Older people in crosshairs as government restarts Social Security garnishment on student loans
NEW YORK — Christine Farro has cut back on the presents she sends her grandchildren on their birthdays, and she's put off taking two cats and a dog for their shots. All her clothes come from thrift stores and most of her vegetables come from her garden. At 73, she has cut her costs as much as she can to live on a tight budget.
But it's about to get far tighter.
As the Trump administration resumes collections on defaulted student loans, a surprising population has been caught in the crosshairs: hundreds of thousands of older Americans whose decades-old debts now put them at risk of having their Social Security checks garnished.
'I worked ridiculous hours. I worked weekends and nights. But I could never pay it off,' says Farro, a retired child welfare worker in Santa Ynez, Calif.
Like millions of debtors with federal student loans, Farro had her payments and interest paused by the government five years ago when the pandemic thrust many into financial hardship. That grace period ended in 2023 and, earlier this month, the Department of Education said it would restart 'involuntary collections' by garnishing paychecks, tax refunds and Social Security retirement and disability benefits. Farro previously had her Social Security garnished and expects it to restart.
Farro's loans date back 40 years. She was a single mother when she got a bachelor's degree in developmental psychology and when she discovered she couldn't earn enough to pay off her loans, she went back to school and got a master's degree. Her salary never caught up. Things only got worse.
Around 2008, when she consolidated her loans, she was paying $1,000 a month, but years of missed payments and piled-on interest meant she was barely putting a dent in a bill that had ballooned to $250,000. When she sought help to resolve her debt, she says the loan company had just one suggestion.
'They said, 'Move to a cheaper state,'' says Farro, who rents a 400-square-foot casita from a friend. 'I realized I was living in a different reality than they were.'
Student loan debt among older people has grown at a staggering rate, in part due to rising tuitions that have forced more people to borrow greater sums. People 60 and older hold an estimated $125 billion in student loans, according to the National Consumer Law Center, a six-fold increase from 20 years ago.
That has led Social Security beneficiaries who have had their payments garnished to balloon by 3,000% — from approximately 6,200 beneficiaries to 192,300 — between 2001 and 2019, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
This year, an estimated 452,000 people aged 62 and older had student loans in default and are likely to experience the Department of Education's renewed forced collections, according to the January report from CFPB.
Debbie McIntyre, a 62-year-old adult education teacher in Georgetown, Ky., is among them. She dreams of retiring and writing more historical fiction, and of boarding a plane for the first time since high school. But her husband has been out of work on disability for two decades and they've used credit cards to get by on his meager benefits and her paycheck. Their rent will be hiked $300 when their lease renews. McIntyre doesn't know what to do if her paycheck is garnished.
She floats the idea of bankruptcy, but that won't automatically clear her loans, which are held to a different standard than other debt. She figures if she picks up extra jobs babysitting or tutoring, she could put $50 toward her loans here and there. But she sees no real solution.
'I don't know what more I can do,' says McIntyre, who is too afraid to check what her loan balance is. 'I'll never get out of this hole.'
Braxton Brewington of the Debt Collective debtors union says it's striking how many older people dial into the organization's calls and attend its protests. Many of them, he says, should have had their debts canceled but fell victim to a system 'riddled with flaws and illegalities and flukes.' Many whose educations have left them in late-life debt have, in fact, paid back the principal on their loans, sometimes several times over, but still owe more due to interest and fees.
For those who are subject to garnishment, Brewington says, the results can be devastating.
'We hear from people who skip meals. We know people who dilute their medication or cut their pills in half. People take drastic measures like pulling all their savings out or dissolving their 401ks,' he says. 'We know folks that have been driven into homelessness.'
Collections on defaulted loans may have restarted no matter who was president, though the Biden administration had sought to limit the amount of income that could be garnished. Federal law protects just $750 of Social Security benefits from garnishment, an amount that would put a debtor far below the poverty line.
'We're basically providing people with federal benefits with one hand and taking them away with another,' says Sarah Sattelmeyer of the New America think tank.
