Student loans in default will be sent for collection. Here's what borrowers should know
NEW YORK — Starting next month, the Education Department says student loans that are in default will be referred for collections.
Roughly 5.3 million borrowers are in default on their federal student loans and soon could be subject to having their wages garnished.
Referrals for collection had been put on hold since March 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the U.S. government also paused federal student loan payments and interest accrual as a temporary relief measure. That grace period was extended multiple times by the Biden administration and ended in October.
The department says it will soon begin sending notices on collection efforts, but there are options for borrowers to get out of default.
Here are some key things to know.
How will involuntary collection work?
Beginning May 5, the department will begin involuntary collection through the Treasury Department's offset program. Borrowers who have student loans in default will receive communication from Federal Student Aid in the upcoming weeks with information about their options, according to the Education Department.
Involuntary collection means the government can garnish wages, intercept tax refunds and seize portions of Social Security checks and other benefit payments to go toward paying back the loan.
What is the difference between delinquent and default in my student loans?
A student loan becomes delinquent when a borrower doesn't make a payment 90 days after its due date. If you continue to be delinquent on your loan for 270 days — or roughly nine months — then your loan goes into default.
While being delinquent affects your credit score, going into default has more serious consequences such as wage garnishment.
What happens when a loan goes into default?
When you fall behind on a loan by 270 days, the loan appears on your credit report as being in default. Once a loan is in default the government will send the borrower into collections.
What can I do right now if my student loan is in default?
The Education Department is recommending borrowers visit its Default Resolution Group to make a monthly payment, enroll in an income-driven repayment plan, or sign up for loan rehabilitation.
Betsy Mayotte, president of The Institute for Student Loan Advisors, recommends loan rehabilitation as an option.
Borrowers in default must ask their loan servicer to be placed into such a program. Typically, servicers ask for proof of income and expenses to calculate a payment amount. Once a borrower has paid on time for nine months in a row, they are taken out of default, Mayotte said. A loan rehabilitation can only be done once.
What does forbearance mean?
Student loan forbearance is a temporary pause on your student loan payments granted to borrowers who are experiencing financial difficulties. To apply for forbearance, borrowers must contact their loan servicer.
Borrowers can be granted forbearance by their loan servicer for up to 12 months but interest will continue to accrue during this period.
Originally Published: April 22, 2025 at 1:35 PM CDT
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
West Mifflin mayor reacts to President Trump's executive order promoting investment into U.S. Steel
President Trump signed an executive order Friday night that removes the block Former President Joe Biden had placed on the U.S. Steel-Nippon Steel deal in January. The 14.9 billion dollar buyout of U.S. Steel by Nippon can now proceed after a national security agreement was signed, reportedly resolving 'credible evidence' that the Japanese company 'might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States.' President Trump wrote in the executive order that, based on recommendations of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the threat can be adequately mitigated. But the order does not provide details on the perceived threat. President Trump and other politicians involved in negotiations have suggested that the US would be given a 'golden share' in the Nippon owned US. Steel that would allow the government to veto certain business decisions. We spoke with West Mifflin's Mayor who says the news is thrilling for all of the Mon Valley. Mayor Chris Kelly said, 'It's big news all the way around. So U.S. Steel and Nippon is going to mine it here, ship it here, build it here with American workers is great news! It's not only going to save jobs, but it's going to create jobs. This has the potential of saving 10-thousand, 11-thousand jobs right off the bat but when they do the modifications to the steel plants and put new rolling mills in that's going to create 5 to 6-thousand jobs right off the bat to construct those.' In response to Friday's news, both companies thanked President Trump and his administration saying: 'This partnership will bring a massive investment that will support our communities and families for generations to come. We look forward to putting our commitments into action to make American steelmaking and manufacturing great again.' Details of the merger and the national security agreement have not been made public. Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
