Student Loan Update: Court Documents Reveal Details of Trump Admin Plans
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Court documents have revealed new details about the Trump administration's attempts to transfer the management of the country's $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio away from the Department of Education.
The documents, submitted to a federal court, showed that the Department of Education had been negotiating a deal with the Treasury to oversee federal student loans, a role historically managed by the department's Federal Student Aid office.
The plan was put on hold after a federal judge blocked the administration's broader efforts to dismantle the Department of Education.
Newsweek reached out to the Treasury Department for comment.
Why It Matters
The potential transfer of the federal student loan portfolio, which affects more than 42 million Americans, has significant implications for borrowers, government oversight and loan servicing standards.
With student loan delinquency on the rise and millions of Americans seeing their credit scores hit record lows, the debate over who manages repayment, collections, and borrower protections has reached a new urgency. Court intervention has preserved the Department of Education's central role for now, but ongoing legal and policy battles could reshape loan management for years.
President Donald Trump speaks at a roundtable event at the White House on June 9, 2025.
President Donald Trump speaks at a roundtable event at the White House on June 9, 2025.What To Know
Under the Trump administration, the Department of Education had been negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the Treasury Department to review student loan management and collections operations, Rachel Oglesby, chief of staff at the agency, confirmed in a late Tuesday court filing.
Nine Education Department employees were set to move from the Federal Student Aid Default Collections Unit to the Treasury to "discuss collections activities," the Education Department confirmed to Newsweek.
Those plans were halted after U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston ruled last month, ordering the rehiring of more than 1,300 Education Department employees affected by mass layoffs in March and blocking the transfer of loan management to the Small Business Administration (SBA).
The court's intervention kept existing federal student loan programs under the purview of the Department of Education, restricting the administration from shifting responsibilities to other agencies without congressional approval.
Some experts have said that while the Treasury Department is more experienced than the SBA in managing collections and public funds, shifting federal student loan management would demand legislative action. The Higher Education Act of 1965 stipulates that loan responsibilities are assigned to the Federal Student Aid within the Department of Education.
The Treasury's 2014-2015 pilot program for collecting defaulted student loans reportedly yielded lower returns than private collection agencies. Proposals to integrate student loan repayments with wage withholding systems have also faced complications due to income-reporting and privacy limitations.
As policy debates continue, the end of the pandemic-era federal loan payment pause contributed to a surge in late payments and defaults.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York reported that nearly six million borrowers were 90 or more days delinquent or in default between January and March 2025, with many experiencing steep drops in credit scores. These credit impacts may hinder access to mortgages, car loans and other financial products.
What People Are Saying
Madi Biedermann, deputy assistant secretary for communications at the Department of Education, told Newsweek: "The Department of Education signed an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Labor on May 21 regarding administration of certain career, technical, and adult education grants. The Workforce Development Partnership will allow ED and DOL to better coordinate and deliver on workforce development programs and strengthen federal support for our nation's workforce, a top priority of the Trump Administration.
"This is one of many existing agreements ED has with other agencies to collaborate on services for the American people. As acknowledged in the status report, ED has paused implementing this IAA while we seek relief from the district judge's preliminary injunction."
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "The Trump administration is largely restricted from making sweeping changes here. Dismantling a federal agency like the Department of Education requires an act of Congress. So while they've made noise about shutting it down, the real impact has been around restarting payments and rolling back deferment and forgiveness programs."
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "The proposal for the Treasury to take over the federal administrative responsibilities for student loans is no surprise, as this was a change largely discussed when the administration started ramping up its planning to shutter parts of the Department of Education. For student loan borrowers, if the plan was ever to take effect, it would more than likely not mark a substantial change to their current payment plans."
What Happens Next
The status of federal student loan management—and who ultimately oversees the $1.6 trillion portfolio—remains unresolved pending further court action and any potential congressional intervention.
"It would just be the shift from one department overseeing the debt to another. At the same time, this proposal becoming a reality is something that may increasingly not occur," Beene said. "Disbanding and relocating aspects of the Department of Education would require congressional involvement, and there's already signs of hesitation to supporting such."
