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.

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

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 “substantial illegal purpose.” The rule is scheduled to go into effect in July 2026.

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

“In seeking to crack down on specific activities disfavored by this Administration, the true intent behind the Rule is clear,” the attorneys general wrote. “The Department seeks to chill the activities of public service employers by discouraging their employees from what it deems objectionable forms of public service.”

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.

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

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 “to 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.”

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.

“The new rule imposes harsh and illegal restrictions, makes repayment less affordable, and silences the voices of educators and other beneficiaries of the programs,” NEA President Becky Pringle said in a statement. “We refuse to stand by while politicians trap dedicated educators in generations of debt.”

Congress was clear, the attorneys general wrote in their lawsuit, that all government employees — except for elected members of Congress — 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 “first responders, early childhood educators, librarians, nurses, public defenders, and public prosecutors” who might otherwise have gone to work in the private sector to ensure they could pay off their student loans.

“Residents and State employees have planned their lives and careers around receiving (federal student loan) forgiveness,” 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.

“To be clear, (the public service loan forgiveness program) is not merely a convenient recruitment tool for State employers,” the attorneys general wrote. “For 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.”

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’s view of “substantial illegal purpose.” The new rule disqualifies employees of government entities or organizations that “aid and abet” 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  the “chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children or the trafficking of children to so-called transgender sanctuary States for ‘purposes of emancipation from their lawful parents.’”)

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

“The Department redefines ‘qualifying employer’ in a sharp departure from the corresponding definition of ‘public service job’ that Congress put in place in 2007 — and that has remained substantively intact since then — but provides no adequate justification for this grant of unfettered discretion,” the AGs wrote.

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

“Put simply, the Final Rule is nothing more than a laundry list of this Administration’s policy priorities designed to attack lawful conduct it does not agree with,” 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: info@azmirror.com.

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden announced Friday that some federal student loan borrowers will have their loans cancelled under the Department of Education’s new repayment plan.

Starting next month, people who took out under $12,000 in federal student loans and have been repaying those loans for 10 years will get their remaining student loan balance cancelled in the Saving on a Valuable Education Plan, known as SAVE.

“This action will particularly help community college borrowers, low-income borrowers, and those struggling to repay their loans,” Biden said in a statement.

“And, it’s part of our ongoing efforts to act as quickly as possible to give more borrowers breathing room so they can get out from under the burden of student loan debt, move on with their lives and pursue their dreams.”

This initiative builds on the Biden administration’s effort to cancel federal student loan debt following last year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the White House’s plan for a one-time cancellation of up to $10,000 for federal borrowers. Student loan borrowers who had received Pell Grants — federal aid to help low-income students pay for higher education — could have qualified for an additional $10,000 in forgiveness.

, the White House announced its SAVE plan, along with a one-year off-ramp program that would not report borrowers to creditors if they failed to make loan payments once repayment started back up in October.

“And, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on our student debt relief plan, we are continuing to pursue an alternative path to deliver student debt relief to as many borrowers as possible as quickly as possible,” Biden said. “I won’t back down from using every tool at our disposal to get student loan borrowers the relief they need to reach their dreams.”

So far, 6.9 million borrowers have enrolled in SAVE, and of those borrowers, 3.9 million have a $0 monthly payment.

Under the new plan, SAVE calculates payments based on a borrower’s income and family size and forgives balances after a set number of years. The Department of Education has estimated that most borrowers will save about $1,000 per year under the new plan.

Borrowers who are in the former payment plan — known as the Revised Pay as You Earn plan — will automatically be enrolled in the SAVE program.

The states with the highest number of borrowers enrolled in the program include Texas, with 591,700, California with 597,300, Florida with 475,800, New York with 374,300 and Pennsylvania with 289,800.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com. Follow Louisiana Illuminator on and .

New Hampshire school districts have been competing to retain and recruit new teachers for years. But some say schools in rural areas of the state are facing bigger challenges than others.

The work can be uniquely challenging – and more lucrative teaching jobs in wealthier districts are sometimes just a town or two away.

