The Trump-Vance administration is moving forward with plans to restrict federal workers from using the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program if their work involves issues related to LGBTQ individuals, immigrants, or transgender children.

Lawsuits were filed last week in more than 20 cities — including Albuquerque, N.M., Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco — challenging the administration’s efforts to withhold loan forgiveness from organizations that oppose the president and his party’s political agenda.

Created by Congress in 2007 and signed into law by then-President George W. Bush, PSLF cancels the federal student loan debts of borrowers who spend a decade or more working in public service. The program covers teachers, nurses, law enforcement officers (including members of the military), and employees of tax-exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3). Many of those who work to support LGBTQ rights are employed by such organizations — meaning they stand to lose eligibility under the new policy.

As of 2024, more than 1 million Americans have benefited from PSLF, helping erase an estimated $74 billion in student loan debt, according to a Biden-era estimate.

Under the new rule, which takes effect July 1, 2026, the Department of Education will be able to deny loan forgiveness to workers whose government or nonprofit employers engage in activities deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose.” The power to define that term will rest not with the courts, but with the education secretary.

The rule grants the secretary authority to exclude groups from the program if they participate in activities such as trafficking, illegal immigration, or what it calls the “chemical castration” of children — defined as the use of hormone therapy or puberty-blocking drugs, a form of gender-affirming care sometimes provided to transgender children and teens.

Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent defended the change, arguing that the new rule would better serve the American people, despite every major American physician organization research showing gender-affirming care helps more than it harms.

“It is unconscionable that the plaintiffs are standing up for criminal activity,” Kent said in a statement to NPR. “This is a commonsense reform that will stop taxpayer dollars from subsidizing organizations involved in terrorism, child trafficking, and transgender procedures that are doing irreversible harm to children.”

The Williams Institute, a leading research center on sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy, warned that this — along with other restrictions on federal loan forgiveness — would disproportionately harm LGBTQ Americans. The institute found that more than one-third (35%) of LGBTQ adults aged 18 to 40 — an estimated 2.9 million people — hold over $93.2 billion in federal student loans. About half (51%) of transgender adults, 36% of cisgender LBQ women, and 28% of cisgender GBQ men have federal student loans.

“The proposed restrictions on student loans will particularly affect the nearly one-quarter of LGBTQ adults employed in the public or nonprofit sectors, which qualify for the Public Student Loan Forgiveness program,” said Brad Sears, Distinguished Senior Scholar of Law and Policy at the Williams Institute, who authored a brief on how the proposed changes could impact LGBTQ borrowers. “A recent executive order could potentially disqualify anyone working for an organization involved in gender-affirming care, or possibly those serving transgender individuals more broadly, from the PSLF program.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Rowan County, Ky., clerk best known for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Following the Obergefell ruling, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and has since filed multiple appeals seeking to challenge same-sex marriage protections. The court once again rejected her efforts on Monday.

In this latest appeal, Davis sought to overturn a $100,000 monetary award she was ordered to pay to David Moore and David Ermold, a same-sex couple to whom she denied a marriage license. Her petition also urged the court to use the case as a vehicle to revisit the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The petition, along with the couple’s brief in opposition, was submitted to the Supreme Court on Oct. 22 and considered during the justices’ private conference on Nov. 7. Davis needed at least four votes for the court to take up her case, but Monday’s order shows she fell short.

Cathy Renna, the director of communications for the National LGBTQ Task Force, a non-profit organization that works towards supporting the LGBQ community through grassroots organizing told the Washington Blade:
“Today’s decision is not surprising given the longshot status of Davis’s claim, but it’s a relief that the Supreme Court will not hear it, given the current make up of the court itself. We hope that this settles the matter and marriage equality remains the law of the land for same-sex couples.”

Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released the following statement:

“Today, love won again. When public officials take an oath to serve their communities, that promise extends to everyone — including LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court made clear today that refusing to respect the constitutional rights of others does not come without consequences.

Thanks to the hard work of HRC and so many, marriage equality remains the law of the land through Obergefell v. Hodges and the Respect for Marriage Act. Even so, we must remain vigilant.

It’s no secret that there are many in power right now working to undermine our freedoms — including marriage equality — and attack the dignity of our community any chance they get. Last week, voters rejected the politics of fear, division, and hate, and chose leaders who believe in fairness, freedom, and the future. In race after race, the American people rejected anti-transgender attacks and made history electing pro-equality candidates up and down the ballot.

And from California to Virginia to New Jersey to New York City, LGBTQ+ voters and Equality Voters made the winning difference. We will never relent and will not stop fighting until all of us are free.”

The Log Cabin Republicans, a organization dedicated to conservative LGBTQ people, praising the Court’s decision.

“After months of hand-wringing and fear-mongering by Gay Inc., Democrats, and the media, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court sided with the American people and common sense and declined to revisit marriage equality,” Interim Executive Director Ed Williams said in a statement. “Just like Justice Amy Coney Barrett hinted at earlier this year, Obergefell is settled. Marriage equality has been, and will continue to be, the law of the land.”

This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.

Uncloseted Media published this article on Nov. 8.

By ASHERAH BARTON | In July 2022, when I was 18, I was forced to come out as transgender.

