The U.S. Education Department said it will start garnishing wages from student borrowers in default. (Catherine Lane/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration will start garnishing the wages of student loan borrowers in default beginning early next year, the U.S. Education Department said Tuesday. 

In an email, the department said it expects the first notices to be sent to roughly 1,000 borrowers in default the first full week of January and that the number of notices would increase each month. Wages could be garnished as early as 30 days after borrowers receive notice.

The agency noted that collections activities would be conducted only after borrowers were given sufficient notice and the opportunity to pay back their loans.

Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel for the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, blasted the decision as “cruel, unnecessary, and irresponsible” in a Tuesday statement. 

“As millions of borrowers sit on the precipice of default, this Administration is using its self-inflicted limited resources to seize borrowers’ wages instead of defending borrowers’ right to affordable payments,” Yu added. 

The agency resumed collections for defaulted federal student loans in May, following a pause that started during the early weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

As a consequence of defaulting on one’s student loans, a borrower can have their wages garnished, and the “loan holder can order your employer to withhold up to 15% of your disposable pay to collect your defaulted debt” without being taken to court, according to Federal Student Aid, an office of the Education Department. 

With wage garnishment, borrowers have the right to “be sent a notice that explains ED’s intention to garnish your wages in 30 days, the nature and amount of your debt, your opportunity to inspect and copy records relating to your debt, your right to object to garnishment, and your option to avoid garnishment by voluntary repayments,” according to FSA.

A photograph of President Donald Trump and late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is displayed after being unofficially installed in a bus shelter. (Leon Neal/Getty Images).

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Justice early Tuesday released thousands more files related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, with several referencing President Donald Trump. 

The latest trove — which features nearly 30,000 more pages of documents related to Epstein — includes a note implicating Trump purportedly written by Epstein that the department later declared to be fake and an email from a prosecutor claiming Trump flew on Epstein’s private jet more times than previously reported.

In a social media post announcing the Tuesday release, the department issued a blanket denial that Trump was involved in Epstein’s crimes, saying the evidence included in the files was discredited.

“Some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election,” the post said.

The agency added “the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.”

The department has faced backlash for its piecemeal rollout of the files beginning Dec. 19, despite a legal mandate to release the full set on that date. 

Trump had a well-documented friendship with Epstein, but has maintained he had a falling out with the disgraced financier and was never involved in any alleged crimes. 

Flights

A 2020 email from an assistant U.S. attorney in New York says flight records indicate that Trump “traveled on Epstein’s private jet many more times than previously has been reported.” 

The email notes that Trump was “listed as a passenger on at least eight flights between 1993 and 1996” and that this includes “at least four flights” on which Epstein’s accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell “was also present.” 

The files also include a letter that Epstein appeared to have sent to convicted serial sex offender Larry Nassar in 2019 but that the Justice Department declared to be “fake,” pointing to several discrepancies. 

The Justice Department said the handwriting did not match Epstein’s, noted it was postmarked after his death in Northern Virginia, not New York, and did not include Epstein’s jail name or inmate number — a requirement for outgoing mail. 

The department said the “fake letter serves as a reminder that just because a document is released by the Department of Justice does not make the allegations or claims within the document factual.” 

The letter, which appeared to have been sent from Epstein to Nassar, a disgraced former USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University doctor, said Trump shared their interest in young girls.

The letter was postmarked Aug. 13, 2019, just three days after Epstein died in his jail cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City. 

Another email in the Tuesday release references more potential co-conspirators, according to U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Schumer called on the Justice Department to release more information on a note he said indicates the DOJ “was looking into at least ten potential Jeffrey Epstein co-conspirators.”  

The New York Democrat said the department “needs to shed more light on who was on the list, how they were involved, and why they chose not to prosecute.” 

He added: “Protecting possible co-conspirators is not the transparency the American people and Congress are demanding.”

DOJ takes heat 

The Justice Department has faced heat for opting to release the files in batches instead of adhering to the congressionally mandated full release of the files by mid-December. 

The requirement comes from a bill Trump signed into law in November, which requires the agency to make publicly available “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ’s possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein,” including materials related to Maxwell.

The measure — co-sponsored by GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California — gave the department 30 days after the bill was enacted into law to release the files, or Dec. 19. 

Wind turbines generate electricity at the Block Island Wind Farm on July 7, 2022, near Block Island, Rhode Island. The first commercial offshore wind farm in the United States is located in the Atlantic Ocean 3.8 miles from Block Island, Rhode Island. The five-turbine, 30 MW project was developed by Deepwater Wind and began operations in December, 2016. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration said Monday it’s halting leases for five large-scale offshore wind projects under construction along the East Coast due to national security risks.

The Interior Department paused the projects — off the coasts of Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Virginia and New York — due to analysis from reports that have “long found that the movement of massive turbine blades and the highly reflective towers create radar interference,” which poses a national security risk, according to a department release.

“Today’s action addresses emerging national security risks, including the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies, and the vulnerabilities created by large-scale offshore wind projects with proximity near our east coast population centers,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement alongside the announcement. 

The Interior Department said “the clutter caused by offshore wind projects obscures legitimate moving targets and generates false targets in the vicinity of the wind projects.” 

The department said leases for Vineyard Wind 1, off Massachusetts; Revolution Wind, off Rhode Island and Connecticut; Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind; along with Sunrise Wind and Empire Wind 1, off New York, have been paused “effective immediately.” 

The department noted that the pause would give it, the Defense Department and other agencies “time to work with leaseholders and state partners to assess the possibility of mitigating the national security risks posed by these projects.” 

The moves are part of the administration’s continued attacks against the renewable energy source, which have spilled into courts. A federal judge found this month that Trump’s January order halting permits for offshore wind projects was unlawful. 

‘Desperate rerun’ 

The action drew swift backlash from major environmental advocacy groups and Democratic officials. 

Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel for U.S. clean energy at Environmental Defense Fund, said in a Monday statement the administration is “again unlawfully blocking clean, affordable energy.”

The administration has “baselessly and unlawfully attacked wind energy with delays, freezes and cancellations, while propping up aging, expensive coal plants that barely work and pollute our air,” Kelly added.

Kate Sinding Daly, senior vice president for law and policy at the Conservation Law Foundation, described the move as a “desperate rerun of the Trump administration’s failed attempt to kill offshore wind — an effort the courts have already rejected.” 

She added that many of the projects had already won approvals through “rigorous review” and court challenges.

“Trying again to halt these projects tramples on the rule of law, threatens jobs, and deliberately sabotages a critical industry that strengthens, not weakens, America’s energy security,” she said. 

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also weighed in, saying in a Monday social media post Trump was “trying AGAIN to kill thousands of good-paying union jobs and raise your electricity bill.”  

