What to know about involuntary collections, student loan payments
The Department of Education announced this week that it will start referring student loan borrowers in default to debt collection.
Why it matters: After a five-year penalty pause, the 5.3 million borrowers in default could see their wages garnished if they don't resume payments.
Here's what to know:
When will collections resume?
State of play: The department will begin involuntary collections on May 5 through the Treasury Offset Program, which collects delinquent debts that people owe to government agencies, through wage garnishment.
Wage garnishment is a legal procedure in which employers are ordered to withhold a person's earnings for the payment of a debt, such as unpaid child support.
There will be a 30-day notice, after which the department will begin garnishing wages for borrowers in default.
Student loans are considered default after 270 days without payments.
Why was there a pause?
Federal student loans, including those in default, have not been referred for collection since March 2020, when leniency was initiated during the COVID pandemic.
How many people owe money?
By the numbers: Only 38% of borrowers are up to date on their student loans, according to the department.
4 million borrowers are in "late stage delinquency," officials said, or 91 to 180 days delinquent.
There could be nearly 10 million borrowers in default in a few months, according to the department, meaning almost a quarter of borrowers will be delinquent.
How can people make payments?
Borrowers in default will receive an email in the next two weeks about the policy update, the department said. Borrowers can contact the government Default Resolution Group to make a monthly payment.
What are the next steps for borrowers?
Borrowers can sign up for an income-driven repayment (IDR) plan or loan rehabilitation.
Income-driven repayment plans, like Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) launched under the Biden administration, are calculated based on a borrower's income and family size, rather than loan balances.
A federal court prevented the implementation of SAVE and other IDR plans in February, leading to the temporary removal of applications from the Education Department website. As of March 26, 2025, however, the online IDR application is once again available.
After the injunction, there was brief confusion over whether changes to the program meant that married borrowers on an IDR plan could be required to make higher loan payments, but the department later clarified that they would not.
Yes, but: Some experts are worried that SAVE is on the chopping block.
Jason Delisle, a nonpartisan higher education researcher with the Urban Institute, told NPR last month that congressional Republicans want to kill SAVE as part of their budget reconciliation bill,
Beth Akers, a higher education researcher at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI), told NPR that Republicans could use the savings to help pay for President Trump's tax cuts, but if the courts ended it first, Republicans' legislative savings would evaporate.
What else is the Education Department doing for borrowers?
The department said that there are several tools for borrowers, such as extended loan servicer call center hours and an AI assistant to help find a repayment program.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
California lawmaker warns Menendez brothers' case is driving return of bill to release thousands of killers
A California lawmaker blames the attention on the Menendez brothers' case for prompting a bill to resurface that could put thousands of killers back on the streets. "California Democrats just opened the prison gates for over 1,600 cold-blooded killers," Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, a Republican, shared in a statement with Fox News Digital. "Democrat lawmakers have proven time and time again they don't care about the victim or their family. They don't care about keeping the public safe. They care about defending killers." Jones added what makes this move even more interesting was the timing of it. Gov. Newsom Doing 'Political Calculus' Ahead Of Menendez Brothers Resentencing Decision "As soon as the Menendez brothers' situation started trending, all of a sudden this bill comes up again," Jones said. "And it's really a very kind of cynical effort to get caught up in that wave of social media, media attention, the press cycle for building somebody's name. ... So, we're opposed to this bill. Read On The Fox News App "It's a shameless attempt to ride a wave of social media sympathy with zero regard for the thousands of other brutal killers their bill could unleash." Jones said, unlike some of his Democratic counterparts, Republicans in California and the Senate are committed to keeping Californians safe. "And the way we do that is by keeping these violent felons locked up in prison where they belong," Jones said. "Dangerous Democrats are playing politics with public safety." Jones said the move to resentence Lyle and Erik Menendez, who were serving life in prison without parole for the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, was not the right action to take. "It's pretty