer. Public school systems that teach the history of slavery in the United States could be disqualified for “aiding and abetting illegal discrimination.” Fire departments and other first responder agencies could be disqualified if they serve in the local government of a Sanctuary City providing support to undocumented children and families. The proposal gives the Administration broad authority to play ideological politics with people’s financial and professional lives. One tiny (major!) problem: Congress enacted PSLF into law, and specified that all government employers and all 501(c)(3) employers qualify, with no exceptions.
The public does not support this Neg Reg.
Some of the only moments based in reality during this Neg Reg were the public comments that borrowers and partners made over the course of the first two days. One borrower, Jill Peza, spoke on Monday afternoon about the importance of PSLF and Income-Driven Repayment for her family. Several veterans spoke out about needing to protect the PSLF pathway for debt cancellation. SBPC’s Winston Berkman-Breen lambasted the Administration for doing something so blatantly illegal. Organizations like UnidosUS, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Center for Responsible Lending, AFSCME, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Lawyers Committee, National Council of Nonprofits, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, We the 45 Million, Tzedek DC, and MDC Rural Forward all showed up to speak on behalf of borrowers who would be harmed if the Administration enacted its proposal.
Since there was no consensus, the Administration can now propose whatever language they would like. Based on the final proposal, it’s bound to be horrific, harmful, and illegal. The good news is that a lot of strong organizations are ready to play watchdog and stand up for borrowers during the next leg of this fight. We won’t let the Trump Administration get away with weaponizing PSLF.
###
Amy Czulada is the Outreach & Advocacy Manager at the Student Borrower Protection Center. Previously, Amy was a Research Analyst at 32BJ SEIU in New York City.