I remember the car ride through Oregon, back from the DMV, where my state ID had my deadname and the wrong gender marker on it. My mom started interrogating me when I mentioned offhandedly that I didn’t want to have kids.

“Are you gay? Bi?” she pressed me.

I shook my head no.

“No? Well, then what the hell are you?”

My mom kept questioning me until I told her I was trans. I didn’t want to come out to her. I knew her beliefs as an ex-Catholic, and I had already heard her misgendering her trans coworker and had even found a transphobic book, “Irreversible Damage,” on the kitchen counter.

She dismissed me. She told me it was a phase. When I started using my chosen name publicly, she told me she would never call me by it. Even now, after two years on hormones and my dual top surgery and hysterectomy in September, I’m still saved in her phone as my deadname and she doesn’t use my pronouns.

Since then, life has been hard. I moved out of my mom’s house to a suburb of Portland. I needed space to exist without constant tension.

On top of the familial estrangement, maintaining work has been tough. For a while, I had a seasonal job at a local grocery store, something stable enough to cover rent and bills but not a long-term contract. I worked hard, often taking extra shifts and covering for others, hoping to be kept on. But on Christmas Eve of last year, I got the call that my contract wouldn’t be renewed. It wasn’t about performance, they said, the store just “didn’t have room in the budget” to keep the seasonal hires. It felt like the ground had fallen out from under me.

I needed help, so I applied for SNAP in February and started receiving it the following month.

I am part of the 42 million Americans and the nearly 2.1 million LGBTQ adults in the U.S. who rely on SNAP, the federal safety net that helps low-income Americans like me afford the food they need to stay healthy and independent. I’m also one of the 10 percent of younger recipients with a physical or neurological disability, and one of the nearly 3 million 18‑24 year olds who need it to afford food.

When I was on it, SNAP helped me breathe a bit easier.

But all of that changed on Oct. 30, when I got the notification on my phone: “SNAP benefits are paused starting Nov. 1 because the federal government is closed.”

With the holidays approaching and the weather getting colder, this feels like the worst time to lose my stability. Since the Oct. 30 notification, whether I am going to receive these benefits is still so unclear. Earlier this week, Trump said half of the benefits would be issued. Then, early on Friday, it was reported that we would get them after a federal judge ordered the administration to issue full payments immediately.

While I did get my benefits on Nov 7, I saw headlines later that evening saying that the Supreme Court granted an emergency appeal by the Trump administration to temporarily block the court order for full SNAP funding during the shutdown. So, does this mean I’ll lose the benefits next month?

The past few weeks have been so stressful, uncertain and confusing. It feels like the government is playing chess with my ability to afford food.

Before I got my benefits, I had $77 from picking up bottles from gas stations and recycling containers that weren’t too sticky to clean. I have a tally on the notes app on my phone of how many I collect, but it was not enough for the food I need.

As an autistic person living in a residency with rotating caregivers, I’m grateful that some of them help with bulk trips to Costco. But they can’t cover everything. My independence, my physical and mental health and my ability to live safely in my own body all suddenly felt more fragile than ever before.

Every month without those benefits means $187 less for me to spend on groceries. It means giving up my favorite protein bars and starting to buy in bulk to save money.

I thought about reaching out to my parents for help, but I suspected they will use their financial assistance to reopen the conversation about my trans identity, which they could use as a form of debt if I decide to sever ties with them.

For me, SNAP benefits are more than being able to afford food. They allow me to buy meals that keep me healthy and don’t trigger my eating disorder. I’ve struggled with Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder from a very young age, which makes it hard to eat anything unfamiliar or unsafe.

Without receiving SNAP, I wouldn’t be able to buy the foods that help me live. Just $187 a month may not sound like much, but for LGBTQ young adults like myself — many of whom are estranged from family members and/or living with disabilities — it is a key element to our survival.

For the millions of people on benefits, the uncertainty the Trump administration has brought us is the last thing we need. For the hungry children, for the parents struggling to put food on the table, and for those like me who are searching tirelessly for a job and working hard, we need clear and consistent support. Not a chaotic and confusing back and forth.

I’m not lazy, I’m not doing this for my own benefit, nor to cheat the system. Being an autistic, transgender, and low-income young adult means navigating a triple whammy.

As many as 85 percent of college-educated autistic adults are unemployed or underemployed. At the same time, transgender workers experience unemployment at twice the national rate and are frequently passed over for promotions or fired through no fault of their own.

This week, I was terrified of what the uncertainty meant. Is the eating disorder that I’ve lived with since early childhood going to get worse again now that I have to go to food banks to get meals that I may not be comfortable eating? Will I have benefits over the holidays? What will Trump do next?

For those reading this who don’t have to think about where their next meal will come from and when, I would like you to know that these funding cuts are not merely abstract numbers. For myself, for other young LGBTQ adults, and for disabled people of any age, they are empty fridges. They are anxious thoughts before every meal. They are fears of what will come next. November is now here, and I feel more scared. I am worried not just for myself, but for the millions of LGBTQ and disabled people like me who rely on this lifeline to eat and survive in a world that often feels unsafe.

Uncloseted Media reached out to Asherah’s mom for comment but she did not respond.

Sam Donndelinger assisted with the writing and reporting in this story.