Now, lawmakers in the Senate are attempting to help. A bill approved unanimously by the Senate Education Committee this week would create a “rural educator incentive program” that would make student loan repayment grants available to teachers who work in qualifying rural districts.

“We’ve heard from teachers (and) school administrators about how important a loan repayment incentive program is, and how necessary it is to keep educators in the profession,” said Sen. Donovan Fenton, a Keene Democrat and the bill’s sponsor.

Fenton’s bill, , would apply to school districts in which there are fewer than 20 students per square mile living within the district. It would also apply to districts in areas that the Department of Health and Human Services has designated as rural.

Currently, 104 school districts in the state meet those criteria, according to Fenton.

Under the proposal, educators employed at the school would be eligible for repayment of “all or part of” their outstanding student loans, depending on whether they exceed the cap.

Those that are approved would receive four years of loan repayments: $1,500 in the first year, $2,500 in the second year, $3,500 in the third year, and $4,500 in the fourth. The maximum total payout would be $12,000. Educators would need to work in the same school district for all four years to get the full benefit.

Sen. Ruth Ward, a Stoddard Republican and the chairwoman of the Senate Education Committee, agreed that the problem is acute.

“I think there’s no question that we need to do something for our teachers,” she said to the committee Monday. “By looking at the salary scale, they’re not at the top layer of people getting a decent salary.”

The bill, proposed in early 2023, would direct the Legislature to set aside $1 million in the first year after the bill’s passage and $2 million in the second year. It would be up to future lawmakers to continue funding the program after that.

The bill will be voted on in the Senate later this year after receiving a 4-0 recommendation from the committee. It will then go to the Senate Finance Committee.

In a statement after the vote Monday, Megan Tuttle, president of the National Education Association of New Hampshire, the state’s largest teachers union, applauded the bill as an “important tool to removing barriers for educators getting into the profession.”

“Today’s unanimous, bipartisan vote in support of the establishment of a rural and underserved area educator incentive program is an important step toward boosting the pipeline of future public school educators,” Tuttle said.

The idea for the proposal came from the state’s committee to study New Hampshire Teacher Shortages and Recruitment, a joint panel of representatives and senators that has met for several years.

According to NEA-NH, educator shortages have been a problem for years in New Hampshire but the COVID-19 pandemic made them worse.

As pandemic-related learning loss has made the profession harder, many teachers retired during COVID-19, causing major gaps. The resulting hiring crunch gave other teachers the opportunity to leave their districts for higher paying jobs in other districts, which in turn has put less wealthy districts at a disadvantage

Data show that salaries are low for teachers just entering the field: The median entry salary for teachers with a bachelor’s degree in New Hampshire is just under $40,000, the legislative study committee found in a report this year. In less wealthy districts, that salary can be as low as $30,000. According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the average cost of living in New Hampshire in 2021 was $56,727 per year.

The idea of incentivizing teaching jobs in struggling school districts has been gaining popularity: 25 states and the District of Columbia have some kind of statewide loan repayment program to encourage teachers to take jobs in underserved districts, according to from the Education Commission of the States.

The state has had persistent shortages of science and mathematics teachers, noted former Sen. Jay Kahn, a Keene Democrat, in his own testimony on the bill. Kahn was the chairman of the teacher shortage committee until he retired in 2020; Ward now leads the committee.

Kahn said his committee found that school districts that paid less had the greatest challenge in recruiting teachers. Those with lower paid teachers also had lower student performance, he said.

“In rural areas where there are smaller enrollments and fewer courses offered in those schools, teachers need multiple certifications,” Kahn said, speaking to the Senate Education Committee in February.

Some school districts, like Keene, have implemented their own, smaller student loan repayment program for new hires, as a way to compete for staff. But Kahn noted that not all school districts can afford that approach. And he said a statewide model would be more effective at incentivizing teachers to go to the needier districts.

More teacher recruitment, in turn, could boost student performance in those same districts, Kahn said.

“We do need a replacement measure for economically disadvantaged school districts,” he said. “Free and reduced lunch just is not going to make it.”

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Hampshire Bulletin maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Dana Wormald for questions: info@newhampshirebulletin.com. Follow New Hampshire Bulletin on and .