|
 |
|
ED Removes Income-based Repayment and Loan Consolidation Applications from its Website
The Trump administration’s Department of Education (ED) removed access to online
applications for student loan borrowers seeking income-driven repayment (IDR)
and loan consolidation. IDR plans allow borrowers to make payments based on their
income, with loan forgiveness granted after 20 or 25 years. The direct consolidation
loan application helps borrowers streamline their loans and qualify for programs
like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF).
The
sudden removal of these applications appears to be a response to a Feb. 18 ruling by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which extended
an injunction blocking lower payments and forgiveness under multiple IDR plans.
The court sided with Republican State Attorneys General when ruling that former
President Joe Biden's administration lacked authority to pursue a student
debt relief program, known as the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan,
designed to lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers and speed up loan forgiveness for some.
The three-judge panel held that ED exceeded its authority by
trying to use a Higher Education Act provision that allows for income-based loan
repayment plans to adopt debt forgiveness on the scale provided by Biden’s SAVE
Plan. Specifically, the court ruled that the Biden administration had “gone
well beyond this authority by designing a plan where loans are largely forgiven rather than repaid.”
The injunction specifically affects the SAVE plan and other
IDR plans, such as income-contingent repayment (ICR) and Pay As You Earn (PAYE)—all
of which were designed to provide affordable repayment options and forgiveness
opportunities. However, income-based repayment (IBR) plan, which was established
by Congress, remains unaffected, though applications for the IBR plan are also
currently not available on ED’s website.
Although the court has not fully overturned the SAVE plan or other IDR options,
the ruling suggests that these programs face significant legal uncertainty. Forgiveness
under ICR and PAYE is now at serious risk.
It
is unclear whether the removal of the online applications signals a complete halt
to processing IDR and consolidation applications, leaving borrowers in limbo regarding
their repayment and forgiveness options.
|
DEI Executive Orders Temporarily Blocked
Last week, in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education et al. v.
Trump et al., U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson of the District of Maryland
ruled that President Trump’s executive orders (EOs) targeting
diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives were too vague and infringed upon free speech.
The court issued a nationwide injunction, temporarily preventing
enforcement of three key provisions of two EOs, EO 14151, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs
and Preferencing,” and EO 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based
Opportunity,” which targets DEI programs. Specifically, the court found the
following provisions were unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution:
-
The requirement that federal
contractors and grantees certify that they do not operate “illegal” DEI programs
and comply with federal discrimination laws for purposes of False Claims Act (“FCA”);
-
A provision directing the Attorney
General to target what this administration believes to be “illegal” DEI programs in the private sector; and
-
The requirement that federal
agencies terminate “equity-related grants or contracts.”
The
ruling effectively blocks the implementation of Trump’s directive, which had
ordered federal agencies and grant recipients to eliminate DEI offices, positions
and funding related to equity-focused initiatives.
The court’s preliminary injunction only blocks the provisions
of the two executive orders contested in the lawsuit. It does not pause other elements of the orders.
Abelson noted that the orders in question failed to define
key terms such as “DEI,” “equity-related” and “illegal DEI and DEIA
policies,” making it unclear what actions would be considered violations. As
a result, federal employees and recipients of government grants lacked clarity
on whether their work, contracts or speech would be deemed noncompliant under the administration’s policies.
He illustrated the confusion with a hypothetical example, suggesting that even
a government grant used to repair potholes in a low-income neighborhood could
be interpreted as an "equity-related" initiative and thus be at risk.
This ambiguity, according to Abelson, placed individuals and organizations in
a position where they could not reasonably determine what actions would be permissible.
On Feb. 24, the Trump administration filed a notice of appeal
to the Fourth Circuit. Currently, no request to stay the enforcement of the district court’s order has been filed.
|
 |
|
Utah Sends Bill Banning Fluoride in Public Water Systems to Governor; Bill to Make
Fluoride Optional Passes Kentucky House
The Utah
State Legislature has voted to send a bill to Gov. Spencer Cox (R) that would prohibit adding fluoride to public water systems.
In Kentucky, legislation that would remove requirements for local water systems
to include fluoride has passed the state House of Representatives. Under the bill,
governing bodies of water systems would be permitted to decide if they would like
to participate in community water fluoridation programs.
Supporters of removing fluoride from community water have argued
that fluoridation poses potential health risks and that individuals—not the
government—should decide whether to consume fluoride. Among the health concerns
that have been asserted are worries about neurological effects on fetuses and
young children. These concerns are largely based on findings from a review paper that found a possible link between lower IQ scores
in children and high levels of fluoride in drinking water. The review relied on
studies that were conducted in countries that have community water fluoridation
levels that are significantly higher than those recommended for community water
in the United States. A recent study conducted in Australia, where community water fluoridation
levels are closer to those find in the United States, found “consistent evidence
that early childhood exposure to fluoride does not have effects on cognitive neurodevelopment.”
Opponents, including dentists and public health experts,
warn that banning fluoride could have serious consequences, particularly for low-income
communities with limited access to dental care. They argue that fluoridation has
been instrumental in reducing tooth decay for decades and emphasize that Utah
law requires any decision to add or remove fluoride from public water systems
to be made through a vote of the people, not legislative action.
For more resources about fluoride, please refer to ADEA’s community water fluoridation webpage.
|
Oral Preventive Assistant Bill Passes Arizona Senate
The Arizona Senate has passed a bill that would create a new oral health professional
in the state, known as an Oral Preventive Assistant (OPA). Under the bill, a dental
assistant who has completed additional training and meets specified requirements
would be permitted to remove plaque, calculus and stains, with scalers or sonic
or ultrasonic scaling devices, on patients who have first received a periodontal
evaluation by a dentist or dental hygienist.
In
order to meet the training requirements to become an OPA, a dental assistant must:
- Complete a board-approved oral
preventive assistant training course that includes at least 120 hours of didactic
and clinical instruction with patients and that is provided by a qualifying institution;
- Hold a current certification in cardiopulmonary resuscitation;
-
Hold a board-approved certification
for both coronal polishing and radiography; and
-
Either hold a current national board certification in dental assisting or have
successfully completed a dental assisting educational program accredited by a
state or national organization that accredits dental programs.
Additional
limitations for OPAs under the bill include:
-
An OPA would be limited to practicing only on periodontally healthy patients or
patients with localized mild gingivitis.
- An OPA would be prohibited from using any air polishing technology
or device or practice on patients who have been treated for periodontal disease,
have generalized recession, are medically compromised or are under sedation.
-
An OPA would only be permitted
to practice in under the direct supervision of a dentist or dental hygienist.
The bill will be sent to the House for consideration.
|
ADEA/AADOCR/Friends of NIDCR Advocacy Day 2025!
From Wednesday, April 2, 2025, through Thursday, April 3,
2025, the American Dental Education Association (ADEA), the American Association
for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial Research (AADOCR) and the Friends of the National
Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (FNIDCR) will come together for
Advocacy Day 2025 in Washington, DC.
This in-person event on Capitol Hill will include:
- A legislative briefing and advocacy training featuring expert speakers.
-
Opportunities to meet
with targeted congressional offices, including the chance to connect with your own elected officials.
Advocacy Day is your chance to help shape the future of dental, oral and craniofacial
research and education. Don’t miss this opportunity to make your voice heard!
The deadline to register for Advocacy Day is March 7, 2025.
Please encourage faculty, researchers and students at your
institution to participate. Interested faculty, researchers and students can register online. |
|
|
| | | |