Linda Hilton, a 76-year-old retired office worker from Apache Junction, Ariz., went through garnishment before COVID and says she will survive it again. But flights to see her children, occasional meals at a restaurant and other pleasures of retired life may disappear.
'It's going to mean restrictions,' says Hilton. 'There won't be any travel. There won't be any frills.'
Some debtors have already received notice about collections. Many more are living in fear. President Trump has signed an executive order calling for the Department of Education's dismantling and, for those seeking answers about their loans, mass layoffs have complicated getting calls answered.
While Education Secretary Linda McMahon says restarting collections is a necessary step for debtors 'both for the sake of their own financial health and our nation's economic outlook,' even some of Trump's most fervent supporters are questioning a move that will make their lives harder.
Randall Countryman, 55, of Bonita, Calif., says a Biden administration proposal to forgive some student debt didn't strike him as fair, but he's not sure Trump's approach is either. He supported Trump but wishes the government made case-by-case decisions on debtors. Countryman thinks Americans don't realize how many older people are affected by policies on student loans, often thought to be the turf of the young, and how difficult it can be for them to repay.
'What's a young person's problem today,' he says, 'is an old person's problem tomorrow.'
Countryman started working on a degree while in prison, then continued it at the University of Phoenix when he was released. He started growing nervous as he racked up loan debt and never finished his degree. He's worked a host of different jobs, but finding work has often been complicated by his criminal record.
He lives off his wife's Social Security check and the kindness of his mother-in-law. He doesn't know how they'd get by if the government demands repayment.
'I kind of wish I never went to school in the first place,' he says.
Sedensky writes for the Associated Press.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Want to Improve Employee Financial Health? Pay Them More Often
Spain and Portugal top the list of desired destinations for digital nomads and aspiring expats for more than a few good reasons. They have delicious food, temperate climates, fascinating art and architecture, and relatively low costs of living compared to much of the continent. Their worker-friendly employment policies include over a month of paid time off for vacation and public holidays, as well as four months of paid parental leave for both mothers and fathers. Particularly enticing may be the bonus paychecks for employees in both June and December to help families enjoy the summer and winter holidays. But that's not the only payroll quirk that makes these countries unique, and the other one might make some wannabe Madrileños or Lisboetas think twice. If you work for an employer based in either country, you will only be paid once every month. It's a legal requirement that's common not only throughout much of Europe, but also Central and South America. An angled view of a new $100 bill laying on a bed of cash. An angled view of a new $100 bill laying on a bed of cash. Getty Images For those of us accustomed to the more common biweekly pay cycle in the U.S., it's easy to imagine the challenges this may present for family budgets—especially for workers on the lower end of the income spectrum. But monthly pay is more common in the U.S. than you might think. Nearly 11 million American full-time workers still get paid this way, including many public sector employees. But whether you're in Porto or Pittsburgh, there's little reason for unnecessary delays in giving people money they've already earned. Academic research has shown how longer waiting periods for payment hurt workers and shorter ones help them. For example, one study found that retired couples who receive their individual monthly Social Security payments on staggered weeks fare better economically than those who get them at the same time. Another study found that higher pay frequency not only improves household financial liquidity, but it can even reduce credit card borrowing between pay days. There's little doubt that higher inflation, increased housing costs, and other economic factors have exacerbated these problems for many families. All this raises an important question: in an era in which transactions occur instantly, why should one's pay be different? Frankly, why should workers have to wait at all? We recently conducted survey research to better understand the current frequency of pay for full-time workers in the U.S., as well as how decreasing waiting periods between paychecks might help them and their families. We found that over three-quarters of people are paid only once or twice a month, and 8 percent of workers are still being paid monthly. There's a strong sense that this system isn't working for workers and their families. More than half would like to be paid at least once a week. Roughly 7-in-10 individuals in households making less than $75,000 said the same, as did a similar proportion of those in families enduring challenging financial circumstances. Half of workers under 30, and nearly two-thirds of