Judge blocks Trump administration's plan to limit student-loan forgiveness for public servants

Key facts

• A federal judge blocked the Trump administration's plan to limit student-loan forgiveness for public servants.
• The judge ruled the Education Department overstepped its authority.
• The ruling also stated the plan threatened First Amendment protections.
• A federal judge blocked HUD's attempt to move away from the "housing first" policy for homelessness.
• HUD stated it stands by its decision to overhaul the system, arguing the previous approach failed.
• An appeals court allowed the Pentagon to continue requiring journalists to be escorted inside the building.
• This decision is pending the Defense Department's appeal of a lower court's ruling.
• The lower court found the escort policy unconstitutional and violating the First Amendment.

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's plan to restrict eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. The judge ruled that the Education Department overstepped its authority in implementing the plan, which also threatened First Amendment protections. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program allows borrowers who work in public service for 10 years to have their remaining federal student loan debt forgiven.

In a separate development, a federal judge has blocked the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) attempt to move away from the "housing first" policy for addressing homelessness. HUD had stated it stands by its decision to overhaul the system, arguing that the previous approach has failed. The "housing first" model prioritizes providing permanent housing to people experiencing homelessness, then offering supportive services as needed.

Additionally, an appeals court has allowed the Pentagon to continue requiring journalists to be escorted inside the building. This decision is pending the Defense Department's appeal of a lower court's ruling that found the escort policy unconstitutional. The lower court had previously ruled that the policy violated the First Amendment.