logo
Trump And GOP Target Student Loan Forgiveness, Plunging Programs Into Uncertainty

Trump And GOP Target Student Loan Forgiveness, Plunging Programs Into Uncertainty

Forbes04-04-2025

US President Donald Trump speaks to reporters while in flight on board Air Force One. (Photo by ... More MANDEL NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)
President Donald Trump and Republican officials have made clear in recent months that they want roll back student loan forgiveness, including longstanding programs that historically have had bipartisan support. Programs are being targeted on multiple fronts through executive actions, legal challenges, and legislation.
The net result is a heightened degree of uncertainty for millions of student loan borrowers. Many loan forgiveness programs require years of payments before someone can qualify for student debt relief, and borrowers often make key personal and financial decisions premised on the promise of eventual loan forgiveness. But the landscape for borrowers is more volatile than ever, making it exceedingly challenging to plan for the future.
Here's where things currently stand on efforts to gut federal student loan forgiveness programs, and what borrowers should know.
Student loan forgiveness remains blocked under the SAVE plan, an income-driven repayment program launched by the Biden administration in 2023. SAVE, like all other IDR plans, provides for loan forgiveness after 20 or 25 years in repayment. But the plan can allow for faster loan forgiveness for certain borrowers who initially took out relatively small student loan amounts.
Months after the SAVE plan went live, a group of Republican-led states filed a legal challenge last spring to halt the program. In August of last year, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the Department of Education from implementing the SAVE plan while the lawsuit proceeds. As a result, more than eight millions borrowers were forced into a forbearance which halted payments, interest, and all progress toward student loan forgiveness.
In February, the 8th Circuit issued a new ruling that reaffirmed and expanded the SAVE plan injunction, keeping the program stuck in limbo. The court all but said that the program is likely to ultimately get struck down, although that has not happened yet.
Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in Congress are working on legislation to expand and make permanent massive tax cuts. To offset the associated costs, GOP leaders want to scrap several student loan forgiveness programs, including the SAVE plan in its entirety. While the SAVE plan technically still exists, it appears nearly certain that one way or another, the program will end.
The good news for borrowers is that SAVE is not the only income-driven repayment option. There's also Income-Contingent Repayment, Income-Based Repayment, and Pay As You Earn; these plans are often referred to by their acronyms (ICR, IBR, and PAYE, respectively). These plans can also provide affordable payments and eventual student loan forgiveness, although their terms are not as generous as the SAVE plan.
But these other income-driven repayment options are also mired in turmoil. As a result of the 8th Circuit's recent rulings, which calls into question not only the SAVE plan but the underlying statute that authorized the creation of several distinct IDR plans, student loan forgiveness at the end of the 20- or 25-year repayment term is currently blocked for the ICR and PAYE plans. Borrowers can still repay their student loans under these plans, but if they reach the threshold for loan forgiveness, they cannot receive a discharge at this time. Instead, these borrowers are supposed to be put into a forbearance while the legal challenge continues, according to the Department of Education. Meanwhile, the Department of Education announced this week that it intends on rewriting the rules for the ICR and PAYE plans – possibly to eliminate any possibility of student loan forgiveness under these programs.
Student loan forgiveness through the IBR plan remains available, as IBR was created separately by Congress and the underlying statute is not being challenged. However, all IDR plans – including IBR – are effectively still blocked by the Trump administration. In response to the 8th Circuit's February court order, the Department of Education took down the IDR application and prevented borrowers from applying to any of the four plans. After a national labor union and student loan borrower advocacy group filed a legal challenge against the Trump administration arguing that the shutdown was unlawful, the department reopened IDR applications for ICR, PAYE, and IBR. However, processing still remains paused.
