SAVE Student Loan Borrowers Likely Won't Make Payments This Year, but Should Do This One Thing Now
Pla2na/Getty Images/CNET
It's been a trying year for anyone enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education student loan repayment plan.
There's been a barrage of student loan updates in 2025: proposed changes to Public Service Loan Forgiveness eligibility, an effort to restart collections on defaulted student loan accounts and a new Republican-fronted bill seeking to change existing income-driven repayment plan options. But the biggest news for most borrowers has been the court ruling blocking the SAVE repayment plan for 8 million borrowers.
However, since that news, very little has been shared about what's next for SAVE borrowers.
Currently, your loan payments remain paused in a general forbearance and your balance isn't collecting interest. That also means you're not making progress toward a loan forgiveness program like PSLF during the payment pause. While you can choose to switch to an alternative repayment plan, most experts suggest sticking with SAVE, and doing this one thing ahead of payments resuming.
Here's what you need to know about when payments will restart for SAVE borrowers, how to choose a different income-driven repayment plan and what experts say you should do during this downtime.
Read more: How Much Could Student Loan Payments Skyrocket for SAVE Borrowers? We Did the Math
When will payments restart for student loan borrowers in SAVE?
It's not clear when payments will start again for borrowers on the SAVE plan but it's looking like the end of this year would be the earliest timeframe.
The Department of Education's website says SAVE plan borrowers will stay in a general forbearance until at least the fall. It also directed loan servicers to adjust the income recertification deadline to no earlier than Feb. 1, 2026.
Robert Farrington, student loan expert and founder of The College Investor, expects the general forbearance to last even longer.
"Borrowers will likely see the SAVE forbearance end in mid-to-late 2026," says Farrington. "Many borrowers are already reporting the end date of their forbearance moving to September 2026."
Should PSLF borrowers in SAVE switch to another repayment plan?
If you're a teacher, nurse or other public servant pursuing PSLF, you may be worried that the payment pause is not counting toward your 120-payment requirement. That leaves you with three options.
First, you could switch from SAVE to another income-driven repayment plan (ICR, IBR or PAYE). That way, your payments will count toward PSLF's 120-payment requirement.
Alternatively, if you would have hit 120 months of on-time payments if not for the pause, you can apply for the PSLF Buyback program to get credit for your time in forbearance.
"This program [allows borrowers] to make a lump-sum payment for any months spent in administrative forbearance under SAVE, ensuring those months count towards PSLF," explains Megan Walter, NASFAA senior policy analyst.
The downside of these first two options is that borrowers have been reporting processing delays. So don't expect a fast response.
Last, if you've recently enrolled in PSLF or are not close to receiving forgiveness, you might prefer to wait until you're moved into a new payment plan. Yes, your months in forbearance won't count toward your 120-payment goal, but this could give you time to start saving for a potentially higher student loan payment.
Whether you decide to change plans now or wait, make sure your decisions align with your financial goals. With SAVE no longer an option, it's important to understand all your avenues for paying back your student loans.
What should SAVE borrowers do now?
That doesn't mean you should sit back and do nothing, though. Take this time to prepare for the likelihood that your payments will increase in the future. You can use the Federal Student Aid's Loan Simulator tool to help calculate how much your monthly payment will be under different payment plans.
While your payments are paused, you won't have to worry about your account being moved to collections. Although borrowers with defaulted loans are once again subject to collections, including wage garnishment, those enrolled in the SAVE plan don't have to worry about those consequences for now.
Use this time to improve your finances, suggested Farrington. "This is a great time to pay off other debts (including private loans), build an emergency fund, contribute to an IRA and more."