SNAP user's testimony causes backlash, cruel feedback
After President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed the House, it introduced new fears for millions of Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to survive. The bill proposed an estimated $300 billion in cuts to SNAP over the next decade. If that portion of the bill passes the Senate as it is currently written, it would leave 12.6% of Americans potentially unable to afford shelter and food. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The way it currently works is that states would begin to pay at least 5% of food benefit costs, and up to 25% if they have higher error rates, forcing states to choose between raising taxes, cutting other programs, or limiting SNAP access, per the Food Research & Access Center. Related: Scott Galloway sends bold statement on Social Security, US economy Republican senators pushed back hard on the cuts, leading to June 10 reports that the SNAP changes were being scaled down. The reworked plan cuts the state penalty for error from 25% to 15%, but Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) told Politico that they are "still negotiating." Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota took to social media on June 11 to share a video she surely thought would be of help to advocate for keeping SNAP intact. But her efforts have backfired. The video Klobuchar shared is of a SNAP recipient named Felecia talking about her experience as a mother of four living on SNAP benefits. Klobuchar said, "Today, we heard from Felecia, a single mom of four who works up to three jobs at a time to make ends meet. She counts on SNAP to help put food on the table. This is who Republicans in Congress are trying to take food away from. Listen to her story." In the video, Felecia says, "I would like to tell you my story on how SNAP benefit has helped me," becoming visibly emotional. "When I had my oldest daughter 21 years ago, I was working three jobs," Felecia said. "One job alone, I had to pay childcare. Another one to pay food, which wasn't enough. And one to pay the bills, and I still struggled alive." Related: Social Security income tax deduction hits major roadblock Felecia went on to say that she now has a full-time job as a bus monitor, but she only gets paid once a month, which is why she still needs SNAP. "By the time I get my bills paid, I have nothing left to pay for food and other basic needs. If it wasn't for SNAP benefits, I wouldn't be able to feed my children," she said. The comments on the video exploded, causing it to rake in 75,000 views and make the terms "SNAP" and "Felecia" go viral on X. But instead of garnering empathy, it achieved the opposite effect. People in the thread savagely attacked the mother of four, mostly with comments about her weight. "I'm not saying take her SNAP benefits, but what I'm saying is she doesn't need as much as she's getting," X user currermell said. "Either she's eating it all and her kids are already going hungry, or the handouts meant to sustain her life are having the opposite effect." Related: Walmart issues urgent message about the alarming cost of food "Do you know how many calories it takes to look like her? She's doing fine," X user Rafester said. Some opted to attack Felecia's relationship choices instead of her weight, saying, "Why does she have 4 children and no husband? Life choices matter. Sorry but 4 unplanned pregnancies and no partner present is absolute nonsense," X user fictitiousfruit said. A few rare voices in the thread abstained from insults. "Not a single person wants SNAP taken away from Felecia. Every single person wants SNAP revoked for people who aren't trying or aren't contributing to the country they take advantage of," user Zac DiSalvo said. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court upholds approval of Willow project on Alaska's North Slope
The ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. building in Anchorage is seen on June 28, 2023. The company has said it will spend at least $7 billion to develop the huge Willow field and that first production is expected by the end of the decade. (Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon) A federal appeals court on Friday upheld the Biden administration's approval of a major oil development on Alaska's North Slope, even though it identified one flaw with the action. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a divided decision, said the U.S. Bureau of Land Management largely abided by federal laws when it granted approval to ConocoPhillips to develop the huge Willow project. Despite one problem that the ruling characterized as 'minor,' the approval shall stand, said the majority opinion, written by Judge Ryan D. Nelson. The ruling allows ConocoPhillips to keep developing Willow, which holds about 600 million barrels of reserves and is slated to produce up to 180,000 barrels per day and be the westernmost operating oil field on the North Slope. And it rejects arguments from environmental and Native plaintiffs who said the BLM approval violated requirements for considering the cumulative and climate impacts of the huge development, impacts to endangered species and other issues. The identified flaw stems from the BLM's decision to approve a Willow development plan with three drill pads rather than the five ConocoPhillips had proposed. The scaled-back plan approved in 2023 also required ConocoPhillips to give up leases on about 68,000 acres, almost all of that in the ecologically sensitive Teshekpuk Lake area. During the environmental study process that led to the approval decision, the BLM had expressed the position that it needed to consider full field development rather than piecemeal development, the ruling said. 