Borrowers are advised to continue routine payments as legal and policy outcomes develop.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive: Trump's tariff deal ‘quietly' added 10% raise which nobody is complaining about anymore, says his former commerce secretary
Wilbur Ross, former Commerce Secretary and a key architect of Trump's first-term trade policy, describes Trump's current tariff strategy as a deliberate evolution: moving faster, hitting harder, and using broader executive powers to impose tariffs for both economic and diplomatic leverage. The Trump administration's use of tariffs has sparked debate over the ultimate goals of its economic strategy. However, a former Cabinet member and key trade advisor to the President has suggested there is an underlying logic to the approach. Since winning the Oval Office, President Trump has announced an evolving range of policies. with economic sanctions spinning higher on some trade partners while others have been granted pauses. Many of the announcements have not come through official White House channels; for example, Trump threatened a 50% tariff on the EU in April in a bid to get European negotiators to the table—by posting on his social media site, Truth Social. Indeed, Trump has come under scrutiny from Beijing, arguably the most critical region for the U.S. to make a deal, who claim America's tariff tactics have been 'coercion and blackmail' when instead it should 'convey information to the Chinese side…through relevant parties.' But Wilbur Ross, Trump's Commerce Secretary in his first administration, says there's a clear tactic at play beneath Trump's bluster. The 87-year-old banker turned D.C. power player said there is an 'art' to Trump's dealmaking, as White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has suggested; Ross told Fortune in an exclusive interview: 'Well, everybody's reaction to [tariffs] was first shock and amazement, but the actual retaliatory measures that they put in were fairly modest—even China didn't match in dollar for dollar. 'There's a real reason for that, I think the other countries, as they've thought about it, have recognized that while they have to talk very bravely for their domestic political constituencies… They also recognize that at the end of the day, they can't afford a tit-for-tat escalating trade war with us.' And this was a fact Trump was relying on, continued Ross: 'One of the earliest things he put in was that 10% tariff on everything from everywhere. 'Nobody is even complaining about that anymore. When you think about it, in the normal course, getting quietly to do a 10% tariff on everything from everywhere was a huge achievement, even if he didn't get anything else. But because he followed it with these much more extreme things, it makes the 10% look like it's not such a big bother. 'But it's a huge number, and he's been collecting it every day.' Indeed, imported goods alone into the U.S. in 2024 stood at $3.36 trillion—even before tax, duties, and levies were collected (worth $82 billion) and before imported services are added to those figures. Even 10% of near-$3.4 trillion is an eye-watering sum to add to federal budgets, though some items like autos and steel are even higher. Indeed nations like China, Canada, and Mexico are all already subject to more than the baseline 10% universal tariff. When Ross spoke to Fortune in a previous exclusive interview earlier this year, he said President Trump would be all the more confident in his second term because he now better understands the inner workings of Washington, D.C., and has a stronger mandate courtesy of a solid election sweep. And President Trump's tactics, which have included everything from threatening a 25% hike on Apple's iPhones specifically to raising sanctions to more than 150% on China at some points, reflect the path Ross expected. After all, as Secretary, Ross was one of the key allies in Trump's team when renegotiating America's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). At the time, Trump was a fierce critic of the deal with Mexico and Canada and wanted to withdraw from the agreement and begin negotiating from there. Ross felt the better tactic was to threaten such action and keep an exit as a last resort, an opinion that Trump eventually came around to agreeing with. Likewise, having been appointed in 2017 Ross oversaw the tariff action in the first Trump administration which included sanctions on Chinese goods as well as aluminum and steel more widely. 'He has started out on a much more adventurous path than last time,' Ross told Fortune this week. 'Broader in scope and more extreme in terms of the numbers themselves.' Trump has three objectives, he adds: shrinking trade deficits, producing revenue to offset his 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' and achieving other diplomatic purposes such as the flow of fentanyl into the U.S. and global defense spending. 'He has a much more fulsome, much more complicated agenda than before,' Ross explains. 