Two lawsuits filed Monday, one by a coalition of states and the other by a group of cities, unions and advocacy organizations, are challenging a new Trump administration rule imposing "intentionally vague" and allegedly illegal restrictions on student loan forgiveness for public employees intended to stifle dissent.

The complaints, both filed in Massachusetts federal court, come just days after the U.S. Department of Education on Friday announced the rule, which will disqualify some public employees from receiving Public Service Loan Forgiveness starting next July if they are deemed to be working for a program deemed to have a "substantial illegal purpose."

The rule and subsequent public statements by administration officials cite examples including gender affirming care for minors, activities that support undocumented immigrants, promoting diversity, equity and inclusion, and engaging in political protests.

"These so-called 'illegal' purposes set forth in the rule are also plainly pretextual," the coalition of states say in their complaint. "The only forms of 'illegality' named are a cherry-picked list of this administration's most disfavored groups and activities, including support for immigrants, gender affirming care, diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and political protests."

"In an attempt to target organizations and jurisdictions whose missions and policies do not align with its political positions on immigration, race, gender, free speech, and public protest, the Trump-Vance administration has weaponized the PSLF program in a way that defies how Congress designed it," the cities and advocacy groups say in their complaint, calling it an "attempt to target organizations and jurisdictions whose missions and policies do not align with its political positions on immigration, race, gender, free speech and public protest."

Both complaints are seeking court orders blocking the rule from taking effect July 1, saying the measure violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Higher Education Act.

The states point to the bipartisan nature of the PSLF, which was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2007 to address the need for skilled employees — ranging from police officers and firefighters to teachers, social workers and lawyers — in the public sector, where traditionally lower salaries were seen as dissauding college or trade school graduates carrying heavy school loan debt from applying.

The program offers student loan forgiveness conditioned on 10 years of public employment.

As of October 2024, the states say, the program had forgiven more than $70 billion in loans for more than a million borrowers working in the public sector.

During a news conference announcing the lawsuit Monday afternoon, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who along with New York, Massachusetts and Colorado is leading the litigation by the states, said the rule change will give Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon "the power to pull the rug out from under hard-working public servants, people who were promised their school loans would be forgiven if they did their part."

"They want to reward loyalists and punish those who would speak out against him," said Bonta, who later added, "the only person this rule serves is Donald Trump."

Massachusetts AG Andrea Joy Campbell called the rule change the "same tired script we have seen from this administration — overstepping their power and undermining the Constitution."

Colorado AG Phil Weiser accused the administration of "bullying" states with what he called an "intentionally vague" policy that will leave public employees and those running PSLF-eligible programs in a state of uncertainty intended to chill speech. "This administration acts as if they are above the law," said Weiser. "They are not."

New York AG Letitia James, who is facing a mortgage fraud indictment brought by the Trump administration, called the rule change a "political loyalty test disguised as a regulation."

In addition to those four states and the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs include Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

The second complaint was brought by Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, Albuquerque, New Mexico and Santa Clara, California, and Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Legal Aid DC, National Association of Social Workers, National Council of Nonprofits, Oasis Legal Services, AFT, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the National Education Association.

Department of Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent accused the plaintiffs of "standing up for criminal activity," in response to a request for comment on the two lawsuits.

"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," Kent said in a statement, going on to say that the rule will be enforced "neutrally, without consideration of the employer's mission, ideology, or the population they serve."

The states are represented by their respective attorneys general.

The coalition of cities, unions and nonprofit organizations are represented by Sarah Goetz, Jennifer Fountain Connolly and Victoria S. Nugent of Democracy Forward Foundation and Persis Yu of Protect Borrowers and city and county attorneys of San Francisco and Santa Clara, California.

Counsel information for the government was not available.

The cases are Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Department of Education et al., case number 1:25-cv-13244 and National Council of Nonprofits et al. v. McMahon et al., case number 1:25-cv-13242, both in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

--Additional reporting by Alison Knezevich. Editing by Kelly Duncan.