'And then when it came time to issue the final approval, it never explained whether its adopted alternative satisfied the full field development standard,' the ruling said. But that was a 'at heart, a procedural, not a substantive violation,' the ruling said. The development approval is to remain in place, the decision said. Overturning the approval is 'unwarranted because the procedural error was minor and the on-the-ground consequences (of vacating it) would be severe,' the decision said. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Gabriel Sanchez said the flaw was serious enough to justify overturning the permit. 'BLM's errors were more fundamental than simply failing to explain how it applied the full field development standard among the alternatives it reviewed,' he said. The agency wrongly excluded consideration of smaller alternatives when it was deciding whether to allow 'the largest domestic oil drilling project on federal public lands,' he said. Willow has been the subject of heated national debate. The discovery, on federal leases that date as far back as 1999, has inspired other exploration in the area, as well as hopes for state officials for a development renaissance on the North Slope. Oil production in the region is now less than a quarter of the 2 million-barrel-a-day peak hit in 1988. Environmental activists, however, have described the project as a 'climate bomb' that will pour substantial new amounts of planet-heating carbon gases into the atmosphere. Friday's ruling is the latest in a yearslong series of legal challenges that have created roadblocks to Willow development. In 2021, U.S. District Court Sharon Gleason overturned a prior approval of Willow. She ordered the BLM to complete a formal supplemental environmental impact statement to better analyze climate impacts and impacts to threatened polar bears. The 2023 project approval is the product of that supplemental study. ConocoPhillips, which is already well into Willow construction and plans to spend at least $7 billion on development, described Friday's ruling as good news. 'ConocoPhillips welcomes the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, which allows construction on the Willow project to continue. We recently completed another significant winter construction season, and the project remains on track for first oil in 2029,' company spokesperson Rebecca Boys said by email. 'We look forward to continuing the responsible development of Willow, which will enhance American energy security while expanding local employment opportunities and providing extensive benefits to Alaska Native communities and the State of Alaska.' Over the past winter season, crews delivered modular structures and worked on road, pad, bridge, work camp and pipeline construction, Boys said. That work was allowed to proceed because the 9th Circuit Court in December denied the plaintiffs' motion for a restraining order blocking it. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case had mixed responses to Friday's decision. Some were highly critical. 'This decision is bad news for the planet and anyone who cares about the impacts of industrialization on communities now and in the future,' Bridget Psarianos, an attorney with the environmental law firm Trustees for Alaska, said in a statement. 'The bureau is required under the law to protect the western Arctic's sensitive ecosystem and the subsistence users who rely on them. But the agency did not minimize the harm from this project on the Arctic's people, animals, habitat, and the planet in a real way, in violation of the law. There is too much at stake to gloss over the harm this project will do,' said Psarianos, who is representing some of the plaintiffs. It will probably be fairly simple for the BLM to address the court-identified flaw, Psarianos said in a follow-up email. The agency could submit a report or a memorandum explaining its reasoning, leaving the approval unaffected, she said. Other plaintiff representatives portrayed the ruling as a vindication, albeit a partial one. 'Today's ruling is a significant step forward for Alaska's North Slope,' Hallie Templeton, legal director for plaintiff Friends of the Earth, said in a statement. 'We hope that this will push BLM to heed the significant risks that Willow poses and deny it for good. While this should be the final straw for the doomed Willow Project, we will continue fighting to prevent this carbon bomb project from destroying one of our last remaining wild places.' A spokesperson for the BLM declined to comment, citing the agency's policies on litigation. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