straightforward to me. These people were convicted of very heinous murders with a sentence of life without parole. And for us to go back on that sentencing now and then the victims to be re-victimized, the families of the murdered, to have to continuously relive this is unconscionable to me," Jones explained. Jones added what doesn't make sense in all this is Gov. Gavin Newsom's Democratic Party continues to push to protect perpetrators instead of victims and using the Menendez brothers' case to get their bill across the finish line. Menendez Brothers Could Get Freedom Under California Law Signed By Gavin Newsom: Expert "I think the legislators from LA are taking advantage of that news cycle and the social media attention that is coming from this. They think they're gonna get some Hollywood stars to come up to Sacramento and testify on this bill to promote it. I don't think that's going to happen," Jones explained. Jones was speaking about SB 672, also known as the Youth Rehabilitation and Opportunity Act, which is a California bill that would allow individuals sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed before the age of 26 to request a parole hearing after serving at least 25 years. The state Senate passed SB 672 Tuesday by a 24-11 vote. The proposal now heads to the Assembly. The bill, introduced by Democratic Sen. Susan Rubio, was amended to exclude criminals convicted of certain offenses the chance to seek parole, including those who killed a law enforcement officer or carried out a mass shooting at a school, among other offenses. "Sacramento's love affair with criminals doesn't seem to be letting up, even after 70% of Californians made it clear they wanted lawmakers to crack down on crime. Now, the state Senate is trying to let convicted murderers out of jail early," Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican candidate for California governor, shared in a statement after the bill's passage in the Senate. "It's also amazing that once the Menendez brothers found a way to apply for parole, the legislators here still doubled down and continued to push the bill through," Jones added. "And, again, it goes back to Gavin Newsom and the Democrats in California protecting perpetrators and ignoring victims." The previous bill, SB 94, would have given certain inmates serving life without parole a chance to petition to have sentences reviewed if crimes were committed before June 5, 1990, but it stalled in the legislature and did not move forward. Newsom's office told Fox News Digital it typically does not comment on pending legislation. Rubio's office told Fox News Digital she is "disappointed" some lawmakers are sharing false information. "It is unfortunate that the bill has been grossly misrepresented. I am disappointed that my friends from the other side of the aisle continue to peddle misinformation when, out of respect for them, I went over in detail what the bill does and does not do. I invited them to give me input, and the invitation is still open," Rubio's office shared in a statement. During Erik and Lyle Menendez's resentencing hearing last month, both shared emotional testimony, admitting "full responsibility" for their parents' murders after a bombshell decision by Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic to resentence them. The resentencing hearing came after the brothers filed a habeas corpus petition in May 2023 citing new evidence of sexual assault. Former Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón then filed a motion for resentencing in October 2024. Both filings followed the passage of AB 600, a California law allowing for resentencing of long-convicted inmates to align with current law. "There's all kinds of special circumstances, that's what a lot of these murders are called, special circumstances that, really, these people don't deserve to ever be out of prison," Jones said. Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman said "justice should never be swayed by spectacle" after the judge's decision. "The decision to resentence Erik and Lyle Menendez was a monumental one that has significant implications for the families involved, the community and the principles of justice," Hochman said in a news release. "Our office's motions to withdraw the resentencing motion filed by the previous administration ensured that the court was presented with all the facts before making such a consequential decision. "The case of the Menendez brothers has long been a window for the public to better understand the judicial system. This case, like all cases — especially those that captivate the public — must be viewed with a critical eye. Our opposition and analysis ensured that the court received a complete and accurate record of the facts. Justice should never be swayed by spectacle." The brothers remain in prison but are now eligible for parole. They have a parole board hearing scheduled for August. Freedom For The Menendez Brothers Might Come From A Surprising Source. And This Could Be Next Jones said the Menendez brothers are "getting special attention by the media and the Democrat leadership, who are really out of touch with everyday Californians." "Look, promoting this and pushing this idea is opening a