
Millions of Student Loan Borrowers Are Behind on Payments
After a five-year pause on penalizing borrowers for not making student loan payments, the federal government dropped the hammer. It instructed its loan servicers to start reporting late payers to credit bureaus at the start of the year.
The result: Millions of borrowers saw their credit scores plunge in recent months, and loan servicers are warning that a record number of borrowers are at risk of defaulting by the end of the year.
Only one-third of the 38 million Americans who have borrowed money to pay for college or graduate school and should be making payments actually are, according to government data.
Loan servicers estimate that this year around four million people have been reported to credit bureaus for late payments, and researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York project that number will climb past nine million by the end of June.
Those rising numbers have implications for the broader economy, which has already shown signs of slowing. Low credit scores can prevent people from renting or buying homes and push them into pricier, riskier loans for cars, emergency cash and other everyday needs.
'It's not a problem we want to add to the pile,' Preston Cooper, an economist and senior fellow at American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said of the student loan delinquencies.
And if millions of those borrowers end up defaulting, the cost will be borne by taxpayers.
Even borrowers with good credit are falling behind on their payments. More than 500,000 student loan borrowers with good to excellent ratings recently saw their scores dive by an average of 128 points — a huge drop that can knock a borrower with a good rating down to the lowest credit tier — because they are late on their payments, according to Credit Karma, a credit score tracking app.
'Many of the households required to resume paying on their student loans are also struggling with credit card debt at near-record interest rates and high-rate mortgages they thought they would be able to refinance into a lower rate, but haven't,' said Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics.
The reasons so many borrowers aren't paying are complicated, but current and former federal officials, loan servicers, borrowers' advocates and others involved in the complex task of restarting collections point to two primary issues.
First, borrowers — as well as servicers and the Education Department, which manages the government's student loan portfolio — have been whipsawed by frequent, major changes in their loans' terms and repayment options.
Nine million people have their loans in forbearance, a status that pauses collections. Most of those loans are caught in lengthy processing backlogs at the Education Department or frozen by legal challenges to SAVE, a generous repayment program introduced by former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. that now seems certain to be struck down by federal courts or eliminated by the Trump administration.
And second, after such a long pause, many people are unable to incorporate a three-or four-figure monthly bill into their household budgets.
'You've gotten people out of the habit of repaying now for the better part of five years,' said Colleen Campbell, who resigned last month as the executive director of the Education Department's loan portfolio management office. 'For some borrowers, several cohorts of them, you've never built the repayment habit at all.'
Elissa Jane Mastel, 55, a marketer and teacher in Denver, saw her credit score fall more than 100 points recently because of her unpaid loans, which she said are caught in bureaucratic snarls. She sought to have some or all of her debt discharged through a program that forgives teachers' loans after several years of payments, but she has not been able to get answers from her loan servicer about why her application has not progressed.
'I'll be on hold for like four or five hours,' she said. 'And then when you get the person on the phone, they're like, 'oh, I can't help you.''
Student loans have always been riskier than most other consumer loans: Before the pandemic, around one in five federal loan borrowers defaulted.
Because the government, not banks or private lenders, is the creditor for nearly all student loans, late payments and defaults don't pose the kind of systemic financial risk that set off the mortgage crisis more than a decade ago.
During the Biden administration, the Education Department offered a 'fresh start' program that moved millions of defaulted borrowers back into good standing. It paired that with a yearlong 'on ramp' for late payers, during which loan servicers were instructed to pause delinquent borrowers' loans and not report late payments. Millions of people saw their credit scores rise because of those actions, which were intended to let borrowers emerge from the pandemic with clean slates and move smoothly into repayment.
But those moves also inflated the number of borrowers who appeared to be current on their debts, sweeping in millions of people who had long struggled to make payments. As many of those people now drift back into delinquency, they're joined by millions of newly delinquent borrowers.
Loan servicers say their collection data is flashing red warning signs. Nelnet, the government's largest servicer, recently circulated an analysis to lawmakers that showed a huge spike in borrowers whose loans were four to five months overdue. Right before the pandemic, less than 1 percent of Nelnet's accounts were at that point, at the edge of default. Now, more than 9 percent have reached the brink.
'Without immediate intervention, we could face the largest wave of defaults in the program's history,' Nelnet warned.
Federal student loans default when they are more than 270 days overdue — a point that people who never resumed paying after the pandemic pause will reach this fall. That's when the full picture of how many borrowers are not making payments will become glaringly clear, experts predict.
