The Internet Is Probably Telling You That Filing A Specific Privacy Complaint Can Wipe Out Your Student Loans. Here's What You Need To Know
If you have federal student loans and aren't a fan of President — oops, I mean "First Buddy" — Elon Musk and the DOGE bros potentially accessing your personal data, chances are you're seeing a lot of posts like this on social media:
All over the internet, and especially on TikTok, people are advising student loan borrowers to file FERPA complaints to get their debts cleared. But since TikTok trends and accurate legal and financial advice don't often go hand in hand, I had to learn more about what's really going on here.
In a nutshell, the argument goes that Elon Musk and DOGE accessed student loan borrower information without our consent, so people claim that we have the right under FERPA to file a complaint and get our loans wiped away.
Separately, the University of California Students Association filed a federal suit to block DOGE from accessing student financial aid data, citing the Privacy Act of 1974. A judge has paused DOGE's access to this data, but the hold is set to end on Monday.
Democratic senators have also begun to take some action around this. Last week, 16 senators headed up by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer started a probe into DOGE's access to student loan data.
So, does this viral student loan discharge theory hold water? Thankfully, there is someone on TikTok who has the expertise to clear things up. Jay Fleischman (@moneywiselawyer), a lawyer with 25 years of experience in consumer law, is going viral for sharing why he thinks these FERPA complaints won't have the desired effect. In a video that's been viewed over 2 million times as of this writing, he starts by explaining what FERPA even is.
"FERPA is short for the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act, which prevents your student information from being disclosed to third parties," Fleischman says. However, he goes on to explain that "There is no private right of action, no right for an individual to sue for violations of FERPA. The US Supreme Court actually decided the case in 2002 in a case called Gonzaga v. Doe. In that case, the US Supreme Court ruled that individuals do not have the right to sue for a violation of FERPA."
You can read the Department of Education's page on FERPA here.
He concludes the video by saying, "So if you're going to file a lawsuit for violations of FERPA, you're not going anywhere. You're going to waste your time, you're going to waste your money, you're going to get thrown out of court because there's no private right of action, no right for an individual to sue for a violation of FERPA."
A lot of commenters were (understandably) like, well, then, what the heck is FERPA even good for?!? So Fleischman made a follow-up video explaining exactly that. "In the case of FERPA, the right to sue for violations and the right to take enforcement actions for violations of FERPA falls to the federal government. So it would be the US Department of Education that would seek to enforce FERPA against an individual or party that violates it, or it would be the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that would seek to enforce FERPA against people who violate it."
If you've been paying attention to the news in the last few weeks, you unfortunately know where this is going. He concludes by saying, "Well, with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau basically shuttered, and with the Department of Education being rapidly downsized on the way to the administration trying to shutter it, there's not going to be anybody to enforce your rights. Your consumer protection rights under FERPA do not exist in the absence of a government that is ready, willing, and able to enforce those rights on your behalf."
Next, to learn more about what borrowers should actually do right now, I spoke with Natalia Abrams, President and Founder, and Sabrina Calazans, Executive Director, at the Student Debt Crisis Center.
The Student Debt Crisis Center is a nonprofit that highlights borrowers' stories and educates borrowers about their options and rights while advocating for the ultimate goal of canceling student debt and ending the student debt crisis.
First of all, they agreed that a FERPA complaint is not likely to get rid of your student loans. Abrams said, "We've never seen a claim where there has been debt relief or individualized relief from a FERPA claim." She also pointed me to a recent tweet from the Office of Federal Student Aid assuring borrowers that their data has not been accessed unlawfully.
You can read the Student Aid privacy policy, which, as of this writing, was last updated on February 12, 2025, here.
Calazans chimed in, saying, "There's a lot of misinformation spreading right now about everything related to the Department of Education. What happens if the Department of Education is dismantled or abolished? What happens to my debt? It does not go away, to our understanding. It just will pass on to either the Department of Treasury or maybe private lenders."