Pandora's box for 1,600 other special circumstance murderers that are in prison right now, and I just can't support moving in a direction that allows so many of those people out on parole," Jones said. "I would argue if (the Menendez brothers) are truly rehabilitated, which I have some doubts about that, but if they are, then maybe the best place for them is in prison, where they can mentor and help other people that are coming into the prison system to get their lives turned around too." Jones added that releasing Erik and Lyle Menendez is not a risk he is willing to get behind. "As a society, do we want to really take the risk of letting these two out or any of the other 1,600 special circumstance murders that we don't know by name but are in prison for the same sentence? Do we really want to roll the dice and take the risk of allowing these people out and having the opportunity for any more victims in California? And I think the answer is a resounding no," Jones said. Fox News Digital's Bradford Betz, Sarah Rumpf-Whitten, and Landon Mion contributed to this report. Original article source: California lawmaker warns Menendez brothers' case is driving return of bill to release thousands of killers
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Just 10% of bills passed in CT's 2025 legislative session. Here are the major ones
After months of clashes on multiple issues, the 2025 legislative session ended last week with new legislation passed on the state budget, early childhood education, gun safety, affordable housing and electricity prices. When the smoke cleared as time expired at midnight on June 4, fewer than 10% of the proposed bills had passed both chambers of the legislature. In all, about 3,800 bills were filed this year on a wide variety of subjects in more than 25 committees. Of those, more than 900 bills were passed by the legislative committees. Eventually, state officials said, 286 bills were passed by both chambers and will be sent to Lamont's desk for his signature. A small sampling of some of the major bills includes : The state's new two-year, $55.8 billion budget was hailed by Democrats for providing additional money for Medicaid, nonprofit organizations, special education, and the working poor. But the measure was ripped by Republicans for too many taxes on businesses and too much spending, including an increase of about $1.2 billion in the first year over this year's spending. The massive, 693-page budget passed both chambers in the final days after 66 hours of public hearings and multiple revisions. The measure passed on strict party lines in the Senate, while two conservative Democrats joined with all Republicans in voting against the budget in the state House of Representatives. Lamont said it was important to him that lawmakers passed a two-year budget, rather than one year as House Speaker Matt Ritter had mentioned, so that the state could plan further into the future. 'I think it's an honestly balanced budget,' Lamont told reporters in his office after the session. 'We did it without raising anybody's tax rates. That was not happening previously.' Among the highlights was a tax rebate of $250 for working families who already qualify for the federal earned income tax credit. Ritter had pushed for a visible method of relief and so checks for $250 per year will be sent to lower-income households with children. The money will be directed to the neediest families after budget negotiators dropped a more expensive Democratic plan that would have provided a child tax credit for families earning as much as $200,000 per year. Republicans charged that Lamont had derailed the bipartisan fiscal guardrails set in 2017 and eviscerated the spending cap. Republicans and the Connecticut Business and Industry Association were also concerned that the budget includes Lamont's change to the 'unitary' tax that they said would lead to tax increases for about 20 major corporations like Electric Boat, Wal-Mart, Raytheon, Amazon, Home Depot, Lowe's, AT&T, Verizon, and the parent company of Sikorsky helicopters, among others. The tax has not been mentioned much at the state Capitol in recent years, but Fairfield-based General Electric Co. cited the tax among the reasons that the company decided to move its headquarters to Boston during the tenure of then-Gov. Dannel P. Malloy. But Lamont and his team have frequent contact with top business leaders, and he said after the initial proposal was released that the leaders had not raised major concerns. Republicans have ripped Lamont with a consistent theme that he has 'folded like a lawn chair' on various issues where they believe he has flip-flopped. Senators even set up lawn chairs outside their third-floor caucus room at the state Capitol that mentioned various issues such as the spending cap and fiscal guardrails. 'Our observation that Gov. Lamont 'folded like a lawn chair' to his fellow Democrats apparently struck a nerve,' said Senate Republican leader Stephen Harding of Brookfield. 