'Let's say five million of those people default. That's a really bad outcome for the country, economically,' Ms. Campbell said.
Adding to the turmoil are the barriers confronting borrowers trying to sort through their payment options. Instead of increasing Education Department staffing to handle a work surge and clarifying the often-shifting rules of its myriad repayment programs, the government has done the opposite.
Mr. Trump instructed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to shut down her agency, though that cannot be done without congressional approval. He amplified the confusion by announcing that the student loan portfolio would move to the Small Business Administration, a change that also cannot be accomplished without Congress.
But Congress has shown no interest in that idea, and no serious planning was done before or after the president's announcement, according to seven people familiar with the administration's discussions, who asked for confidentiality to speak about private talks.
Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman, said the administration was 'working diligently' to carry out the president's order and shift some of the Education Department's functions to other agencies. Caitlin O'Dea, the Small Business Administration's communications director, said her agency was coordinating transfer plans with the White House, Congress, the Education Department and the Treasury Department.
'As the government's largest guarantor of business loans with an existing portfolio of $444 billion, the S.B.A. is well-prepared to apply its experience in responsible lending, risk management and loan servicing,' she said. The Education Department did not respond to requests for comment.
The president's decrees, coupled with plans to fire 46 percent of the Education Department's employees, hollowed out the agency's already understaffed Federal Student Aid office to the point of near collapse, according to current and former agency employees.
In social media posts and discussion groups, borrowers have shared stories of hourslong waits when they try to reach their loan servicer, often only to find that customer service representatives have few answers.
Borrowers enrolled in the SAVE plan are able to keep their loans paused while the legal challenges proceed, but they have no idea when they'll have to start paying again, or how much those payments will be. More than one million borrowers have been waiting, often for months, for the Education Department to process their applications for income-driven repayment plans.
'I'm seeing people lose their minds like I have never seen in the 20 years that I've been doing this,' said Alan Collinge, the founder of Student Loan Justice, an advocacy group that hosts a Facebook forum on which thousands of borrowers share advice and rants.
Heather Lawton, 48, finished a master's degree in health administration last year and then consolidated her graduate and undergraduate loans. Ms. Lawton, who lives in Gainesville, Fla., and works as a credentialing specialist for a health-care chain, applied for an income-driven payment plan. Based on the government's repayment calculator, she anticipated a monthly bill of around $490.
Instead, she was enrolled in a 10-year payment plan and got a bill in January for $924. She called her servicer, and soon after received a revised bill, but for an even higher amount: $1,014. After hours of phone calls, stretching across weeks, she still has not resolved the issue.
'This ordeal has led me to question the entire system,' she said. 'I just want to do the right thing by paying what I owe. But I also deserve a clear and correct bill.'
Hashtags

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


Time Business News
an hour ago
- Time Business News
Avoiding Dual Taxation: Why Renouncing Citizenship Makes Financial Sense
Introduction: When Patriotism Costs Too Much In an era of intensified global tax enforcement, increasing automatic data sharing, and expanding fiscal compliance obligations, more high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs), digital nomads, entrepreneurs, and offshore investors are taking an unprecedented step: renouncing their citizenship. While citizenship was once considered untouchable, it is now seen by many as a financial liability, particularly when it triggers dual taxation across borders. This press release from Amicus International Consulting examines why citizenship renunciation has become a financial strategy in 2025, particularly for individuals burdened by overlapping tax obligations from both their country of origin and their country of residence. It highlights which countries create the most punitive tax structures, explains the legal steps involved in renunciation, and showcases real-world case studies of individuals who chose sovereignty over taxation. What Is Dual Taxation? Dual taxation refers to a situation in which an individual is taxed on the same income, assets, or capital gains by two or more countries. This typically arises when: A person holds citizenship in one country but resides or earns income in another but Both countries have the authority to tax global income Tax treaties fail to eliminate redundancy or apply only partial credits While tax treaties exist to mitigate these issues, they are often complex, ineffective, or filled with exemptions that still leave citizens overexposed to global tax burdens. Section I: The U.S. Tax Trap—Why Americans Lead in Renunciation The United States remains the only developed country that imposes citizenship-based taxation, meaning all U.S. citizens are required