A key court hearing is scheduled for later this month to determine if the Trump administration should be ordered to resume processing, or if borrowers should be entitled to relief (such as student loan forgiveness credit associated with a forced forbearance).
If there's any other student loan forgiveness program that is being targeted on the same scale as the SAVE plan, it's Public Service Loan Forgiveness. PSLF offers loan forgiveness to borrowers who commit to working in traditionally lower-paying roles in the nonprofit or government sectors for at least 10 years while meeting other key program requirements. Once a bipartisan program signed into law by President George W. Bush, PSLF has now become a major target of Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration.
Even without being directly targeted, borrowers on track for PSLF have been impacted by the SAVE plan litigation and subsequent shutdown of the income-driven repayment system. Borrowers who were thrown into a forbearance because they were in the SAVE plan cannot make ongoing progress toward student loan forgiveness through PSLF, and have been unable to change to a different repayment plan. And those who want to enroll in PSLF may not be able to do so, as typically an income-driven repayment plan is a required component for PSLF borrowers pursuing student loan forgiveness.
But PSLF is also being directly targeted. In March, President Trump issued an executive order to limit eligibility for student loan forgiveness based on an organization's activities. The Trump administration has argued that the changes are necessary so that organizations engaging in 'illegal' actions cannot benefit from PSLF. Critics, however, say that the definition of 'illegal' is so broad and vague that it could allow the Department of Education to to block loan forgiveness under PSLF for any organization that the administration disagrees with.
The executive order has so far not gone into full effect, as it directs the department to draft regulations implementing it – a process that can take well over a year. But this week, the Department of Education initiated a rulemaking process to do just that. Many observers expect legal challenges, as only Congress can fundamentally change the PSLF program.
GOP leaders in Congress are, however, also considering potential changes to PSLF. Some suggestions include limiting student loan forgiveness under the program based on a borrower's income, or capping loan forgiveness at a certain amount to prevent higher-income earners who take on large amounts of student debt – such as doctors and attorneys – from benefiting. Typically, when Congress restricts longstanding benefits through legislation, the changes would only apply to new loans going forward, effectively grandfathering in current borrowers. But it remains to be seen what Congress will do here, as no draft legislation has yet been released.
Republican lawmakers in Congress are also considering including other changes to student loan forgiveness programs in its upcoming bill to extend tax cuts. These include repealing Biden-era regulations that have made it easier for borrowers to qualify for debt relief under Borrower Defense to Repayment and Closed School Discharges, two programs that can cancel the federal student debt for borrowers who were harmed by their school. Lawmakers may also try to repeal all existing income-driven repayment plans and replace those plans with a new program that does away with time-based student loan forgiveness, potentially trapping borrowers in debt for decades.
GOP congressional leaders are also considering changes to the tax code that could indirectly impact student loan forgiveness programs, but could still have profound consequences for borrowers. Proposals include changing the tax-exempt status of nonprofit hospitals, which could eliminate PSLF eligibility for millions of healthcare workers, and not extending federal tax relief on certain federal student loan forgiveness programs.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers

Washington Post

time28 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers

TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people . The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future.

Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight
Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight

Yahoo

time32 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Military deployment in L.A. puts Trump's authority to use troops at home in the spotlight

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's move to send National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles amid unrest over his immigration policies has given new weight to a lingering question: How far can a president go in using the military to quell domestic disturbances? For now, the military has a limited role in Los Angeles, at least on paper, focused on protecting federal buildings and activities. But that hasn't stopped California's Democratic leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, from vehemently objecting to Trump's actions. Trump has not taken the more drastic step of invoking the Insurrection Act, the name given to a series of legal provisions that allows the president, in certain circumstances, to enlist the military to conduct civilian law enforcement activities. But Elizabeth Goiten, an expert on national security at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that the memorandum Trump issued Saturday authorizing military involvement in support of immigration enforcement makes no reference to Los Angeles, meaning it applies nationwide. "That's just a red alert," she said. "If we have the military being pre-emptively deployed throughout the country to effectively police protests, that is the hallmark of authoritarian rule." Although the military's role may initially be limited to a protective function, Goiten said that could easily be expanded in certain situations to include use of force and detention of protesters even without invoking the Insurrection Act. She pointed to the response of federal agencies under Trump during protests in Portland and Washington, D.C., in 2020. Ilan Wurman, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, said that to this point, Trump has acted within existing precedents that allow the president to use the military to assist with the enforcement of federal law. 'Federalizing the National Guard, using regular forces to restore order, is in my view well within the range of prior precedents,' he said. But, Wurman added, any attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act 'would be more problematic.' Generally, using the military to conduct broad law enforcement activities is forbidden under another law, the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. But that statute contains many loopholes, of which the Insurrection Act is one. The Posse Comitatus Act was enacted at the tail end of the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, erecting a new barrier against military intervention in the South as it moved toward the Jim Crow era. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. President George H.W. Bush acted at the request of Tom Bradley, the Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, and Pete Wilson, the state's Republican governor. Previously, the act was used to desegregate schools in the 1950s and '60s amid opposition from state and local leaders in the South. In calling in the National Guard, Trump invoked a different law that allows the president to do so when there is an invasion or a danger of invasion or a rebellion or a danger of rebellion or when "the president is unable to with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." The law states that orders 'shall be issued through the governors of the states,' which has not happened in this case, as Newsom is adamantly opposed to Trump's move. California has filed a lawsuit that cites the skirting of Newsom's role under that provision as well as broader claims that Trump is infringing on California's sovereignty, among other things. "There is no invasion. There is no rebellion," California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Monday. In a new court filing Tuesday, Bonta said there was a "substantial likelihood" that troops will "engage in quintessential law enforcement activity" in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act if a judge does not take immediate action. He cited plans for National Guard members to provide support for immigration operations by, for example, securing perimeters in communities where enforcement activities are taking place. NBC News has separately reported that Marines deployed to Los Angeles could be used to transport immigration officers to arrest locations. Attorney General Pam Bondi has said she fully backed Trump's actions. 'We are going to enforce the law regardless of what they do,' she said, referring to Newsom in a Fox News interview Monday. 'Look at it out there. It looks like a Third World country.' Chris Mirasola, a professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said the impact of Trump's current plan could be limited by practical considerations, including the number of military personnel available and the cost of paying National Guard troops on active duty. "This ends up becoming extremely expensive very quickly," he added. The cost of the Los Angeles deployment alone is about $134 million, a defense department official said Tuesday. Military personnel are also likely to have little training in how to approach a domestic protest. "This is not in their normal mission set. There's always risk of escalation," which would only be more pronounced if the Insurrection Act was used, Mirasola added. If the president invokes the Insurrection Act, troops would not be limited by law to protecting federal property and personnel. Instead, they could have a much more active role on the streets, with a greater possibility of encountering civilians. While troops may not be able to carry out all the functions of federal law enforcement officers, such as conducting immigration raids, they could assist without violating the law, Mirasola said. There are also questions about whether the judiciary would intervene if Trump sought to use the Insurrection Act — or even who would have legal standing to sue to stop Trump. Litigation in that scenario could mirror a legal fight that has already played out over the Trump administration's efforts to use a wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act, to swiftly deport certain immigrants without affording them due process. The Supreme Court said due process is required, that detainees be given a proper chance to raise legal objections before a federal judge. But the court also said such lawsuits must be brought via habeas corpus claims from the people affected, not under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Any attempt to use the Insurrection Act could be challenged, 'but what shape the challenge takes may depend on the basis for invocation, how it is implemented and how it is directly carried out on the ground,' a civil rights lawyer said. Although Trump and his allies have referred to protesters in Los Angeles as "insurrectionists," there is no plan at the moment to invoke the Insurrection Act, a White House official told NBC News. Speaking on Sunday about whether he would seek to use the law, Trump said there was not currently a reason to but did not rule it out in future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection," he said. This article was originally published on

Judge rejects Newsom's emergency request to limit Trump LA troop deployment
Judge rejects Newsom's emergency request to limit Trump LA troop deployment

The Hill

time32 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Judge rejects Newsom's emergency request to limit Trump LA troop deployment

A judge has rejected California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) emergency request to limit President Trump's Los Angeles troop deployment. Newsom had earlier Tuesday asked a federal judge to immediately intervene to limit Trump's deployment of the National Guard in L.A., asking for an emergency ruling by 1 p.m. PDT that day. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, however, granted the Trump administration's request for more time to respond to Newsom's request. The administration has until 11 a.m. PDT Wednesday to submit its arguments. 'The court did not deny or rule on the Governor's request for a temporary restraining order. The court set a hearing for Thursday, after the federal government and the state file additional briefs, and we anticipate the court will rule on the request for a TRO a short time later,' a Newsom spokesperson told The Hill on Tuesday when reached for comment. Trump and Newsom have gone after each other amid the recent immigration protests in Los Angeles, with Trump even saying he would support arresting the Golden State governor. 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican, this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom shot back in a post on X Monday at Trump. Vice President Vance also took swings on Monday at Newsom, responding to Newsom's post about Trump's comments on his arrest by telling him to 'Do your job.' 'That's all we're asking,' he added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store