Black and Latino workers, said that increasing their pay frequency would be very or extremely beneficial to their mental wellness. Broad cross-sections also felt that more frequent pay would help them better manage their bills and expenses. To anyone who has worked for a paycheck, none of these findings should be a shock. But what might surprise you is that it's quite easy for companies to pay their people more frequently. It's an outdated mindset, not technology, that keeps paychecks tied to antiquated pay cycles. For example, my company continuously calculates take-home pay, taxes, health care premiums, retirement contributions, and other withholdings for our customers and their employees, regardless of the duration between pay cycles. We also give our customers the ability to offer their employees in U.S., Canada, and the U.K. the option to get paid at the end of every day or shift worked. The argument that more frequent paychecks can help workers isn't new. In 1886, former Governor George Robinson signed the groundbreaking Massachusetts Wage Payment Act, which required employers to pay workers at least once a week. Today, there are pay frequency laws in every state except Florida and Alabama. This includes a requirement in Michigan, New York, and seven other states for workers in certain industries to be paid weekly. At a moment when workers face higher costs of living and other economic struggles are real and rising, it's time for a new paradigm shift. This is especially true for the 44 percent of workers in the U.S. who don't make a living wage. Increasing pay frequency can't solve every ill, but it is a fast and free way to give them greater agency, choice, and flexibility in managing their family's every day and unplanned expenses. It's their money, they've earned it, and they shouldn't have to wait. Jason Rahlan is the global head of sustainability and impact at Dayforce. He has previously held a number of roles in the public, nonprofit, and private sectors. This includes time at Chobani, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the U.S. Department of State, and the U.S. House of Representatives. He is currently a member of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) Sustainability Advisory Council as well as a board member for the Center for Family Support (CFS) Foundation. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump hits 10 African countries with travel ban and restrictions
Africa is the continent worst affected by the travel ban announced by US President Donald Trump, with seven of the 12 countries on the list, which comes into effect on Monday. The order prohibits people from Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Somalia and Sudan - as well as Afghanistan, Myanmar, Haiti, Iran and Yemen - from entering the US. In addition, there will be travel restrictions on people from Burundi, Sierra Leone, Togo, Cuba, Laos, Turkmenistan and Venezuela - they will no longer be able to travel to the US on certain visas. "We will not allow people to enter our country who wish to do us harm," Trump said in a video posted on X. The US president said the list could be revised if "material improvements" were made and additional countries could also be added as "threats emerge around the world". The White House said these "common-sense restrictions" would "protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors". Live updates: Trump signs ban on travel to US by nationals from 12 countries What we know about Trump's latest travel ban In a video posted to his Truth Social website, Trump said the recent alleged terror attack in Boulder, Colorado "underscored the extreme dangers" posed by foreign nationals who had not been "properly vetted". However, the suspect in that attack is an Egyptian national and Egypt is not one of the affected countries. According to the White House explanation of the travel ban, countries such as Libya, Somalia and Sudan lack competent authorities which can issue passports or civil documents and conduct "appropriate screening measures". All are currently embroiled in civil wars. In addition, the White House said: "A persistent terrorist threat also emanates from Somalia's territory" and there was a "historical terrorist presence within Libya's territory". The other countries affected had high rates of people overstaying their visas, ranging from 15% in Togo to 70% for some types of visa for nationals of Equatorial Guinea. Somalia immediately pledged to work with the US to address any security issues. In a statement, Somali ambassador to the US, Dahir Hassan Abdi, said his country "values its longstanding relationship" with America. The ban takes effect on 9 June, a cushion that avoids the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice eight years ago. Visas issued before that date will not be revoked, the order said. Dual nationals and athletes in major sporting events such as the 2026 men's football World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles will not be affected. The travel ban fulfils a promise Trump made during his 2024 election campaign and is likely to draw swift legal challenges. He signed a similar order in 2017, during his first term in office. It featured some of the same countries as his latest order, including Libya, Somalia and Iran. Critics called that a "Muslim ban" as the seven countries initially listed were Muslim majority. The White House revised the policy, ultimately adding two non-Muslim majority countries, North Korea and Venezuela. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. President Joe Biden, who succeeded Trump, repealed the ban in 2021, calling it "a stain on our national conscience". Is there a genocide of white South Africans as Trump claims? Unpacking the South African land law that so inflames Trump Trump's tariffs could be death knell for US-Africa trade pact How jeans and diamonds pushed Lesotho to the top of Trump's tariffs list Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica Focus on Africa This Is Africa