The New York Democrat said he’s “been fighting Trump’s war against offshore wind — a war that threatens American jobs and American energy” and vowed to continue fighting “to make sure these projects, the thousands of jobs they create, and the energy they provide can continue.” 

Rhode Island lawmakers slam pause 

Lawmakers in Rhode Island were also quick to blast the administration’s effort, which affects the Revolution Wind project off its own coast. 

Rep. Seth Magaziner said that “at a time when working people in Rhode Island are struggling with high costs on everything, Trump should not be canceling energy projects that are nearly ready to deliver reliable power to the grid at below-market rates and help lower costs.” 

The Rhode Island Democrat rebuked the administration’s claims that Revolution Wind and the other offshore wind projects present national security concerns as “unfounded,” noting that “the Department of Defense thoroughly reviewed and signed off on this project during the permitting and approval process.” 

Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said in a statement Monday that Revolution Wind “was long ago thoroughly vetted and fully permitted by the federal government, and that review included any potential national security questions.” 

Whitehouse, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the move “looks more like the kind of vindictive harassment we have come to expect from the Trump administration than anything legitimate.” 

“This is President Donald ‘Stop Work’ Trump trying to keep affordable, clean energy off the grid, without a care about how many working people have to lose their jobs to keep his fossil fuel billionaires happy,” he said. 

In a statement Monday, Sen. Jack Reed noted that amid an increase in energy prices, policymakers should be promoting new energy sources.

“Trump’s repeated attacks on offshore wind are holding our nation back, increasing energy bills, and hurting our economy,” the Rhode Island Democrat said. 

Former President Bill Clinton, rock star Mick Jagger and the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are seated at a table in this undated photo released as part of the Epstein files on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025, by the Department of Justice. Clinton has denied any connection to Epstein's alleged crimes. (Photo from Department of Justice)

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice began releasing thousands of records Friday related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, but questions remained over whether officials will meet the requirements of a law overwhelmingly backed by both Republicans and Democrats and signed by President Donald Trump.

The department posted four data sets of images and documents just after 4 p.m. Eastern.

The trove reviewed by States Newsroom reporters contains numerous images of Epstein with celebrities, including the late pop star Michael Jackson, rock legend Mick Jagger, illusionist David Copperfield and former President Bill Clinton. Many other faces in photos are redacted. The photos were released without dates or context. 

A reproduction of Epstein’s contact list included entries for Trump, his late former wife, Ivana Trump, and his daughter, Ivanka Trump.

An array of photos of Trump with several women appeared amongst the files, according to a preliminary scan by the New York Times. But the Times also said most of the images already had been made public. 

Trump, who is prolific on social media, had not yet commented in the hours after the files were released. During an earlier press conference on prescription drugs Friday, the president declined to take any questions.

Trump had a well documented friendship with Epstein, a hedge fund manager who enjoyed a circle of wealthy and influential friends — though Trump maintains he had a falling out with Epstein and was never involved in any alleged crimes.

Since July, when Justice officials announced no further files would be released, Trump had resisted loud protests, even from his base, that all investigative material in the government’s possession should be made public. Trump repeatedly called the files a “Democrat hoax,” despite the investigation occurring during his first administration.

Files in the first dataset include images of lavishly furnished rooms, including one that appears to have a taxidermied tiger, as well as bathrooms with framed photographs of women whose faces have been redacted.

Photos in the second data set reveal Epstein seated at a table with Jagger, and another of Clinton lying in a hot tub or spa with the top of his chest visible. Another photo was of Clinton with the late pop star Michael Jackson.

Clinton was also photographed with a woman, whose face is redacted, seated on his lap and with his arm around her. In another, Clinton and Epstein stand side by side, smiling at something off camera and dressed in shiny party shirts.

A spokesperson for Clinton posted on social media that the former president was unaware of Epstein’s illegal activities and cut the financier off socially before allegations were public. The spokesperson, Angel Ureña, also redirected attention back to Trump.

“This is about shielding themselves from what comes next, or from what they’ll try and hide forever,” he wrote about the Trump White House. “So they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be.”

In a Dec. 10 letter from Clinton’s lawyer obtained by the New York Times, the former president denies being connected to any alleged crimes Epstein committed. 

Photos in the third dataset document Epstein’s travels to Europe, desert locations and island locales. Most photos of people other than Epstein, his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and Clinton are redacted.

The last dataset also included a completely redacted 119-page grand jury file from New York federal court. Both Epstein and Maxwell were prosecuted in New York, and the Justice Department requested the sealed records be made public.

Maxwell was convicted and sentenced for her role in the scheme to traffic teenage girls for sex.

The fourth trove of files appeared to relate to law enforcement and attorneys’ investigation into potential sex abusers, such as coordinating interviews and crafting timelines. A portion of the documents related to a 2019 grand jury were completely blacked out. 

Following the Justice Department’s release Friday afternoon, both Rep. Tom Massie, R-Ky., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-sponsored the Epstein Files Transparency Act, released scathing statements.

“Unfortunately, today’s document release by @AGPamBondi and @DAGToddBlanche grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law that @realDonaldTrump signed just 30 days ago,” Massie posted on X.

Document release to continue

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told Fox News Friday morning the department will “release several hundred thousand documents today, and those documents will come in all different forms, photographs and other materials associated with, with all of the investigations into, into Mr. Epstein.” 

But Blanche also said the release will carry over into “the next couple of weeks,” which would be past the Friday deadline set in the law.

The law, unanimously supported by the Senate and approved by the House 427-1, requires the Justice Department to publicly disclose “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in its possession that relate to Epstein or Maxwell.” 

‘ALL the Epstein files’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday slamming the department’s admission that it will not meet the law’s deadline. Trump signed the bill into law on Nov. 19.

“The law Congress passed and President Trump signed was clear as can be — the Trump administration had 30 days to release ALL the Epstein files, not just some. Failing to do so is breaking the law. This just shows the Department of Justice, Donald Trump, and Pam Bondi are hellbent on hiding the truth,” Schumer said, alleging a “cover up.”

“Senate Democrats are working closely with attorneys for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and with outside legal experts to assess what documents are being withheld and what is being covered up by Pam Bondi. We will not stop until the whole truth comes out,” the New York Democrat continued.

Schumer later criticized in a separate statement the late afternoon release as “just a fraction of the whole body of evidence.”

House Democrats Robert Garcia, D-Calif., and Jamie Raskin, D-Md., released a joint statement Friday stating they “are now examining all legal options in the face of this violation of federal law.” Garcia and Raskin are, respectively, the ranking members of the House Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary committees. 