to file and potentially pay taxes on their worldwide income, regardless of their place of residence. U.S. Citizens Abroad Must: File annual IRS tax returns (Form 1040) Submit FBAR (Foreign Bank Account Reports) if foreign accounts exceed $10,000 (Foreign Bank Account Reports) if foreign accounts exceed $10,000 Report foreign investments via FATCA (Form 8938) (Form 8938) Face double reporting with foreign financial institutions forced to comply under FATCA Record-Breaking Renunciations In 2024, the U.S. saw over 10,500 individuals officially give up their citizenship—a number driven not by politics but by tax exhaustion. Many cited the high cost of compliance, punitive exit taxes, and the global reach of U.S. taxation as unsustainable. The Cost of Holding U.S. Citizenship Abroad Annual Cost Category Average Expense Tax prep/compliance (basic) $3,000–$10,000+ FATCA-related legal advisory $5,000–$20,000 Penalties for non-disclosure Up to $100,000+ Time spent on reporting 40–80 hours/year Section II: Other Nations Where Dual Taxation Hurts the Most While the U.S. is the most well-known offender, other countries also create dual taxation traps, including: 1. France Taxes on global income if you are a French tax resident, even if you hold another passport. An exit tax applies to unrealized gains if you relocate. Some double-tax treaties don't cover certain investment vehicles. 2. South Africa Worldwide income is taxed unless you sever residency-based taxation via financial emigration. via financial emigration. High-income earners working abroad are still required to declare foreign income. 3. India Resident but not ordinarily resident (RNOR) status still requires disclosure of foreign assets. Double taxation persists in real estate and capital gains. 4. Canada Taxes global income for residents, even non-citizens on long-term visas. Severing ties requires proof of permanent departure, and exit taxes may apply. Who Suffers the Most? Dual taxation disproportionately affects: Retired expats living abroad on pensions or trusts living abroad on pensions or trusts Remote workers earning globally distributed income earning globally distributed income Crypto traders holding tokens in offshore jurisdictions holding tokens in offshore jurisdictions Entrepreneurs managing cross-border companies managing cross-border companies Multinational executives paid in multiple jurisdictions Section III: Renouncing Citizenship as a Financial Exit Strategy Legal Basis Renunciation is permitted under international law, and nearly every country offers a formal process. In the U.S., it involves: Appearing at a U.S. consulate Signing Form DS-4080 (Oath of Renunciation) Submitting Form DS-4079 Paying a $2,350 processing fee Completing IRS Form 8854 to mark tax exit The Exit Tax: The Final Toll The U.S. imposes an exit tax on certain renunciants if: Their average annual income tax liability exceeds ~$190,000 (indexed annually) Their net worth is $2 million+ They fail to certify 5 years of tax compliance What's taxed? Your entire global portfolio is considered sold the day before renunciation, and capital gains taxes are applied—even if no asset was sold. Other Countries With Exit Taxes: Country Exit Tax Description France Unrealized capital gains on shares and securities Canada Departure tax on worldwide property Spain Exit tax on unrealized gains above thresholds Section IV: Countries That Welcome Former Citizens With No Tax Strings The goal after renunciation is to resettle in a country that: Does not tax non-resident citizens Has a territorial tax system Offers residency or citizenship with low fiscal exposure Ideal Post-Renunciation Destinations: 1. Panama Territorial taxation Friendly Nations Visa available No tax on offshore income 2. UAE No personal income tax Strong business infrastructure Welcomes HNWIs and family offices 3. Paraguay Residency for $5,000 bank deposit No tax on foreign income Simple documentation 4. Vanuatu Zero personal income tax Citizenship by investment in under 60 days No reporting to CRS or FATCA 5. Saint Kitts and Nevis Passport issued in 90 days No global income tax Full confidentiality for offshore holdings Section V: Case Studies in Strategic Renunciation Case Study 1: Crypto Wealth and Caribbean Reinvention An early Bitcoin investor based in California relocated to the UAE in 2022. After consulting Amicus, he renounced U.S. citizenship in 2024 and acquired Saint Kitts citizenship. By 2025, he was fully non-resident, held no tax obligations to the U.S., and legally realized token gains via offshore trusts. Case Study 2: The Consultant Who Outgrew the IRS A Canadian-American strategy consultant living in Germany found herself filing returns in three countries—each claiming taxing rights. After renouncing U.S. citizenship in Frankfurt, she streamlined her tax exposure and relocated to Portugal under the Non-Habitual Resident (NHR) program. Her annual tax advisory bill dropped by 75%. Case Study 3: Dual Taxed and Denied An Indian national working remotely in Dubai continued facing tax scrutiny from Indian authorities over U.S. stock dividends. After giving up Indian citizenship and securing Grenadian CBI status, he legally shifted his financial center of gravity and opened new offshore accounts without fear of dual reporting or seizure. Section VI: Common Misconceptions Misconception Reality 'I'll become stateless' Most people secure second citizenship before renouncing 'Renunciation eliminates past taxes' You must still file and pay prior obligations before exit 'My bank will block me' New citizenship often expands financial options, not