'Gov. Lamont performed his lawn chair-folding impression multiple times in recent weeks: On the 'sacrosanct' spending cap, on 'no new taxes', on the Trust Act, and on $60 steak-loving CSCU Chancellor Terrence Cheng's new $440,000 no-defined duties job. The truth hurts.' Lamont seems to have grown tired of Republican criticisms, saying the Senate Republicans have thrown stones from the sidelines without offering their own fiscal plan this year as state budget surpluses have continued. 'I wish they would spend less time on folding chairs and more time on coming up with a budget of their own,' Lamont said when asked by The Courant. 'Their numbers don't add up. They couldn't come up with a budget of their own. If you want to have a place at the table, come up with a constructive idea.' Lawmakers approved landmark legislation to fund an endowment account to create more affordable child care in Connecticut in the coming years. Legislators agreed with Lamont to set aside as much as $300 million per year from the state's future budget surpluses in order to create a large endowment fund that would be invested by the state treasurer and could grow in future years. This year's allocation is expected to be $200 million, based on the size of the current surplus. 'The most important initiative, from my point of view, in this budget is what we're doing in early childhood,' Lamont told reporters after the session. 'I think it's absolutely important to economic growth. It gives mom and dad a chance to get back to work. It's all about affordability because you know how big a chunk early childhood and day care can be to a family just getting started out. We're going to have universal pre-K and universal early childhood for early single family, at no cost, earn up to about $100,000 and discounts from there.' Under the plan, families earning $100,000 or less would pay nothing for child care starting in 2028, as it would be paid by the endowment, lawmakers said. The goal is for the endowment to help pay the costs to create 16,000 spaces for preschool, infants, and toddlers by 2030. While those under $100,000 would be free, those earning more than $100,000 would not pay more than 7% of their household income, lawmakers said. But Republicans said that the projected 12% annual draw down in the first two years is too much, saying it would sharply decrease the size of the endowment. They questioned the use of large amounts of money to create an off-budget endowment instead of allocating more money for the state's unfunded liabilities like pensions for state employees and public school teachers. 'It really is the beginning of the end of good fiscal practices,' said House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford. 'They are turning the faucet off on Connecticut paying down its unfunded liabilities. The glory days are over of paying down unfunded liabilities. … This legislation right now is doing away with surpluses as we know it.' Among the most contentious and heavily debated issues was electricity prices and exactly how to solve the long-running dilemma of sky-high energy costs in Connecticut. After numerous revisions, the Senate passed the final version in a 134-page bill by 34-1 with state Sen. John Fonfara of Hartford as the lone dissenting vote. One of the most knowledgeable lawmakers in the building, Fonfara had crafted his own version of electricity reform in the tax-writing finance committee, but the final version did not include all of his ideas, something he called a missed opportunity. While estimates varied, lawmakers said the average residential customer might save about $100 or more per year. Businesses could save $100 per month, or $1,200 per year, depending on their size and usage. Republicans and Democrats have been squabbling publicly about electricity prices for more than a year, both before and after the election. Ritter described the matter as 'the wedge political issue of 2024.' In addition, the twists and turns between the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority and the state's electric utilities have sparked a long-running soap opera with lawsuits and ongoing drama that has continued on a heavily-lobbied issue. Even after the session, the situation remained in flux as Lamont said he had a handshake deal that is also backed by the law to fill the spots on the PURA board to five members, up from the current three. Fonfara and former Republican state legislator Holly Cheeseman of Niantic have been the two most-mentioned candidates for the jobs since Christmas, but Lamont still has not officially announced his picks. 'We've got a deal for five people, and I'll do it sooner than later,' Lamont told reporters after the session. 'Holly is very well regarded. I think she would be at the top of our list.' Lamont declined to comment on Fonfara, who has been in the middle of various battles related to PURA. Lamont, though, added that he is looking for a highly qualified candidate with deep knowledge of electricity and the regulatory world. 