Massie, who pushed to bypass Republican leadership to pass the legislation, published a 14-minute video on social media Thursday night regarding how the public should interpret whether the Justice Department follows the statute.

“How will you know if they’ve released all the materials?” Massie said. “Well, one of the ways we’ll know is there are people who covered this case for years, and I’ve talked to them in private, then they know what some of the material is that’s back there.”

The Kentucky Republican said he’s been in contact with victims’ lawyers who claim federal investigators are in possession of names that should be contained in the files.

“If we get a large production on December 19, and it does not contain a single name of any male who’s accused of a sex crime or sex trafficking or rape, or any of these things, then we know they haven’t produced all the documents. It’s that simple,” Massie said.

In a press conference Tuesday led by several Senate Democrats, Schumer said the lawmakers have been “preparing for any scenario” and warned “there will be serious legal and political consequences” if the Trump administration withholds documents required by law to be released.

‘New information’ on Epstein cited  

The brief text of the law does not outline penalties if the deadline is not met.

Types of documents cited in the law include flight logs, plea agreements and immunity deals, and any internal DOJ communications about Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges.

The law states documents cannot be delayed, redacted or withheld “on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

Victims’ identities must be redacted, and written justification is required for any information withheld, according to the law.

Carve-outs also exist for any material relating to ongoing investigations. 

The department announced new investigations on Nov. 14 into Epstein’s ties to Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and prominent investor Reid Hoffman. 

Attorney General Pam Bondi said Nov. 19 during a press conference that “information has come forward, new information, additional information.”

House Democrats release more photos

Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have been releasing a trickle of private files from Epstein’s estate that were handed over in response to a congressional subpoena. Committee Democrats disclosed dozens more images Thursday.

The public disclosure of the digital files, released via a cloud folder without context, follows the committee Democrats’ announcement Dec. 12 that it had received 95,000 more images from Epstein’s estate. 

Among those images was a photo of Trump surrounded by women whose faces had been redacted, and an image of apparent packaged condoms with Trump’s face on them and a sign reading “I’m HUUUUGE!” Another image, which featured an apparent “Bill Clinton” autograph, shows the former president posing with Epstein, Maxwell and others.

The latest batch of private records released included photos of Epstein with guests at meals and multiple photos of Epstein talking with former Trump strategist Steve Bannon across a sizable wooden desk in what appears to be an office with antique books and collectibles. Another photo shows Epstein dressed in traditional sheikh-style garments. 

A few images of the New York Times’ David Brooks surfaced in the latest batch as well. Epstein is not in the frame with Brooks, an opinion columnist. The Times released a statement to media outlets Thursday that “Mr. Brooks had no contact with (Epstein) before or after this single attendance at a widely-attended dinner” in 2011.

Other images feature former Microsoft CEO Bill Gates standing with a woman whose face has been redacted by the committee, and a solo photo of Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

“Oversight Democrats will continue to release photographs and documents from the Epstein estate to provide transparency for the American people,” Garcia said in a statement Thursday. “As we approach the deadline for the Epstein Files Transparency Act, these new images raise more questions about what exactly the Department of Justice has in its possession. We must end this White House cover-up, and the DOJ must release the Epstein files now.” 

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz speaks at the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 18, 2025. Oz and other Trump administration officials announced proposed rules that would limit gender-affirming care for minors. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration took major steps Thursday in a campaign to block minors’ access to gender-affirming care nationwide. 

Under two proposed new rules from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, hospitals would be barred from providing gender transition treatment for children as a condition of participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs, and Medicaid funding would be prohibited from being used to fund such care for minors. 

As most hospitals receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, the rules would essentially have the effect of a nationwide ban if they are finalized. 

The announcement came a day after the U.S. House passed a bill that would impose federal criminal penalties for gender-affirming care for minors and hours before it advanced a separate measure that would prohibit Medicaid funding for gender transition treatment for minors. 

The proposed regulations, which will next undergo a period of public comments, are certain to draw legal challenges.

The efforts build on Trump’s executive order in January that restricted access to gender-affirming care for kids. 

More than half of states already have laws or policies aimed at limiting youth access to gender-affirming care, according to the nonpartisan health research organization KFF. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz announced the proposals alongside several other health officials at a press conference at HHS headquarters in Washington, D.C. 

The room featured a handful of GOP members of Congress. At least two Republican state attorneys general — Ken Paxton of Texas and Todd Rokita of Indiana — were also in attendance.

At the press conference, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary said the FDA is also sending “warning letters” to 12 breast binder manufacturers and sellers for “illegal marketing of breast binders for children for the purposes of treating gender dysphoria.” 

Breast binders are used to flatten tissue in the chest.  

Kennedy said his agency’s Office for Civil Rights is moving to “reverse the Biden administration’s attempt to include gender dysphoria within the definition of disability.” 

House passes anti-transgender bills 

The proposed rules are part of the Trump administration’s broader anti-trans agenda. 

Trump has signed executive orders that make it the “policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” aimed to bar openly transgender service members from the U.S. military, and sought to prohibit trans athletes from competing on women’s sports teams consistent with their gender identity.

Meanwhile, efforts at the congressional level to restrict youth access to gender-affirming care face a dismal path in the Senate, where any legislation would likely need the backing of at least 60 senators to advance past the filibuster.

The House passed a measure Wednesday night, 216-211, that would subject medical professionals to up to 10 years in prison for providing gender-affirming care for minors. 

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who sponsored the legislation, called its passage a “win for children all over America,” in a social media post Wednesday. 

It’s likely the last legislative achievement for the Georgia Republican, who is resigning from Congress in early January. 

Four Republicans voted against the measure: Reps. Gabe Evans of Colorado, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Mike Kennedy of Utah and Mike Lawler of New York.

Three Democrats voted with the GOP to back the bill: Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Don Davis of North Carolina.

The House also passed a measure Thursday, 215-201, from Texas GOP Rep. Dan Crenshaw and Greene that aims to prohibit “Medicaid funding for gender transition procedures for minors.” 

Cuellar, Gonzalez and Davis also backed the GOP-led bill, along with fellow Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state. 

‘Cruel and unconstitutional attacks’ 

Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, blasted the administration’s proposals, saying they “would put Donald Trump and RFK Jr. in those doctor’s offices, ripping health care decisions from the hands of families and putting it in the grips of the anti-LGBTQ+ fringe.”  

Robinson also emphasized that the rules are “proposals, not binding law,” and called on community members, health care providers, administrators and allies to “be vocal in pushing back by sharing the ways these proposals would be devastating to their families and the healthcare community at large.” 

The American Civil Liberties Union also condemned the administration’s proposals and vowed to challenge the efforts in court. 

Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Rights Project, dubbed the proposals “cruel and unconstitutional attacks on the rights of transgender youth and their families.” 

Strangio said the proposals would “force doctors to choose between their ethical obligations to their patients and the threat of losing federal funding” and “uproot families who have already fled state-level bans, leaving them with nowhere to turn for the care they need to survive and thrive.”

The U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 1, 2025. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Republican leaders in the U.S. House will face a floor vote in early 2026 on Democrats’ plan to extend enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits for three more years, after passing their own legislation Wednesday night that has little chance of a future in the Senate and does not address the tax credits.

The House vote on that legislation will be required after a handful of moderate Republicans signed on to a discharge petition Wednesday morning. Their dissent with leadership sent a strong signal they are frustrated with the majority’s policies and the rising cost of health care for their constituents. 

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said after a morning vote series on the floor, where he was seen in a heated exchange with Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, that the two “just had some intense fellowship” and “it’s all good.”

Lawler is one of the four centrist Republicans who signed the discharge petition, putting it over the threshold of 218 to force a vote on the legislation. 

“We’re working through very complex issues as we do here all the time,” Johnson said. “Everybody’s working towards ideas — we’re keeping the productive conversation going.” 

The speaker also mounted his own defense, saying he has “not lost control of the House.”

That chamber has seen chaos and intraparty divides in the aftermath of the government shutdown, when Johnson opted to send lawmakers home for nearly two months. 

“We have the smallest majority in U.S. history,” Johnson said. “These are not normal times — there are processes and procedures in the House that are less frequently used when there are larger majorities, and when you have the luxury of having 10 or 15 people who disagree on something, you don’t have to deal with it, but when you have a razor-thin margin, as we do, then all the procedures in the book people think are on the table, and that’s the difference.”

Republicans push through ‘extremely modest’ bill

House debate on Republican leaders’ health care bill later in the day was largely along party lines, with members of both parties talking nearly as much about the Affordable Care Act as they did about the policy in the new legislation. 

Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., said he believes that law, enacted during President Barack Obama’s first term, “has proven to be unaffordable and unsustainable.” 

Guthrie rebuked Democrats for approving the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits during the coronavirus pandemic and scheduling them to expire at the end of this year, leading to the current deadlock in Congress. 

“Democrats leveraged a public health emergency to shovel hundreds of billions of dollars to big health insurance plans to mask the risk of rising unaffordability of coverage,” Guthrie said.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., urged Johnson to put the three-year ACA extension bill up for a vote this week, instead of in the new year. 

“Republicans need to bring the Affordable Care Act tax credit extension bill to the floor today,” Jeffries said. “Under no circumstances should we leave this Capitol this week, before voting on an extension of the Affordable Care Act tax credit bill that we know will pass.” 

California Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley, one of the centrists looking for bipartisan solutions on the expiring tax credits, expressed dismay at how debate on health care costs has been handled during the past few months by leaders in both political parties. 

“This whole issue encapsulates what is wrong with this institution, where party leaders focus most of their time and energy on trying to blame problems on the other side rather than trying to solve those problems,” Kiley said. 

The House Republican bill, he said, is “extremely modest and it has no chance of becoming law because it was hastily thrown together without, apparently, any bipartisan input when bipartisan support is necessary to pass any measure like this.”

“What are we supposed to tell these folks? ‘Oh, don’t worry, it’s Obama’s fault.’ Or, ‘Oh no don’t worry, we did a show vote on this Lower Health Care Premiums for All Americans Act.’ Is that going to be any consolation?” Kiley said. 

New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone called the House GOP bill a “sham” and said without a vote to extend the expiring ACA tax credits millions of Americans will have to decide if they can afford health insurance coverage. 

“They will see prices double, triple and even quadruple,” Pallone said. “It will leave millions with the difficult decision of going without coverage because they simply cannot afford rising costs.”

The House voted 216-211 to approve the Republican health care bill, sending it to the Senate, where it’s highly unlikely it would get the bipartisan support needed to advance without significant revision. 

Senate approach

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said earlier in the day he hadn’t yet decided whether to put the House Democrats’ bill on the floor if it is passed and arrives. 

“Well, we’ll see. I mean, we obviously will cross that bridge when we come to it,” Thune said. “Even if they have a sufficient number of signatures, I doubt they vote on it this week.”

Thune said the discharge petition on the three-year ACA tax credits extension is far different from the discharge petition that forced a House floor vote on a bill to require the release of the Epstein files. Files related to Jeffrey Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 awaiting federal trial on sex trafficking charges, have become a target of Congress and victims in recent months.

“That came over here pretty much unanimously, 427 to 1,” Thune said. 
“And my assumption is this discharge petition is going to be a very, probably, partisan vote.”

The Senate voted earlier this month on Democrats’ three-year ACA tax credits legislation, a move that Thune agreed to in order to get enough Democratic votes to end the government shutdown. That bill, which is identical to the House version, was unable to get the 60 votes needed to advance on a 51-48 vote. 

Both chambers are set to leave Capitol Hill later this week for their two-week winter break and won’t return to work until the week of Jan. 5. 

‘We have to do something’ 

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen said she sees the House discharge petition reaching the 218-signature threshold as “constructive.” 

The New Hampshire Democrat said “bipartisan, bicameral talks continue that are also constructive, so hopefully we can see some movement.” 

Though she is “hopeful” for a deal in January, Shaheen said “obviously, there’s a lot that needs to happen in order to get something done, but people need relief,” adding that “people in both houses and on both sides of the aisle are hearing from constituents that they want to see something done.” 

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley — one of four Republicans who voted with Democrats to advance the three-year extension plan — reiterated his calls for lawmakers to take action to address the looming premium spikes. 

“I just think we have to do something on the cost of premiums, and I’m not locked into any one thing,” he said, acknowledging that he voted for both Democrats’ proposal and his GOP colleagues’ alternative bill. That effort also failed, at 51-48, to garner the 60 votes needed to move forward.  

“I mean, advance any solution — that’s my view, but what I think we should not do is just sit back and say, ‘Well, you know, good luck. We wish you all the best.’” 

Frustration breaks through

The House Republican bill, which Johnson released Friday evening, doesn’t extend the enhanced ACA marketplace tax credits.

It would require Pharmacy Benefit Managers “to provide employers with detailed data on prescription drug spending, rebates, spread pricing, and formulary decisions—empowering plans and workers with the transparency they deserve,” according to a summary in Johnson’s release. 

Starting in 2027, the legislation would appropriate funding for cost sharing reduction payments that the summary said would reduce health insurance premiums and stabilize the individual market. 

Johnson decided Tuesday not to allow the House to debate any amendments to the bill, blocking moderate Republicans from having their bipartisan proposal to extend the ACA marketplace tax credits with modifications taken up. 