So, what should borrowers do right now? Abrams says that the main thing is to keep on top of payments. "We don't want people to miss a lot of payments, thinking that [their debt] is gone and then end up in a worse situation. As much as we want to find that holy grail that cancels all of the debt — we've long fought for that, and we got very close under the last administration — smarter folks than us in terms of attorney groups are looking into every angle they can to pull those levers."
Abrams went on to say, "If you're struggling to make your payment, there are what's called income-driven repayment programs that base your payment on your income versus the overall loan amount that can help people that are struggling to make their payment right now."
In 2023, the Biden administration introduced a new income-driven plan called the SAVE plan that set certain lower-income borrowers up for $0 monthly payments with no interest accruing. However, that plan has since been tied up in the courts with millions of borrowers still waiting to find out what will happen.
Abrams explained, "You can still technically enroll in the SAVE program and then be included in that forbearance. I'd caution a bit, because that could take up to two months, and we don't know where the status will be of the lawsuits in two months." Calazans added that, as of now, enrolling in the SAVE program also halts progress in plans like public service student loan forgiveness, so for that reason, they recommend sticking to other income-driven plans.
Calazans added another crucial step for borrowers to take right now. "We've also been encouraging folks to document any information that they have regarding their accounts. So they should log into studentaid.gov, and they should document what repayment plan they're in, their servicer, and their balance. All of that information is really critical so that you know where things stand. We don't know if the website's going to be pulled down. We don't know what they're going to take off of the website. So, it is important for folks to have that information."
Finally, Abrams said, "More chaos is not the answer for student loan borrowers that have been in chaotic times for years now ever since people thought their debt was going to be canceled, and then that was held up in the courts — and then this new SAVE plan and that was held up in the court. Borrowers need clarity and to be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel. And that's really hard when there's so many unknowns."
The Student Debt Crisis Center has authored a letter on Action Network that you can use to urge your representatives in Congress to stand with student loan borrowers and defend the Department of Education.
Do you have federal student loans, and what do you think about this whole situation? Tell us your thoughts in the comments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
N.C. bill gives big energy users a break — at the expense of households
Residential customers of Duke Energy in North Carolina could pay $87 million more per year for electricity under a proposal rocketing through the state legislature, a new study shows. The figure represents about a 4% jump in household bills. The legislation, Senate Bill 266, would change how Duke distributes the cost of electricity it buys to supplement generation from its own power plants — significantly hiking the share paid by residential consumers and cutting the portion paid by industrial electricity users, like chemical manufacturers and textile mills. The analysis shows the legislation is a better deal for industrial customers than the status quo, said Will Scott, Southeast climate and clean energy director for the Environmental Defense Fund. 'They will pay less to use the same amount of energy, and residential ratepayers will pay more,' he said. SB 266 is the latest version of a Senate-passed measure that would unravel the state's climate targets. It was publicly unveiled moments before it was debated and approved by the House Energy and Public Utilities Committee last week, and received fulsome praise from Duke, industrial groups, and others in testimony. On Tuesday, despite protests from clean energy advocates and some Democratic lawmakers, the bill easily cleared the Republican-controlled House and now returns to the Senate, also run by the GOP. The study, conducted by independent analysis group EQ Research, has a narrow scope, homing in on the ramifications of just one section of the 30-page bill — the part that covers how purchased power is billed to customers. 'We were pretty laser-focused,' said Justin Barnes, president of EQ Research, 'because that's the analysis we could do with readily available information quickly.' While Duke generates much of its own electricity from a fleet of fossil fuel and nuclear plants, it also contracts to buy some of its solar power from independent producers and purchases energy from other generators under certain conditions, such as when demand spikes. Under current law, the entire cost of this purchased power is passed on to customers annually along with a charge for natural gas and other fuels. The utility divvies up the costs of this fuel "rider" between residential and industrial customer groups based partially on their peak electricity demand and partially on their overall energy use. According to EQ's analysis of Duke's latest filings with regulators, the fuel rider totals about $2.75 billion for the company's two North Carolina entities, Duke Energy Progress and Duke Energy Carolinas. The purchased power portion is around $1.1 billion. Of the purchased power portion, residential customers currently pay about 41.2%, and use just over 40% of the energy. SB 266 eliminates any weight given to overall energy use in allocating purchased power costs, according to EQ, shifting charges from large industrial users of electricity to residential consumers. The result is that households would pay just under 49% of those costs while using the same 40% of energy, the group's study found. 