'It's also different in…that last time I was very careful to set the groundwork to do public hearings, stakeholder meetings, to do written reports, to set a whole record so that under the Administrative Procedures Act we would be relatively safe from people trying to knock it out in court. 'This time, they did a very different thing. They went in mostly just by his say so using the IFA, the Emergency Powers Act, and they ran into a snag at the Court for International Trade.' This snag may alter the course of tariff reaction on the account of businesses, he added, because their investment timelines may shift based on when the tariffs are legally approved. But Ross added: 'Most people are operating under the assumption that sooner or later, he'll get something like what he was looking for…and therefore, while it's slowed down a bit, [I] don't think it will derail [trade talks] because [foreign governments] also know there are other ways he could punish them rather than just the tariffs. 'So it's a bump in the road, but I don't think it's a huge pothole that would wreck the car.' This story was originally featured on
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil prices jump after Israel's attack on Iran and it could lead to higher gas costs
Oil prices have jumped following Israel's attack on Iran as experts warn the conflict could lead to higher gas costs. The price of a barrel of benchmark U.S. crude jumped 6.8 percent to $72.65 Friday. Brent crude, the international standard, rose 7.1 percent to $74.30 a barrel. 'Gas prices will likely start to rise across much of the country later this evening in response to Israel's attacks on Iran, which have caused oil prices to surge. For now, I expect the rise to be noticable, but limited. Approx 10-25c/gal thus far, but this could change,' industry expert Patrick De Haan wrote on X. Iran is one of the world's major producers of oil and if a wider war escalates, it could slow the flow of Iranian oil to U.S. customers and elsewhere. 'Iran knows full well that Trump is focused on lower energy prices and actions by Iran that impact Middle East supply and consequently raise oil prices damage Trump politically,' Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates consulting firm, told CNN. Past attacks involving Iran and Israel have seen prices for oil spike initially, only to fall later 'once it became clear that the situation was not escalating and there was no impact on oil supply,' said Richard Joswick, head of near-term oil at S&P Global Commodity Insights. The Secretary of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries warned industry executives not to 'raise false alarms.' 'There are currently no developments in supply or market dynamics that warrant unnecessary measures,' the organization said on X. Israel said 200 fighter jets took part in strikes on more than 100 targets in Iran overnight in an escalation that threatens to spark a wider conflict in the Middle East. Israel said Iran has launched more than 100 drones towards Israel in response - but Tehran has denied these reports, according to Iranian media. Trump firmly put the U.S. in Israel's corner after the attacks. The president said he'd given Tehran 'chance after chance to make a deal' that would have headed off the strikes by putting restrictions on the country's nuclear weapons program and complained that Iranian negotiators had never been able to come to an agreement. 'I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to 'just do it,' but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn't get it done,' he wrote on Truth Social. Trump also said he'd warned Iran that Israel 'has a lot' of American-made military hardware — 'the best and most lethal' — and is quite proficient in using it. 'Certain Iranian hardliner's spoke bravely, but they didn't know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!' he added. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,' the president wrote. The Associated Press contributed reporting Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Wall Street Journal
7 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
If Not Washington, Who Will Fund Harvard?
Jason Riley describes how Harvard has become a punching bag for political grandstanding ('Does the President Want to Fix Harvard or Destroy It?,'Upward Mobility, May 28). Yet the Trump administration swings at its peril. Harvard isn't a delicate orchid that will fold under political heat. It's a $53 billion juggernaut with labs, patents and partnerships that span the globe. If Washington starts revoking grants, threatening tax status or chilling academic freedom to score points with the base, Harvard isn't going to sit tight until President Trump is over. It's going to pivot—aggressively. Someone else, be it Berlin, Seoul or Abu Dhabi, will fund it. The idea that the greatest minds in medicine, energy and artificial intelligence will suddenly transfer their breakthroughs to a U.S. government-licensed trade school is laughable. In a century where data, biotech and artificial intelligence are the new oil, dismantling our own research powerhouse is like banning railroads in 1900 because the engineers read Karl Marx.