shrinks them 'It's illegal to avoid tax' Legal tax minimization via renunciation is 100% compliant with law Section VII: The Role of Amicus International Consulting Amicus provides expert legal and financial advisory for those seeking to escape dual taxation through legal channels: U.S. citizenship renunciation support Second citizenship planning and acquisition Asset protection pre-exit via offshore trusts Exit tax mitigation Banking passport solutions CRS/FATCA detachment strategies We do not engage in tax evasion. All services are structured around legal transparency, cross-jurisdictional protection, and long-term asset security. Why Timing Matters Renunciation isn't a quick fix—it's a strategic transition that must be executed with precision. Acting in the wrong tax year, renouncing before securing alternative banking, or failing to comply with prior reporting can trigger audits, fines, or even international asset freezes. Conclusion: The Price of Freedom—or the Cost of Staying? In 2025, citizenship is no longer a static identity—it is a financial choice. For many, staying tied to countries with expansive, outdated, or punitive tax systems is simply too costly. By legally renouncing citizenship and choosing a more efficient jurisdiction, individuals are reclaiming control over their wealth, privacy, and global mobility. If dual taxation is draining your financial freedom, renunciation may be the smartest investment you'll ever make. 📞 Contact InformationPhone: +1 (604) 200-5402Email: info@ Website:

Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Fire risk recall affects 60,000 vehicles from US car company
President Donald Trump gave the U.S. auto industry the biggest government-sponsored gift it has received since the 2008 auto bailouts. His 25% tariffs on auto imports give Stellantis, Ford, and General Motors (GM) - collectively known as the U.S. Big 3 - a leg up on the competition. U.S. car buyers have flocked to dealerships this year, hoping to beat the tariffs before they take effect and take advantage of the incentives dealers have pushed to move inventory. Related: General Motors makes $4 billion tariff move The tariffs are designed to give domestic producers an advantage over foreign automakers, who must import more of their vehicles. But General Motors and Stellantis import a lot more of their vehicles than one might think. Only 52% of the 2.7 million vehicles GM sold globally last year were "made in the USA." Of the Big 3, GM isn't even ahead of Stellantis (57%), a multinational conglomerate based in Europe, in terms of domestic production. Ford leads the way, with 77% of the cars it sells originating from the States. The other issue American car companies face is that Americans love their foreign cars, which are increasingly made in the U.S. Japan exports about $41 billion of cars to the U.S. annually. Toyota sold over 2.3 million vehicles in the U.S. last year, a 3.7% year-over-year increase. Between April 2024 and March 2025, the company built 1.96 million units in the U.S., according to Statista. So a company like GM has to go above and beyond to win back customers. But its latest recall suggests it still has a lot of work to do. The Chevy Silverado is General Motors' best-selling full-size pickup truck, selling more than 550,000 last year, according to GM Authority. It was the second most popular full-size pickup behind the F-150, which sold nearly 760,000 vehicles last year. However, sales have flattened in recent years, and the latest news will not help the brand regain its previous success. On Thursday, GM announced that it has recalled 62,468 Chevrolet Silverado models in 4500 HD, 5500 HD, and 6500 HD. GM initiated the recall due to a brake pressure sensor assembly that could leak brake fluid into the brake pressure switch, causing a short circuit, which could overheat the circuit and cause a fire. Related: Car buyers should shop these brands for the best tariff deal Most impacted vehicles are 2023 Chevrolet Silverado 5500 HD trucks made between January 20, 2023, and March 19, 2024. General Motors said about 10,097 of them run the risk of malfunctioning, USA Today reported, citing manufacturing records. GM says it will replace the brake pressure switch wire harness for free. It notified dealers of the issue on June 12 and will mail letters to owners by July 28. Until repairs can be completed, GM advises owners to park their Silverados outside and away from buildings. General Motors (GM) said earlier this year that auto tariffs will wipe out between $4 billion and $5 billion in EBITDA this year. But GM CEO Mary Barra still backed the taxes, saying, "For decades now, it has not been a level playing field for us automakers globally, with either tariffs or non-tariff trade barriers. So I think tariffs is one tool that the administration can use to level the playing field." GM says it plans to invest $4 billion to move its Mexico production to three plants in the U.S., including the recently closed Orion Assembly plant in its hometown of Detroit. "We believe the future of transportation will be driven by American innovation and manufacturing expertise," Barra said in a statement. "Today's announcement demonstrates our ongoing commitment to build vehicles in the U.S. and to support American jobs. We're focused on giving customers choice and offering a broad range of vehicles they love." According to The Detroit News, GM will build full-size SUVs and light-duty pickups at the Orion plant, which closed in 2023. Related: Ford takes bold shot at its biggest rivals The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.