If you have the wiggle room in your budget, start paying yourself each month the same amount you'd pay your student loan servicer. Put this money into a high-yield savings account to earn a little extra interest on your savings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Obscure provision in House bill threatens enforcement of court rulings on Trump
Obscure provision in House bill threatens enforcement of court rulings on Trump The legislative provision echoes a memo Trump signed March 11 directing the Justice Department to request bonds in all cases where judges block his policies. Show Caption Hide Caption House passes President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' The House passed President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' It will now move onto the Senate. A provision in the House-passed package of Trump's priorities would require litigants to post a bond before a judge could enforce an order blocking a Trump policy. Judges have blocked Trump policies in 180 cases, which would all have to be reviewed for bonds if the Senate approves the House provision and Trump signs it into law. Judges have discretion to set bonds in civil cases, but legal experts say they have waived bonds in lawsuits against the government because the disputes are typically over policy rather than money. WASHINGTON – A provision in the House-passed package of President Donald Trump's priorities would erect what one judge called a trillion-dollar barrier to challenging his policies in federal court. At stake is whether judges can enforce their orders blocking Trump policies that are ruled unlawful, as they already have 180 times. The muscle behind court orders is that judges could find government officials in contempt if they disobey, threatening fines, sanctions or even jail. But the obscure House provision, which even a Republican supporter of the legislation disavowed, would prevent judges from enforcing their orders unless litigants post a bond. The bond could match the amount at stake in the lawsuit, which in one case was trillions in federal grants. More: From gym memberships to gun silencers, Trump's tax bill is full of surprises Without the threat of contempt, legal experts say the Trump administration could ignore court orders with impunity. 'What this provision would do, is say that actually, no court of the United States could enforce an injunction or restraining order using their contempt authority,' Eric Kashdan, senior legal counsel for federal advocacy at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, told USA TODAY. Judges, litigants and waiving bonds The legislation deals with one of the rules governing federal civil lawsuits - known as 65(c). It calls for litigants to post a bond if they win a court order such as an injunction or a temporary restraining order to block something from happening, in case the defendant ultimately wins the case. Judges have discretion about how much to set the bond. But the goal is to have the bond comparable to how much the defendant might lose while the case is litigated, such as a lost sale or blocked merger. For decades judges have waived bonds in cases against the government because the lawsuits aren't typically over money - they are about a disputed policy or the Constitution. More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' In February, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan refused a request from Trump's White House Office of Management Budget to require a bond from the National Council of Nonprofits when she blocked the government from freezing all federal grants. 'The court declines,' Alikhan wrote. She noted the government was 'alleged to have unlawfully withheld trillions of dollars of previously committed funds to countless recipients.' But she said OMB would suffer no monetary injury from her injunction. Why is Trump pushing for this? The legislative provision in the budget reconciliation bill prohibits federal courts from enforcing contempt citations unless a bond was posted when an injunction or temporary restraining order was issued. It applies to court orders before, on, or after the legislation is enacted, meaning it would apply to all the orders already issued. Judges would have to weigh proposals to determine what bonds should be required in each case, according to legal experts. With discretion, a judge could impose a nominal $1 bond but the process would still take time, experts said. 'All temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions where no bond had been posted no longer would be enforceable by contempt,' Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told USA TODAY. The legislative provision echoes a Trump memo signed March 11 that called for the Justice Department to request bonds in all lawsuits to protect against 'potential costs and damages from a wrongly issued injunction.' 'Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions,' the memo said. Which Trump policies have been blocked in federal courts? Trump signed 157 executive orders by May 23 – an unprecedented number four months into a presidential term – to put sweeping policies in place quickly, without waiting for legislation through Congress. The orders led to 250 lawsuits challenging Trump's dismantling of federal agencies and firing federal workers, swiftly deporting immigrants, ending diversity initiatives and imposing tariffs. The rulings in deportation cases include: U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., found probable cause April 16 the government acted with criminal contempt for his order blocking the deportation of Venezuelans who were accused of being gang members before they had a chance to fight the designation in court. The government appealed his ruling. U.S. District Paula Xinis in Maryland has held repeated hearings asking for updates from the government on the deportation of a Salvadoran immigrant who was mistakenly deported despite an immigration court order preventing his removal. Government officials have argued they no longer have custody of the migrant to return him because he is in a Salvadoran prison. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts ruled May 21 the government violated his order temporarily halting deportations to countries other than where migrants were from, after six migrants were flown to South Sudan. The government asked the Supreme Court on May 27 to lift Murphy's block. Trump and his allies have argued that judges are infringing on his authority to protect national security and negotiate foreign affairs with other countries. More: Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out 'We hope that the Supreme Court will weigh in and rein them in,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said May 29 of "rogue judges." Trump directed the administration to comply with court orders, Leavitt said, 'but we're going to fight them in court and we're going to win on the merits of these cases because we know we are acting within the president's legal and executive authority." But legal experts said requiring the deported immigrants to post a bond would likely prohibit them from having cases heard in federal courts. If courts are no longer able to enforce their orders under the legislation, experts said the government might just ignore the orders. 'If they can simply ignore the order, they don't have to appeal it. They can simply not do it," said Mark Foley, a 43-year lawyer in Milwaukee. 'It's a heads they win and tails I lose.' Fight over injunctions 'a huge separation of powers issue': Legal experts The dispute over enforcing court orders adds Congress' legislative branch to the raging debate the separation of powers between Trump's executive branch carrying out laws and judges interpreting some of his actions as unlawful. Trump has blasted judges who ruled against him but said he will obey court orders and appeal the ones he doesn't like. As Trump appeals, the Supreme Court faces an unprecedented 14 emergency requests from the administration to green-light his policies, including four that are still pending. In the legislative debate, legal experts say Trump's fellow Republicans leading Congress will decide whether to hinder courts at the president's request from enforcing orders against the executive branch. 'This is Congress saying, 'No, we don't think you can enforce these orders' and they're doing that at the strong demands of the executive branch,' Kashdan said. 'It's a huge separation of powers issue for what underlies our democracy, and all the checks and balances we're supposed to have.' 'I do not agree': GOP lawmaker who supported legislation The provision was obscure enough in the 1,100-page legislation that some who supported the bill were unaware of it. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, told a raucous town hall May 27 that he was unaware of the provision and didn't support it. He added that he would urge the Senate to drop it. More: Who are the GOP senators balking at Trump's tax bill? 'I do not agree with that section that was added to that bill,' Flood said. 'I do believe that the federal district courts when issuing an injunction, it should have legal effect. This provision was unknown to me when I voted for the bill.' Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, told a town hall May 30 in Parkersburg that the bond provision 'will not be" in the Senate version of the bill because she expects the parliamentarian to rule that it doesn't have a financial impact on the budget, which is required for this type of legislation."I don't see any argument that could ever be made that this affects mandatory spending or revenues," Ernst said. "It will not be in the Senate bill." Senators will begin next week reviewing the legislation with a goal of sending any changes back to the House and to Trump before July 4.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure?
Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? | Opinion President Donald Trump and Republicans are failing at running the country. So why are Democrats so bad at responding? Show Caption Hide Caption New poll shows Trump with low approval ratings in first 100 days Less than half of Americans approve of President Donald Trump in his first 100 days, a new NPR/PBS News/Marist poll show. I've self-identified as a Democrat since 2008, when I voted for Barack Obama in a mock election in my fifth-grade class. I've voted Democrat in every real election I've participated in since 2016. I agree with the core value of the party, that a strong centralized government that supports social safety nets leads to a better country. Despite this, I've never been registered as a Democrat – probably because I'm further left than the party. I've always said I want the freedom to vote for whoever I want, even though I have never cast a ballot for a Republican or third-party candidate. It wasn't until I moved to New York, a state with closed primary elections, that I even considered affiliating myself with the Democrats. Now, as someone with limited political power in my city's upcoming mayoral race, I've been rethinking my aversion to aligning myself with the party. But if the Democrats want me in their party, something must change. Republicans are failing on a large scale. Where are the Democrats? The Democratic Party is losing the messaging war. It's losing elections. And it's losing the American public – a recent Economist/YouGov poll found that 57% of Americans view the Democratic Party unfavorably. It's not like the Republicans are well-liked, either. That same poll found that 52% of Americans have a negative view of the GOP. The economy shrank during the first quarter due to President Donald Trump's trade war. Anything labeled "diversity, equity and inclusion" is being rooted out by the federal government. Transgender people are losing their rights. People are being deported without due process. It seems like everywhere you turn, there are unconstitutional actions taking place – yet the Democrats aren't fighting back. Opinion: This liberal influencer calls Democrats 'smug, disinterested.' He's right. It is no longer sufficient to be the party of people who aren't Trump, and it has not been for quite some time. The Democrats need to change course now, and there are several instances where they could correct the record. They need to start fighting back against what is objectively one of the worst presidencies in modern politics. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act should be easy win for Democrats Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act – a 1,116-page policy proposal that includes tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy and cuts $1 trillion worth of social safety net programs – is barely getting attention from Democratic leaders. Party leadership should be on television, on social media and in Washington talking about how this bill would add $3.8 trillion to the national debt while harming people who rely on federal programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Democrats should be stoking divisions in the Republican Party to get moderate Republicans to vote against the bill. Opinion: Trump's administration is off the rails because it's unqualified to do the job Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, is doing this already, but on a very small scale. On May 29, the senator railed against the megabill in New York City, saying the budget proposal was 'big in bad ways.' Why isn't Schumer carrying this message across the country, particularly to states where Trump won? Why isn't he sharing these thoughts on Fox News? House Republicans are publicly and gleefully trying to rip insurance coverage and Medicaid help from the poorest Americans while also helping the richest. How are Democrats losing to that? Democrats have a relatability problem Because younger voters are more likely to align with the Democratic Party, you would think its leaders would do more to engage those voters and reflect this reality within the party. Instead, Democrats seem to largely operate on seniority. It's why Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, is not running to be the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee after the death of Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Virginia, in May. Ocasio-Cortez ran against Connolly, only to lose the position because it was meant to go to a more senior member. In the end, this only hurts Democrats. Sure, experience is important, but so is energy. There are several candidates who could replace Connolly on the committee. If Democrats were ready to win, they'd go with Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, an outspoken progressive who knows how to use social media and traditional news outlets to her advantage. If the party were to elevate Crockett to a leadership role, it would show voters like me that they're serious about bringing younger, newer leaders into the fold. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. The Democrats also made an error in going after Democratic National Committee Vice Chair David Hogg, a Gen Z activist who wants the party to have competitive primary elections – something that would require sitting legislators to actually go out and talk to their constituents. Instead of accepting this as a great idea, and one that would give the party a jolt of energy, the DNC has tried to oust Hogg from his position over a procedural error. It's the kind of move that shows the party isn't serious about committing to younger leaders, even though young people play a huge role in getting Democrats elected. Spending money to solve simple problems It appears that the Democrats' biggest issue is messaging. They are supposedly doing something to combat this – but even that is causing controversy. On May 25, The New York Times reported that the Democratic Party had created a $20 million strategic plan to learn how to speak with American men, a group from whom they lost support in the 2024 presidential election. They were immediately – and rightfully – lambasted for this strategy. Research is a necessary tool for political campaigns, and I understand the idea behind the $20 million plan. But it also feels like this is something they could achieve by simply doing what the Trump campaign did: Pay attention to what young men like and go from there. It just seems like the Democratic Party would rather sit around and ask themselves what went wrong instead of changing things ahead of 2026 elections. I want the Democratic Party to be better. I'm just not sure that's what party leaders want. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Chain Bridge Bancorp, Inc. (CBNA): A Bull Case Theory
We came across a bullish thesis on Chain Bridge Bancorp, Inc. (CBNA) on Cluseau Research's Substack. In this article, we will summarize the bulls' thesis on CBNA. Chain Bridge Bancorp, Inc. (CBNA)'s share was trading at $26.63 as of 27th May. CBNA's trailing P/E was 7.72 according to Yahoo Finance. An aerial shot of a regional bank with its numerous branches situated in a city. Chain Bridge Bank (CBNA) presents a compelling asymmetric opportunity as a niche bank deeply embedded in the Republican political fundraising ecosystem, with zero-cost deposits from PACs and affiliated entities. The stock is poised to benefit from passive inflows tied to imminent Russell 2000 inclusion, which could create technical upside given its low float and illiquidity. Fundamentally, CBNA operates a high-spread model, placing political cash into short-duration Treasurys, earning strong net interest margins as long as Fed Funds remain elevated. However, its earnings power is highly rate-sensitive—modeled EPS drops from $4.08 with no rate cuts to $2.40 with six cuts—making Federal Reserve policy a major driver. While the bank saw $167 million in net deposit outflows post-April 15, likely due to PAC disbursements and tax-related withdrawals, these may reverse in Q3 as the election cycle intensifies. The Fitzgerald family retains voting control and significant ownership, suggesting insider alignment and limiting the likelihood of reckless dilution. At ~$23, the stock trades near tangible book value, offering a valuation floor, and could attract M&A interest if it remains undervalued. Risks include Trump-related idiosyncratic outcomes, customer concentration, and a steep rate-cut cycle, but the Q3 election ramp-up and forced Russell index buying provide a powerful near-term catalyst. With limited institutional coverage and low analyst scrutiny, CBNA may be mispriced relative to its embedded earnings power and strategic optionality. A disciplined accumulation around $25 offers a high reward-to-risk setup, with the possibility of multiple expansion or a premium takeout in a favorable political cycle. Chain Bridge Bancorp, Inc. (CBNA) is not on our list of the 30 Most Popular Stocks Among Hedge Funds. As per our database, 6 hedge fund portfolios held CBNA at the end of the first quarter which was 2 in the previous quarter. While we acknowledge the risk and potential of CBNA as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns, and doing so within a shorter timeframe. If you are looking for an AI stock that is more promising than CBNA but that trades at less than 5 times its earnings, check out our report about the cheapest AI stock. READ NEXT: 8 Best Wide Moat Stocks to Buy Now and 30 Most Important AI Stocks According to BlackRock. Disclosure: None. This article was originally published at Insider Monkey. 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