'I haven't found that person yet,' Lamont said. After long debates in both chambers, lawmakers passed a gun safety bill that would make it easier to file civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers and make it harder for some residents to obtain a pistol permit. House Bill 7042 allows the state attorney general, as well as private citizens and cities and towns, to file civil lawsuits against those 'who fail to implement so-called reasonable controls in preventing the sale of firearms to straw purchasers, firearm traffickers, and individuals who are prevented from purchasing firearms under our laws.' Democrats said the bill is necessary because the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, known as PLCAA, was passed by Congress in 2005 that provided special immunity protections for gun manufacturers. So far, nine other states have passed similar legislation to expand the possibility of gun-related lawsuits, including New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, Illinois, Colorado and others. Republicans blasted the bill as an attack on Second Amendment rights. The multi-pronged bill also makes it harder for some residents to obtain a gun permit if they committed crimes in other states. Currently, Connecticut residents who commit felonies and 11 'disqualifier misdemeanors' are not permitted to obtain a pistol or revolver permit. But residents who commit essentially the same misdemeanors in other states, and then move to Connecticut, are still able to obtain a permit. The bill would cover anyone convicted of those misdemeanors in another state during the past eight years; they would now be blocked from getting a pistol or revolver permit, lawmakers said. After struggling for years to solve an elusive problem, legislators voted for steps to increase affordable housing in one of the nation's most expensive states. Lawmakers expressed frustration as renters and homeowners of all ages have complained of the price of housing — whether a small studio for a recent college graduate, a modest home for a young family, or a larger home in a sought-after town in Fairfield County. The legislation calls for allowing residential developments in commercial zones, eliminating mandatory minimum parking requirements in some cases to spark more housing, and spurring transit-oriented development, among others. But Candelora rejected the ideas that were unveiled with constant references during the debate to a 'carrot-and-stick' approach. 'These aren't carrots that we are eating,' Candelora said. 'These are rocks that people will be swallowing. … To suggest because we oppose this bill, we are opposing homelessness is an insult to us.' In order to help the homeless, the multi-faceted bill calls for a pilot program for mobile, portable showers in trailers that can be transported from town to town to help residents. The trailers, lawmakers said, are readily available online. For years, nonprofit providers have complained constantly that they have received few increases for providing services for the state under contracts to help the needy by operating group homes, among others. But the nonprofits were pleased with the 2025 session, which came through months of persistent lobbying and testimony at the state Capital. 'The biennial budget agreement will provide more than $200 million in new general fund dollars that will be a lifeline for health and human services providers, their staff and the people who depend on their services,' said Gian Carl Casa, a former top state budget official who now heads the statewide community nonprofit alliance. 'Nonprofit leaders were heartened that rank-and-file legislators, including the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus, Moderate Caucus and progressives, stood together to add important funding, and that legislative leaders and the governor agreed. Importantly, the legislature also passed a bipartisan bill that, if signed into law, would index future funding levels to inflation.' He added, 'The support of legislators from both parties can help keep us on track as the state faces federal funding challenges this year and beyond.' Christopher Keating can be reached at ckeating@
The Hill
41 minutes ago
- The Hill
In fight with Columbia, Trump seeks ‘death sentence'
In President Trump's war with higher education, Columbia University just became the first to face the nuclear option. While other schools have also faced devastating funding cuts and new investigations from multiple federal agencies under Trump, the Education Department is now calling for Columbia to lose its accreditation, endangering its access to the entire federal student loan system. Republicans are cheering Trump on, but for Columbia, which his administration accuses of violating Title VI antidiscrimination laws, the threat is existential. 'It's often called, colloquially, in higher education, a death sentence, because very few institutions could continue to enroll students, especially lower- and middle-income students, without having those students have the ability to borrow or get grants to go to those schools,' said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. The college accreditation process is typically one of the most mundane aspects of higher education, involving a federally approved nonpartisan accreditor evaluating every aspect of an institution, from class selections to admission processes. But the accreditor determines if a school is allowed to have access to student aid, including federal loans and Pell Grants. Columbia costs $71,000 a year for tuition and fees without financial aid, and that doesn't include room and board. The school notes that 24 percent of its first-year students have Pell Grants. Without access to aid, Columbia would be inaccessible to most students in the country. Experts doubt that the accreditor in question, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, will summarily nix Columbia's status. 