New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
How the Big Beautiful Bill will lower energy costs, shore up the electric grid — and unleash American prosperity
How much would you pay for an Uber if you didn't know when it would pick you up or where it was going to drop you off? Probably not much. Yet this is the same effect that variable generation sources like wind and solar have on our power grids. Advertisement You never know if these energy sources will actually be able to produce electricity when you need it — because you don't know if the sun will be shining or the wind blowing. Even so, the federal government has subsidized these sources for decades, resulting in higher electricity prices and a less stable grid. President Donald Trump knows what to do: Eliminate green tax credits from the Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction Act, including those for wind and solar power. Advertisement The One Big Beautiful Bill seeks to do that: Along with other proposals, like canceling billions in Biden Green New Deal money and making much-needed investments in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it aims to set an aggressive end date for these subsidies and build on the president's push for affordable, abundant, and secure energy for the nation. The House bill begins phasing out these tax credits within three years, saving hundreds of billions for American taxpayers. As secretary of energy — and someone who's devoted his life to advancing energy innovation to better human lives — I, too, know how these Green New Deal subsidies are fleecing Americans. Wind and solar subsidies have been particularly wasteful and counterproductive. Advertisement One example: The Renewable Electricity Production Tax Credit was first introduced in 1992, when wind energy was a nascent industry. This tax credit, originally set to phase out in 1999, was sold on a promise of low-cost energy with fewer tradeoffs. Since 1999, the REPTC has been extended a whopping 12 times, yet consumers continue to pay more on average for their home electric bills than in 1992, even after adjusting for inflation. Plus, today, more than 75% of US electricity comes from natural gas, nuclear and coal — and they supply it 24/7, independent of the weather. Climate change activists are predictably up in arms over efforts to end the subsidies. But like Uber rides, energy generation is pointless if it flunks the test of reliable delivery. Advertisement At 8 p.m. on Inauguration Day, amid bitter cold across much of the Eastern seaboard, we reached peak demand for electricity in the mid-Atlantic region. At that point in time, PJM Interconnection, which supplies the Mid-Atlantic United States, got approximately 44% of its power from coal, 24% from natural gas, 25% from nuclear, 3% from oil, 3% from wind, 1% from hydro and 0% from solar. Think about that: When Americans most needed dependable power to heat their homes and businesses to stay alive, solar and wind were non-factors. Our homes, hospitals and businesses only continued to operate because there was enough reliable, baseload energy from natural gas, coal and nuclear available to meet demand. How valuable is a teammate who occasionally shows up for practice but is never there at game time? And the more we load our grid with intermittent generation, the worse the grid performs during times of maximum stress and demand. Subsidies are meant to drive prices down and boost supply. But subsidizing wind and solar has done exactly the opposite. These sources force grid operators to maintain two separate systems — one for legacy power and another for renewable sources. Advertisement When wind and solar come online, legacy resources must be scaled back. But it's difficult to store electricity from wind and solar. So when wind and solar aren't available at times of peak demand, reliable baseload sources must scale up. Bottom line: higher costs. Indeed, wind and solar subsidies not only cost taxpayers but also force providers to add more dispatchable resources to the grid, at their expense. These costs are then passed on to ratepayers. Advertisement In other words, more wind and solar brings us the worst of two worlds: less reliable energy delivery and higher electric bills. It's time to stop subsidizing such insanity in perpetuity. If sources are truly economically viable, let's allow them to stand on their own, and stop forcing Americans to pick up the tab if they're not. Since Day 1, President Trump has been focused on lowering energy costs and promoting affordable, reliable and secure energy sources. Advertisement The One Big Beautiful Bill brings us one step closer to cementing this legacy — and unleashing economic prosperity for the American people. US Energy Secretary Chris Wright is a self-described energy nerd turned entrepreneur. He's spent his entire career in the energy industry, working in oil and gas, nuclear, solar and geothermal.