'It is not going to be a savings for us ratepayers,' said Rep. Pricey Harrison, a Guilford County Democrat, speaking against SB 266 on the House floor. 'It is going to be an increase.' The EQ study does not incorporate the potential effects of other parts of the bill, including alleged savings from eliminating a 2030 deadline by which Duke must cut its carbon pollution, and the impact to customers of allowing the utility to recoup some costs for power plants not yet delivering electricity. Rep. Dean Arp, the Union County Republican championing SB 266, said last week in committee that erasing the 2030 climate target would save all customers a total of $13 billion by 2050. He said allowing Duke to recover plant-construction financing costs early would net them another $1.4 billion. He echoed those claims Tuesday on the House floor, rounding up the total savings by over half a billion dollars. 'A vote against this legislation is a vote to make all ratepayers pay $15 billion more in electricity costs,' Arp said. But opponents of the bill reject the allegation that striving for more wind and solar energy in the near term will contribute to rising rates, an assertion stemming from an elusive study from the state-sanctioned customer advocate, Public Staff, that hasn't been provided widely to legislators or members of the public. Clean energy advocates say the Public Staff analysis considers only the cost of building new power generation, not the rising price of fossil fuels. And they continue to question the wisdom of allowing Duke to charge consumers for costs related to nuclear and gas plants that may never come online. Perhaps above all, EQ's findings show why more time is needed to vet the bill with all interested parties, including clean energy and consumer advocates, not just Duke and large industrial customers, critics contend. 'When we rush processes like these and don't include all the stakeholders, we can end up with results that unfairly burden North Carolina households,' said Scott with the Environmental Defense Fund. 'I hope that we can slow down and make the adjustments we need so that this bill doesn't cause unnecessary pollution or unnecessary costs.' But the House's public deliberation of the measure has been anything but slow. In less than a week, it cleared two committees and two required floor votes. It could appear on the desk of Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, as soon as this week. 'There are all kinds of reasons to vote no on this bill,' Harrison said to the full House on Tuesday, including its treatment of residential customers, its abdication of climate targets, and the process by which it was rushed through the chamber. As the House prepared to vote around 7 p.m., she said, 'It's not clear why we're doing this tonight.'
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dave Ramsey Presents A Roadmap For A High-Spending Couple That's More Than $200,000 In Debt: 'The Problem Is Not The Credit Card Debt'
Financial radio host Dave Ramsey has spoken with many couples who want to get out of debt. He often starts by figuring out how they got into debt, and this recent conversation on "The Ramsey Show" was no different. A couple with more than $200,000 in debt asked Ramsey if they should sell their house to pay off the debt. However, as the call unfolded, it became clear that selling the house wasn't the solution. "The problem is not the credit card debt," Ramsey stated. Don't Miss: Maker of the $60,000 foldable home has 3 factory buildings, 600+ houses built, and big plans to solve housing — 'Scrolling To UBI' — Deloitte's #1 fastest-growing software company allows users to earn money on their phones. The couple has $50,000 in credit card debt, $115,000 in student loan debt, and a $48,000 home equity loan. It would be better if the credit card debt was zero, but the couple's habits were a bigger red flag for Ramsey than their current financial situation. Ramsey asked for the couple's age, and the wife mentioned that she is 48 years old. This discovery prompted Ramsey to inquire about why they owed $115,000 on student loans. It turns out the couple made minimum payments on their debt and lived above their means. Doing that for one year is bad enough, but if you do it for more than 20 years, you can end up in serious debt. The couple currently finds themselves in this situation. Their annual household income jumped to $8,000 per month a few years ago, but that didn't translate into lower debt. The couple just spent more money. This chain of bad money habits adds more validation to Ramsey's assertion that credit card debt isn't the problem. In fact, the couple later revealed that the home equity line of credit was used as a debt consolidation loan to reduce their credit card debt. Selling the house can solve the couple's current debt, but it would keep their bad money habits intact. Trending: Invest where it hurts — and help millions heal:. Ramsey was pretty clear about what it would take for the couple to correct their course. He