That led to considerable frustration, and Wednesday morning, Pennsylvania Republican Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, Rob Bresnahan and Ryan Mackenzie, along with New York’s Lawler, signed the Democrats’ discharge petition, putting it at the 218 signatures needed to force a floor vote in that chamber. 

“We’ve worked for months with both parties, in both chambers, and with the White House, all in good faith, to balance all equities and offer a responsible bridge that successfully threaded the needle,” Fitzpatrick wrote in a statement.   

“Our only request was a Floor vote on this compromise, so that the American People’s voice could be heard on this issue,” Fitzpatrick added. “That request was rejected. Then, at the request of House leadership I, along with my colleagues, filed multiple amendments, and testified at length to those amendments. House leadership then decided to reject every single one of these amendments. As I’ve stated many times before, the only policy that is worse than a clean three-year extension without any reforms, is a policy of complete expiration without any bridge. Unfortunately, it is House leadership themselves that have forced this outcome.”

Jeffries introduced petition

The discharge petition, introduced last month by House Democratic Leader  Jeffries, sat just below the signatures needed for weeks as centrist Republicans tried to broker a deal that could become law. 

When that logjam broke with the moderates’ signatures, it set up a House floor vote, but any legislation must move through the Senate as well and gain President Donald Trump’s signature. 

Without a law to extend the enhanced ACA marketplace subsidies, roughly 22 million Americans will see their health insurance premiums spike by thousands of dollars next year, if they can fit the rise in costs into their budgets. 

Student protesters shout during a “Hands Off Our Schools” rally in front of the U.S. Department of Education’s Washington, D.C., headquarters in April. Students from several colleges and universities gathered to protest President Donald Trump’s efforts to dismantle the department. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats on Tuesday blasted ongoing efforts from President Donald Trump’s administration to dismantle the Department of Education, including plans to shift several of its responsibilities to other Cabinet-level agencies.  

Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono hosted a forum on the issue with several Democratic colleagues. The lawmakers, joined by education leaders, advocates and leading labor union voices, said the restructuring would lead to a loss of expertise, create more bureaucracy and weaken support for students and families. 

The administration announced six agreements in November with the departments of Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services and State as part of a larger effort from the administration to dismantle the 46-year-old Education Department. 

Trump has sought to axe the agency in his quest to send education “back to the states” and tapped Education Secretary Linda McMahon to fulfill that mission. Much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurs at the state and local levels.

Losing expertise

Sen. Elizabeth Warren slammed the transfers as “illegal” because of federal laws assigning specific responsibilities to the Education Department.

“Congress already passed the laws on this,” she said. “Every one of the programs that’s moving out of the Department of Education specifically says we have allocated the money for a program in the Department of Education, not in whatever random other place Secretary McMahon decides to put it.” 

The Massachusetts Democrat said that if the transfers go through, “we’ve got now four federal agencies that have no experience with education suddenly in charge of more than 50 different educational programs, including ones that fund literacy, education for veterans, kids in rural school districts — you name it, it’s moving somewhere else.” 

Even before the announcements of interagency agreements, the Education Department had seen several changes since Trump took office, including layoffs of hundreds of employees that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in July could temporarily proceed.

In a late Tuesday statement to States Newsroom, department spokesperson Madi Biedermann said the transfers were part of a wider effort to initiate a sorely needed overhaul of the federal education bureaucracy.

“The opposition is protecting a system that produces dismal results for our students,” she said. “The Trump Administration demands better than the status quo.”

‘Nothing but chaos’

Under one of the agreements, the Education Department said the Labor Department would take on a “greater role” in administering elementary and secondary education programs currently managed under the Education Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. 

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, said “nobody wins, the least of all, students and educators,” when the Labor Department takes on massive education programs, noting the current workforce at Education has the right experience.

“Our staff have decades of experience with the complicated programs we’re talking about today,” Gittleman said. “These moves will cause nothing but chaos and harm for the people they’re intended to help.” 

In general, the agreements “swap a highly efficient system for a chaotic, underfunded one spread across multiple agencies,” Gittleman said.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, also rebuked the administration’s efforts to gut the agency.

“What is happening here is not simply the dismantlement of the Department of Education,” she said. “It is taking away — it is abandoning the federal role in education.” 

Weingarten, who leads one of the largest teachers unions in the country, added that “we should be, as a nation, expanding the federal role in public education, not supplanting states.” 

Rhode Island commissioner condemns Brown shooting

Angélica Infante-Green, Rhode Island’s commissioner of elementary and secondary education, said the administration’s attempts to gut the agency are “already putting our nation’s education system and our students at a disadvantage.”

Communication from the Department of Education “lacks detail,” she added.

“We get these one or two sentences with edicts that often conflict with state and federal law. What do we do? The chaos has resulted in protracted legal battles across the country, raising serious constitutional questions,” she said. 

At the top of her remarks, Infante-Green also expressed her condolences for the victims, their families and the entire Brown University community after two students were killed and nine others were injured in a shooting on campus over the weekend. 

Holstein milking cows at an Idaho dairy on July 20, 2012. (Photo by Kirsten Strough/U.S. Department of Agriculture.)

WASHINGTON — School cafeterias got a step closer to seeing whole milk again after the U.S. House passed a measure Monday to restore the dairy staple to school lunches. 

The bill unanimously passed the Senate back in November, and now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk. 

The bipartisan effort — which passed the House by voice vote — came after whole milk was barred from school meal programs for more than a decade amid a broader push to curb childhood obesity. 

Under the bill, schools that participate in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National School Lunch Program would be allowed to offer “flavored and unflavored organic or nonorganic whole, reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free fluid milk and lactose free fluid milk” as well as “nondairy beverages that are nutritionally equivalent to fluid milk and meet the nutritional standards established by the Secretary.” 

The bill also would exempt milk fat from being considered saturated fat as it applies to schools’ “allowable average saturated fat content of a meal.” 

The measure allows parents and guardians, on top of physicians, to offer a written statement for their student to receive a nondairy milk substitute.  

GOP Sens. Roger Marshall of Kansas and Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania, along with Democratic Sens. Peter Welch of Vermont and John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, introduced the measure in the Senate in January. 

Republican Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson of Pennsylvania and Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier of Washington state brought corresponding legislation in the House.

‘An essential building block’

During floor debate Monday, Thompson, who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, said the bill’s purpose is to “restore students’ access to a wide variety of milk options, ensuring students have the necessary nutrients to learn and to grow.” 

Thompson said “milk is an essential building block for a well-rounded and balanced diet, offering 13 essential nutrients and numerous health benefits,” but that “unfortunately, out-of-touch and outdated federal regulations have imposed restrictions on the types of milk students have access to in school meals.” 

