On July 13, 2026, the Department of Education (ED) announced an emergency request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a critical revision to its Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and Temporary Expanded PSLF (TEPSLF) Certification and Application form. This urgent action stems directly from a federal judge's decision to vacate a significant regulatory requirement, effectively halting the implementation of a policy that would have made certain employers ineligible for the PSLF program.
The Genesis of the Attestation Requirement
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, designed to incentivize careers in public service, offers student loan forgiveness to eligible borrowers after 120 qualifying payments while working for a qualifying employer. The program has been a subject of policy debate and reform efforts over the years. A pivotal development came on March 7, 2025, when President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14325, titled "Restoring Public Service Loan Forgiveness." This executive order introduced a new criterion for PSLF eligibility: individuals employed by organizations whose activities have a "substantial illegal purpose" would be deemed ineligible.
Following this directive, the Department of Education embarked on a comprehensive rulemaking process. This involved public hearings in April and May 2025, followed by a negotiated rulemaking committee comprising higher education stakeholders and experts in July 2025. The process culminated in the publication of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 18, 2025, and subsequently, Final Regulations on October 31, 2025. These final regulations, specifically 34 CFR 685.219(i), mandated an update to the PSLF form. The revision required borrowers to include an attestation statement, under penalty of perjury, confirming that their employer had not engaged in any activity with a "substantial illegal purpose" on or after July 1, 2026.
Judicial Intervention and Immediate Fallout
Just one day before the new attestation requirement was set to take effect on July 1, 2026, a federal judge intervened. On Tuesday, June 30, 2026, the judge issued a ruling that vacated the controversial rule. This judicial decision immediately rendered the attestation requirement unenforceable and presented the Department of Education with an urgent need to adapt its administrative processes.
In response, the ED is now seeking emergency processing from OMB to remove the vacated attestation statement from the PSLF Certification and Application form (OMB Control Number 1845-0110). The Department emphasized that no other changes are being made to the form at this time. This immediate response aims to ensure that the application process aligns with the most recent legal pronouncements and does not impose requirements that have been legally overturned. The Department is inviting public comments on this information collection request until September 11, 2026, following the full comment period requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Broader Implications for Student Loan Policy
The federal judge's decision to vacate the rule requiring the "substantial illegal purpose" attestation has several significant implications. First, it underscores the critical role of the judiciary in reviewing and potentially overturning executive and administrative actions, particularly when those actions involve significant policy shifts or perceived overreach. The quick timing of the judge's order, coming just before implementation, highlights the immediate and direct impact of judicial review on regulatory timelines.
For borrowers, the removal of this attestation requirement, at least for now, simplifies the PSLF application process. Had it gone into effect, many borrowers and their employers might have faced uncertainty regarding the definition and scope of "substantial illegal purpose" activities, potentially creating additional hurdles and delays in accessing loan forgiveness. The judicial ruling has, for the time being, removed this potential administrative burden.
However, the underlying policy question raised by President Trump's E.O. 14325 remains. While the specific regulatory mechanism to enforce the "substantial illegal purpose" criterion has been struck down, the executive branch's intent to exclude certain employers from PSLF eligibility persists. This situation could lead to further attempts by the Department of Education or future administrations to implement similar policy objectives through different regulatory or legislative avenues. The challenge for policymakers will be to craft rules that withstand judicial scrutiny while addressing the perceived intent of executive directives.
This episode serves as a clear illustration of the complex interplay between presidential directives, agency rulemaking, and judicial oversight in shaping federal programs. It highlights the dynamic environment in which federal student loan policy operates and the ongoing tensions that can arise between executive priorities, administrative feasibility, and legal challenges.