suggested that they live like broke people. That includes no dining or vacations for at least three years. He said the couple shouldn't be in a restaurant unless one of them is working in it. He also suggested that the couple look for ways to earn additional money. While $8,000 per month is an above-average household income, the couple is far behind on their debt. If all goes well, the couple will be in their early 50s by the time they pay off their debt. Then, they have to save for retirement. Ramsey suggested tackling the debt aggressively. He advocated that the couple pay off $2,000 per month toward debt repayment and quickly boost that number to $5,000 per month as the couple increases their earnings with raises, side hustles, and other also told the couple to cut up their credit cards and make a game out of how much debt they can pay and how little they can buy. TikTok has some of these challenges, such as "No Spend January" and "No Buy February." Participating in these types of challenges each month can help the couple curtail their out-of-control discretionary spending. Then, they can pay off debt quicker, have more motivation to build on the initial momentum, and keep their house. It requires a long-term financial commitment to get out of debt and change bad money habits that have been keeping you down. Ramsey offered the roadmap, and it's up to the couple to follow it. Read Next: The average American couple has saved this much money for retirement —? Deloitte's fastest-growing software company partners with Amazon, Walmart & Target – Image: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? APPLE (AAPL): Free Stock Analysis Report TESLA (TSLA): Free Stock Analysis Report This article Dave Ramsey Presents A Roadmap For A High-Spending Couple That's More Than $200,000 In Debt: 'The Problem Is Not The Credit Card Debt' originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump is expected to sign a measure blocking California's nation-leading vehicle emissions rules
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is expected to sign a measure Thursday that blocks California's first-in-the-nation rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, a White House official told The Associated Press. The resolution Trump plans to sign, which Congress approved last month, aims to quash the country's most aggressive attempt to phase out gas-powered cars. He also plans to approve measures to overturn state policies curbing tailpipe emissions in certain vehicles and smog-forming nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks. The timing of the signing was confirmed Wednesday by a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity to share plans not yet public. The development comes as the Republican president is mired in a clash with California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, over Trump's move to deploy troops to Los Angeles in response to immigration protests. It's the latest in an ongoing battle between the Trump administration and heavily Democratic California over everything from tariffs to the rights of LGBTQ+ youth and funding for electric vehicle chargers. According to the official, Trump is expected to sign resolutions that block California's rule phasing out gas-powered cars and ending the sale of new ones by 2035. He will also kill rules that phase out the sale of medium- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles and cut tailpipe emissions from trucks. The president is scheduled to sign the measures and make remarks during an event at the White House on Thursday morning. Newsom, who is considered a likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate, and California officials contend that what the federal government is doing is illegal and said the state plans to sue. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin are expected to attend, along with members of Congress and representatives from the energy, trucking and gas station industries. California, which has some of the nation's worst air pollution, has been able to seek waivers for decades from the EPA allowing it to adopt stricter emissions standards than the federal government. In his first term, Trump revoked California's ability to enforce its standards, but President Joe Biden reinstated it in 2022. Trump has not yet sought to revoke it again. Republicans have long criticized those waivers and earlier this year opted to use the Congressional Review Act, a law aimed at improving congressional oversight of actions by federal agencies, to try to block the rules. That's despite a finding from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan congressional watchdog, that California's standards cannot legally be blocked using the Congressional Review Act. The Senate parliamentarian agreed with that finding. California, which makes up roughly 11% of the U.S. car market, has significant power to sway trends in the auto industry. About a dozen states signed on to adopt California's rule phasing out the sale of new gas-powered cars. The National Automobile Dealers Association supported the federal government's move to block California's ban on gas-powered cars, saying Congress should decide on such a national issue, not the state. The American Trucking Associations said the rules were not feasible and celebrated Congress' move to block them. Chris Spear, the CEO of the American Trucking Associations, said in a statement Wednesday: 'This is not the United States of California.' ___ Austin reported from Sacramento, Calif.