Thompson pointed out that the bill “does not require any student to drink or any school to serve whole milk” and instead “simply gives schools the flexibility to serve a broader variety of milk in the school lunchroom.” 

But Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, voiced his opposition, saying that while the bill “does make some improvements to the whole milk debate with its inclusion of better options for students seeking non-dairy alternatives,” he remains “disappointed that the bill overall would make school meals less healthy.”

The Virginia Democrat said the bill “goes against the dairy industry’s stated commitment to ensure that students have access to the healthiest dairy options” consistent with USDA’s and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Milk industry praise

The top five milk-producing states in 2023 were California, Wisconsin, Idaho, Texas and New York, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service.

Michael Dykes, president and CEO of the International Dairy Foods Association, celebrated House passage of the bill, which he dubbed a “defining victory for children’s health and for the dairy community that has fought for more than a decade to restore whole and 2% milk for our nation’s students.” 

Dykes urged Trump to sign the bill into law so that USDA “can begin working with state governments and school districts across the country to make this law a reality.” 

Cows graze at Nice Farms Creamery in Federalsburg, Maryland.  (Photo by Preston Keres/USDA)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Agriculture will spend $700 million to support regenerative agriculture as part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Wednesday. 

The USDA pilot program for regenerative agriculture — a conservation management approach centered on improving the health of soil and increasing biodiversity — enacts part of President Donald Trump’s administration’s September “Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy,” which offered more than 120 recommendations for addressing childhood chronic diseases.  

The pilot program will take funding from existing USDA conservation programs, which provide financial and technical assistance to farmers, with the aim of improving soil health.

“Protecting and improving the health of our soil is critical, not only for the future viability of farmland, but to the future success of American farmers,” Rollins said at a press conference alongside Kennedy and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz. 

“In order to continue to be the most productive and most efficient growers in the world, we must protect our topsoil from unnecessary erosion and boost the microbiome of the soil,” Rollins said.

Kennedy said a September report from the administration’s Make America Healthy Again Commission, which the health secretary chairs, included “the promise to make it easier for farmers in this country, to give them an off-ramp — farmers who are dependent on … chemical and fertilizer inputs — to give them an off-ramp where they can transition to a model that emphasizes soil health.” 

Kennedy has long advocated against use of chemicals in farming.

Repurposing funding

The department will dedicate $400 million to the initiative through the department’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program and $300 million from its Conservation Stewardship Program, according to a USDA press release.

“It’s baseline funding that we received through our budget, so we have the ability to tag that funding specifically for this pilot, and that’s what we’re doing,” Aubrey J.D. Bettencourt, chief of USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS, said.

Rollins also said she would seek corporate partners for the program using a 2022 law that authorizes USDA to channel private contributions to conservation programs. 

The move “will bring corporate label and supply chain partners directly into partnership” with NRCS, Rollins said.

The pilot program “connects the producer and the work that they’re doing on the farm, granting them the credit for that voluntary action of change in practice on their farm that then can transition into the supply chain, into the marketplace and directly back to the consumer,” Bettencourt said. 

SNAP waivers 

Meanwhile, Rollins and Kennedy also announced Wednesday six more states whose waivers were approved to prohibit Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits from being used to purchase certain non-nutritious items beginning in 2026. 

The effort, also part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda, adds Hawaii, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee to the list of states that will have such bans. 

The bans restrict which items recipients of the federal food assistance program that helps 42 million Americans afford groceries can buy with their SNAP benefits.

Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia already have similar incoming bans.

The U.S. Education Department announced a proposed agreement with Republican-led states to permanently eliminate the Biden-era SAVE plan. (Catherine Lane/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education announced a proposed agreement Tuesday that would permanently axe an income-driven student loan repayment plan in which more than 7 million student loan borrowers are enrolled. 

Under a joint proposal with seven Republican-led states that challenged the program, the department would not enroll any new borrowers in the Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, plan, deny any pending applications and place borrowers currently in the plan into legally compliant repayment plans.

The program, introduced in 2023 under then-President Joe Biden’s administration, was hit with legal challenges from several GOP-led states, including Missouri, and has been blocked by the courts. The initiative sought to provide lower monthly loan payments for borrowers and forgive remaining debt after a certain period of time. 

If a Missouri federal court approves the agreement, the department said borrowers currently enrolled in the SAVE plan “will have a limited time to select a new, legal repayment plan and begin repaying their student loans.”

The agreement stems from a legal challenge to the plan brought by Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma in 2024.

A ‘deceptive scheme’

In a statement alongside the announcement, Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said President Donald Trump’s administration “is righting this wrong and bringing an end to this deceptive scheme.” 

“The law is clear: if you take out a loan, you must pay it back,” Kent added. “Thanks to the State of Missouri and other states fighting against this egregious federal overreach, American taxpayers can now rest assured they will no longer be forced to serve as collateral for illegal and irresponsible student loan policies.” 

Republicans argued the permissive repayment plan let borrowers off the hook at the expense of federal taxpayers.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway said in a statement Tuesday her office “fought for hardworking Americans who were being preyed upon by Biden Administration bureaucrats, and we won in court every time.” 

“We appreciate President Trump’s real, long-term solutions instead of illegal student loan schemes,” Hanaway added. 

Student advocates, though, said the agreement would place an additional burden on student borrowers already struggling with a rising cost of living.

Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel at the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, blasted the settlement agreement as “pure capitulation” in a Tuesday statement. 

“While millions of student loan borrowers struggle amidst the worsening affordability crisis … billionaire Education Secretary, Linda McMahon chose to strike a back-room deal with a right-wing state Attorney General and strip borrowers of the most affordable repayment plan that would help millions to stay on track with their loans while keeping a roof over their head,” Yu said. 

Interest accumulating

In February, a federal appeals court upheld a lower court injunction that blocked the SAVE plan from going into effect. Borrowers under the plan were placed in an interest-free forbearance last year amid legal limbo. 

But borrowers’ loans in the SAVE forbearance began to accrue interest Aug. 1 — a move the department announced in July to comply with court orders. 

The SAVE plan was already set to be phased out by July 2028 under congressional Republicans’ tax and spending cut bill that Trump signed into law this year. 

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building on Nov. 25, 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Education Department is bringing back hundreds of employees in its Office for Civil Rights who were placed on paid administrative leave earlier this year, according to a Dec. 5 email to those employees obtained by States Newsroom. 

The effort came as the Office for Civil Rights, or OCR — which is tasked with investigating civil rights complaints from students and families — has seen a growth in its massive backlog of those complaints. 

A spokesperson for the department confirmed the effort and said the staffers would resume work starting Dec. 15.