'It is extraordinary for the Department of Education to do something like that, but I also recognize that Middle States is a very serious and professional entity,' said Raymond Brescia, associate dean for research and intellectual life at Albany Law School. 'I am confident that Middle States will take that concern seriously […] if Middle States determines that there is a concern here, then they will work with Columbia to rectify any issues,' he added. Typically, the Education Department will work with schools to try to correct specific issues before escalating the situation, but the Trump administration and other conservatives contend Columbia has had plenty of time to fix its alleged inaction on antisemitism. 'The question of 'Gosh, is this too soon?' I mean, how much longer do we need to wait? What other example of damage or harassment do we need to see before we can tell a university that it needs to comply with the law?' asked Jonathan Butcher, the Will Skillman senior research fellow in education policy at the Heritage Foundation. The very fight will cost Columbia time and money, even if it is ultimately victorious. The school said it is 'aware of the concerns' the Education Department brought to its accreditor 'and we have addressed those concerns directly with Middle States.' 'Columbia is deeply committed to combating antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it,' a spokesperson for the university added. Columbia and the Trump administration have been engaged in negotiations for months after the federal government pulled $400 million from the university, saying it had failed to adequately confront campus antisemitism. Instead of fighting like fellow Ivy League member Harvard University, Columbia agreed to many of the demands from the Trump administration, such as changing its disciplinary policies, but the capitulation only led to more funding being pulled. In recent weeks, friendlier tones were struck after the Trump administration praised Columbia for swiftly shutting down a pro-Palestinian protest at the school's library. Nevertheless, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said this week that Columbia has failed to meet its Title VI obligations. 'After Hamas' October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel, Columbia University's leadership acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students on its campus. This is not only immoral, but also unlawful. Accreditors have an enormous public responsibility as gatekeepers of federal student aid,' McMahon said. 'Just as the Department of Education has an obligation to uphold federal antidiscrimination law, university accreditors have an obligation to ensure member institutions abide by their standards,' she added. 'We look forward to the Commission keeping the Department fully informed of actions taken to ensure Columbia's compliance with accreditation standards including compliance with federal civil rights laws.' Education experts suspect Columbia will not be the last to see its accreditation threatened. The president has taken away billions of dollars from universities, threatened to revoke schools' tax-exempt status and tried to rescind Harvard's ability to admit and enroll foreign students, along with launching numerous civil rights and Title IX investigations against colleges across the country. And considering Trump was willing to take this particular step against a university that has been cooperating with his administration, it seems like it could be only a matter of time before Harvard, which has launched two lawsuits against the federal government, will be next. 'The writings on the wall, right? Why would he stop at Columbia? The goal here is to control higher education, because they think that higher education is a threat to their authoritarian rule,' said Todd Wolfson, national president of American Association of University Professors. 'I think the most important point is the people who are getting hurt here are our students and our families across this country. They are the collateral damage here,' he added. But some highlight another target in this action: accreditors themselves. On the campaign trail, Trump called accreditors his 'secret weapon' against higher education. In April, he signed an executive order to create more competition among accreditors and make it easier for schools to switch accreditation organizations, saying some accreditors have engaged in 'ideological overreach.' 'A big part of this is to intimidate the accreditors, to try to force the administration's viewpoints, which, again, aren't really supported by the law,' Fansmith said. One part is to 'scare the institution, come after the institution, but another part of this is to try to force the accreditors to get in line with the administration's policies. And that is in many ways, just as, if not more, troubling than what they're trying to do with these institutions,' he added.