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Contributor: Voters wanted immigration enforcement, but not like this
Many voters elected President Trump to end border chaos. Illegal immigration remains low, but voters' opinions of his immigration policies as a whole have soured. The reason is that they view Trump's actions away from the border as just more chaos. Americans aren't against enforcement. But not like this. So what's the root problem — and what's the real fix? The public's perception of chaos stems from the fact that Trump's policies appear arbitrary. Under President Biden, no one knew why people were getting into the country. Now no one knows why people are getting thrown out. Under Biden, people came illegally or chaotically. Now people are being deported illegally or chaotically. The public cares about order in both directions. America shouldn't be doomed to oscillate between two types of chaos. Instead, we need to reembrace the antidote for chaos: the rule of law. In popular speech, the 'rule of law' often just means following whatever the government says. But our nation's founders meant something else entirely. For them, the rule of law was the opposite of the 'rule of men' — which leaves government dictates, and the fate of residents, to the leaders' whims in the moment. The founders saw the rule of law as general predictable rules publicly known to and applicable to all. As James Madison wrote, 'Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?' For Madison, the hallmark of the rule of man was 'instability' (i.e. chaos). The separation of powers provided the Madisonian cure. 'The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands,' he said, 'may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny' because 'the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control.' Arbitrariness is just chaos by another name. During Biden's term, much of the border chaos traces to the fact that immigrants never really knew what the rule was. On paper, it was illegal to cross between ports and legal to cross at them. In reality, at least from 2021 to 2023, ports were mostly closed, and about half of the illegal crossers were allowed to stay. Moreover, the actual determination of who got in and who got tossed was made by agents at the border, not based on asylum statutes passed by Congress or any other known rule. This was the rule of man, not the rule of law, and the chaotic results were readily apparent. Unfortunately, the chaos has not dissipated — it's only moved locations: from the border to the interior. The basic framework of Trump's interior enforcement is that it is whimsical and arbitrary. It is not about 'merit,' not about public safety threats, not even about people here illegally or about 'noncitizens,' as Trump is seeking to strip U.S. citizenship from people and remove U.S. citizenship for many U.S.-born children.. There's no articulable rule. Consider that Trump is arresting highly educated, lawful immigrant students for op-eds written long ago. Setting aside the 1st Amendment, the founders would be — or actually were — equally aghast at the 'subjecting of men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments.' The rule of man is back, and it's as chaotic as ever. Trump has empowered agents to strip immigrants of lawful status and immediately deport them. They are even arresting lawful immigrants based on secret criteria (like forbidden tattoos) and sending them without due process to a foreign prison. Judge. Jury. Executioner. R.I.P. Madison's definition of tyranny. All this is unnecessary. Restoring the rule of law can end the chaos. That starts with clear, consistent and predictable rules. The immigration rules were, before Trump, notoriously known as 'second only to the Internal Revenue Code in complexity.' The policies rapidly change from administration to administration and even from month to month. The U.S. needs straightforward, transparent policies on immigration. When the government accuses someone of being in violation of the law, clear rules would enable rapid implementation in accordance with due process. This enforcement would naturally channel people into legal ways to enter and live in the United States. Once someone is granted a legal way to enter, that decision should not be reopened — absent some significant new facts. America can end the immigration chaos. This vision of an immigration policy animated by the rule of law is achievable, but no one in government has focused on achieving it. David J. Bier is the director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.