Dismantling of department

More than 200 OCR employees targeted as part of a larger Reduction in Force, or RIF, effort at the Education Department in March were placed on administrative leave amid legal challenges against President Donald Trump’s administration.

Since taking office in January, Trump has sought to dismantle the 46-year-old agency in his quest to move education “back to the states.” He tapped Education Secretary Linda McMahon to fulfill that mission. 

“The Department will continue to appeal the persistent and unceasing litigation disputes concerning the Reductions in Force, but in the meantime, it will utilize all employees currently being compensated by American taxpayers,” Julie Hartman, a spokesperson for the department, said in a statement shared with States Newsroom.

In the email to employees, the department said “it is important to refocus OCR’s work and utilize all OCR staff to prioritize OCR’s existing complaint caseload.” 

“In order for OCR to pursue its mission with all available resources, all those individuals currently being compensated by the Department need to meet their employee performance expectations and contribute to the enforcement of existing civil rights complaints,” the email notes.

The agency did not respond to States Newsroom’s separate requests to confirm the text of the email. It is unclear how many of the more than 200 will return, or if some have taken other jobs.

Union says millions of dollars wasted

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, said that “for more than nine months, hundreds of employees at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have been sidelined from the critical work of protecting our nation’s most vulnerable students and families.”

“Instead of following court orders and federal law, the Trump Administration chose to keep these civil rights professionals on paid administrative leave — a decision that has already wasted more than $40 million in taxpayer funds — rather than letting them do their jobs,” she said. 

Gittleman pointed to “severe” consequences, noting that “by blocking OCR staff from doing their jobs, Department leadership allowed a massive backlog of civil rights complaints to grow, and now expects these same employees to clean up a crisis entirely of the Department’s own making.” 

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 25, 2025. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, stand behind her. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — More than 30 members of the U.S. Senate Democratic caucus slammed the U.S. Education Department’s plans to shift several responsibilities to other Cabinet-level agencies in a letter to Secretary Linda McMahon. 

The senators blasted the move as “outrageous,” and “illegal,” saying it circumvented appropriations law — which is how Congress exercises its power of the purse — and would “jeopardize the funding and support that tens of millions of students, teachers, and families across the country rely on.”

Sens. Patty Murray of Washington state, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer led the letter, dated Wednesday. 

Murray is the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Baldwin is the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing Education Department funding and Sanders is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

“This is the latest example of this administration’s complete lack of regard for our laws and its failure to provide the certainty, clarity, and stability that students and schools deserve when it comes to the federal government’s approach and commitment to properly implementing federal education laws and appropriations,” the senators wrote. 

Department dismantling

The Education Department outlined six agreements signed with the departments of Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services and State. The move drew swift backlash from Democratic officials, labor unions and advocacy groups. 

The plan, announced Nov. 18, is part of a larger effort from President Donald Trump’s administration to dismantle the 46-year-old Education Department as the president seeks to send education “back to the states.” Much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurs at the state and local levels.

McMahon has defended the move as an effort to cut “bureaucratic bloat.”

But the senators’ letter said the plan will “create even more bureaucracy that states, school districts, and educational institutions across America will have to expend time and resources navigating at the expense of students and families.” 

The lawmakers urged McMahon to “immediately reverse course” and focus her time and attention on “actions that actually help states, school districts and educational institutions improve educational outcomes and support for students.” 

Appropriators object

The senators also pointed out that Congress has not provided the Education Department with the authority to transfer the programs and their associated funding to other agencies. 

They noted that “appropriations law prohibits the transfer of funds to another federal agency unless expressly authorized in appropriations law, which it has not done in this case.” 

The senators also expressed concerns over the loss of expertise from the transfer of services, highlighting the Department of Labor’s greater role in managing the Education Department’s elementary and secondary education programs and higher education grant programs. 

“The Department also provides deep policy expertise to ensure programs support improved student outcomes, such as through expert guidance to colleges and universities to improve college access, retention, and completion through programs like TRIO, GEAR UP, the Postsecondary Student Success Grant Program, and others,” they wrote.

The Federal TRIO Programs include federal outreach and student services programs to help students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, while the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP, aim to prepare low-income students for college.

“Now, DOL, who lacks the necessary expertise, is tasked with managing these programs and students will suffer as a result.” 

The lawmakers also criticized the lack of detail the administration has provided about the implementation of the transfers.

“The other federal agencies that will suddenly have significant responsibilities in administering billions in education funding — have provided no information about their roles or their capacity to carry out these programs and activities,” they wrote. 

The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. 

A 2019 football game between the University of South Carolina and the University of Alabama at Williams-Brice Stadium in Columbia, South Carolina. (Photo by Streeter Lecka/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — U.S. House GOP leadership pulled a bill from the House floor Wednesday that would set a national framework for college-athletes’ compensation. 

The Student Compensation and Opportunity through Rights and Endorsements, or ‘‘SCORE” Act, would bar student-athletes from being recognized as employees and provide broad antitrust immunity to the NCAA and college sports conferences. 

The measure was on the House schedule for Wednesday, before the office of Majority Whip Tom Emmer announced Wednesday afternoon its consideration would be postponed. The notice did not provide a reason for the cancellation, as is typical. 

The bill’s lead sponsors are GOP Rep. Gus Bilirakis of Florida and Democratic Reps. Janelle Bynum of Oregon and Shomari Figures of Alabama.

The other original co-sponsors are all Republicans: House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, Education and Workforce Committee Chair Tim Walberg of Michigan, and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Lisa McClain of Michigan, Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin and Russell Fry of South Carolina.

Bipartisan opposition

The bill has faced widespread Democratic opposition over concerns it would roll back student-athletes’ rights and give “unchecked authority” to the NCAA while failing to protect student-athletes. 

Though the bill has garnered broad GOP support, some in the party have pushed back against it. House GOP critics include Texas’ Chip Roy, who dubbed the bill a “Band-Aid on a gunshot wound” during a House Rules Committee hearing Monday. 

Roy, along with fellow House Freedom Caucus members, Byron Donalds of Florida and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, joined Democrats in voting against the rule governing floor debate alongside several other measures Tuesday. The rule was still adopted, 210-209. 

The bill advanced in July out of the House Energy and Commerce and Education and Workforce committees, which have jurisdiction over elements of the bill.

The college sports world has grappled with the fallout from the NCAA’s 2021 guidelines, which let student-athletes profit from their name, image and likeness, or NIL. A patchwork of NIL laws exists across states, with no federal NIL law in place. 

In June, a federal judge approved the terms of a nearly $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that paved the way for schools to directly pay athletes. 

Senate Dems’ competing bill

Meanwhile, the bill would face a tough path in the Senate, where Democrats have expressed opposition. 

Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell of Washington state, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut introduced competing NIL-related legislation in September. 

Known as the Student Athlete Fairness and Enforcement Act, or “SAFE Act,” the bill “gives all athletes Name, Image and Likeness (NIL) rights, establishes uniform health and safety standards, protects scholarships and requires agents to register with a state and abide by clear contract requirements, including a 5 percent cap on fees,” according to Democrats on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, where Cantwell serves as ranking member. 

Student protesters shout during a “Hands Off Our Schools” rally in front of the U.S. Department of Education building in Washington, D.C., in April. The same group held a virtual press conference Tuesday to protest President Donald Trump’s efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A pair of Democratic lawmakers joined student leaders Tuesday in blasting President Donald Trump’s ongoing efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. 

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois, alongside college and high school students from across the United States, rebuked the Trump administration’s plans to shift several of the Education Department’s responsibilities to other Cabinet-level agencies as part of a larger effort to abolish the 46-year-old Education Department. 

Markey said Trump’s and Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s “dismantling of the department will have immediate negative consequences for students, for families, for local schools nationwide,” during a virtual press conference organized by “Hands Off Our Schools,” a coalition encompassing student government leaders from Washington, D.C.

“When a parent or superintendent needs support or technical assistance, there will be no one to pick up the phone,” he said. 

McMahon defended the move at a Nov. 20 White House press briefing, saying “these interagency agreements to cut our own bureaucratic bloat are a key step in our efforts to shift educational authority from Washington, D.C., to your state education agency, your local superintendent, your local school board — entities that are accountable to you.” 

But Markey and Underwood said the administration’s moves would have deeply negative impacts.

“The Trump agenda to destroy the Department of Education is not about cutting red tape — it is about enacting cruelty and intentionally breaking the programs that ensure the promise of education is delivered to every single student,” Markey said. 

Underwood said “this administration’s attacks on our Department of Education are part of a much larger assault on the very foundations of our constitutional rights and our democracy.”

She added that “by tearing down the Department of Education, this administration has made an explicit choice to abandon students and families.” 

Underwood — who is a registered nurse — also took aim at the department’s proposal stemming from congressional Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law that would place stricter loan limits on students pursuing graduate nursing programs because they would not fall under the “professional” degree classification. 

She said the effort is “devastating for our already overburdened nursing workforce, and it’s a disaster for our health care system, especially in rural communities.” 

‘Brainless decision’ 

Students from California, Texas, Virginia and Washington, D.C., also slammed the department’s plans to transfer responsibilities to other agencies and potential impacts on marginalized students. 

“This brainless decision to shift programs out of the (Education Department) is targeting the most vulnerable among us,” Darius Wagner, a student at Georgetown University, said, describing the move as “unnecessarily cruel.” 

“Other federal departments that now (bear) this responsibility do not have the resources, staff or expertise to manage these programs and will inevitably mismanage resources that will leave our most vulnerable children behind,” Wagner added.

Ayaan Moledina, a high school student in Austin, Texas, said “dismantling and destroying the department will lead to major consequences on the success of marginalized students.” 

Moledina, who serves as federal policy director of the advocacy group Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT), said that “without a federal department, there will be no federal oversight of institutions to guarantee the basic and fundamental rights of students.” 

He added: “There will be no federal assistance for institutions to implement federally mandated programs, putting more of a burden on schools that already have their plates full.” 

Six interagency agreements 

The agreements to transfer several of the Education Department’s responsibilities to four other departments drew swift condemnation from Democratic officials, labor unions and advocacy groups, who questioned the legality of the effort and voiced concerns about the harm that would be imposed on students, families and schools as a result. 

The Education Department clarified that it would “maintain all statutory responsibilities and will continue its oversight of these programs” regarding its six agreements signed with Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services and State.

Prior to the six announced interagency agreements, the agency had already undergone a slew of changes that the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily greenlit in July, including mass layoffs that gutted more than 1,300 employees and a plan to dramatically downsize the department ordered earlier this year. 

The Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building pictured in November 2024. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A coalition suing to block President Donald Trump’s efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education expanded its lawsuit Tuesday to include objections to recent interagency agreements to shift the department’s responsibilities to other Cabinet-level agencies.

The alliance of unions and school districts also added a major disability rights advocacy group to its ranks in the amended complaint that detailed how the department’s Nov. 18 announcement of six interagency agreements could harm students.

The agreements to transfer several Education responsibilities to four other departments drew swift backlash from Democratic officials, labor unions and advocacy groups, who questioned the legality of the transfers and expressed concerns over the harms that would be imposed on students, families and schools as a result. 

“Scattering Department of Education programs among agencies with no expertise in education or lacking key agency infrastructure will reduce the efficiency and effectiveness of these programs and will prevent the type of synergy that Congress intended to achieve by consolidating federal education activities in one cabinet level agency,” the coalition, represented by the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward, wrote in the amended complaint. 

The expanded suit asks for declaratory and injunctive relief against what it describes as the administration’s “unlawful effort to dismantle the Department of Education,” pointing to the interagency agreements, mass layoffs at the department earlier this year and implementation of an executive order that called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon to facilitate the closure of her own department.  

The Education Department clarified in fact sheets related to the agreements  with the departments of Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services and State that it would “maintain all statutory responsibilities and will continue its oversight of these programs.”

Axing the Education Department

Trump has sought to take an axe to the 46-year-old department, saying he wants to send education “back to the states.” Much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurs at the state and local levels.

The original lawsuit, filed in March in Massachusetts federal court, was brought by the American Federation of Teachers, its Massachusetts chapter, AFSCME Council 93, the American Association of University Professors, the Service Employees International Union and two school districts in Massachusetts. 

The Tuesday filing adds The Arc of the United States, an advocacy group for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, as a plaintiff. 

Earlier this year, the case was consolidated with another March lawsuit from Democratic attorneys general in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin.  

“It’s no surprise that blue states and unions care more about preserving the DC bureaucracy than about giving parents, students, and teachers more control over education and improving the efficient delivery of funds and services,” Madi Biedermann, a spokesperson for the department, said in a statement shared with States Newsroom.

Supreme Court temporarily greenlit Trump plan

In May, a federal judge in Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction in the consolidated case, blocking the administration’s efforts, including a reduction in force effort at the agency that gutted more than 1,300 employees, Trump’s executive order calling on McMahon to facilitate the closure of her own department and a directive to transfer some services to other federal agencies.

A federal appeals court upheld that order in June, prompting the administration to ask the Supreme Court to intervene. 

The nation’s highest court in July temporarily suspended the lower courts’ orders, allowing the administration to proceed, for now, with those dismantling efforts.