Student Loan Forgiveness Paused for IBR Borrowers
Millions of student loan borrowers enrolled in a popular repayment plan are now facing uncertainty, as the U.S. Department of Education has temporarily halted loan forgiveness under its Income-Based Repayment (IBR) program.
Income-driven repayment plans like IBR aim to ease financial pressure by capping monthly loan payments based on a borrower's income and family size. After 20 years of qualifying payments, borrowers become eligible for loan forgiveness.
At the end of 2024, nearly 40% of the 33 million Americans repaying student loans were enrolled in one of the Education Department's four IDR plans, according to federal data. But legal challenges have disrupted all four plans. Three of them, the SAVE (Saving on a Valuable Education) plan, Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR), and Pay As You Earn (PAYE) were previously blocked by court rulings. And now, the IBR plan has also been affected.
As of this week, forgiveness for approximately 2 million borrowers enrolled in IBR has been paused. The Department of Education confirmed the pause Tuesday, citing ongoing court injunctions related to lawsuits against the Biden administration's SAVE plan.
'The Department has temporarily paused discharges for IBR borrowers in order to comply with ongoing court injunctions regarding the Biden Administration's illegal attempts at student loan forgiveness,' said Education Department deputy press secretary Ellen Keast in a statement to CBS MoneyWatch.
The lawsuits stem from the Biden administration's implementation of the SAVE plan — a sweeping repayment initiative designed to fix flaws in existing IDR programs. SAVE became highly popular, enrolling nearly 8 million borrowers by the end of 2024.
Because the SAVE plan included provisions allowing borrowers to count forbearances and certain non-payments toward loan forgiveness, it also affected forgiveness eligibility in the IBR plan. As a result, the Education Department is now recalculating eligible payment counts and has paused all IBR loan discharges until the process is complete.
The Education Department has not provided a specific timeline for when loan forgiveness under the IBR plan will resume. However, Keast said discharges will restart 'as soon as the Department is able to establish the correct payment count.'
Are Other IDR Plans Affected?
Yes. Forgiveness under the SAVE, ICR, and PAYE plans remains blocked by court decisions that questioned whether the Education Department had the legal authority to offer widespread forgiveness under those programs. However, the IBR plan, created under a different legal authority, is still considered valid, though it is now on pause due to the SAVE plan's entanglement.
What Should Borrowers Do?
Borrowers enrolled in IBR are encouraged to continue making their monthly payments. Even if their forgiveness is delayed, those who are already eligible will be refunded for any overpayments once discharges resume.
'For any borrower that makes a payment after the date of borrower eligibility, the Department will refund overpayments,' Keast said.
Borrowers may also request forbearance through their loan servicer, though doing so may result in interest continuing to accrue on their remaining balance.
Income-Based Repayment Forgiveness Delayed; What Borrowers Need to Know was originally published on wolbbaltimore.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
3 hours ago
- Fox News
EPA head Lee Zeldin defends repealing Obama-era climate change regulation when pressed by CNN host
EPA administrator Lee Zeldin defended his decision to axe an Obama-era rule that allowed the agency to regulate vehicles, airplanes and coal plants in order to combat climate change, vowing he won't regulate "entire sectors of the economy" out of existence. The "Endangerment Finding" published by former President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency found that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane and others threaten human life because they accelerate climate change. The EPA relied on the "endangerment finding" to install stringent regulations on a variety of industries, including auto, air travel and energy, that business leaders said threatened the viability of their companies. Notably, the endangerment finding was part of the basis of the Biden administration's so-called electric vehicle mandate which would have required over half of all cars sold to be EVs by 2032. Zeldin announced that he was repealing the "holy grail of the climate change religion" during a speech at an Indianapolis auto dealership in July. He hailed the announcement as the "largest deregulatory announcement in US history," and said he was ending over a decade of uncertainty for American automakers and consumers. Zeldin told CNN Sunday that when the rule was passed, the administrators relied on optimistic and pessimistic predictions surrounding the future effects of climate change, and that the pessimistic predictions did not pan out. He said that his decision was relying on "2025 facts rather than 2009 bad assumptions." He also said the endangerment finding went beyond the EPA's legal scope, by "filling in gaps" in the law and essentially legislating itself. He said the agency couldn't bend the law to meet its own goals, and that issues surrounding regulating "mobile sources" of pollution like cars would need to be handled by Congress. He accused the Obama-era bureaucrats of engaging in "mental leaps" in order to justify the endangerment finding. "I'm not going to get creative with the law, we're going to read the plain language and if section 202 of the Clean Air Act gets amended by Congress, then we'll follow that new law," Zeldin said on CNN's "State of the Union." Section 202 of the Clean Energy Act allows the EPA to regulate motor vehicles. Zeldin alleged that the endangerment finding went beyond the agency's mandate to regulate vehicles as stipulated by the law. He accused the Biden administration of using the endangerment finding as an attempt to regulate the coal industry out of existence. When pressed by CNN host Kassie Hunt why he didn't just leave the finding in place, Zeldin said he doesn't get to "make up the law." "The power comes from the law, I don't just get to make up the law… in order to make America the A.I. capital of the world, in order to unleash energy dominance, to protect jobs, to bring down energy costs, we are not going to regulate out of existence entire sectors of our economy," Zeldin said.
Wall Street Journal
5 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Notable & Quotable: Joe Biden ‘in the Wild'
From Politico's Playbook, July 31: Ultimately, eventually Biden had what it took to win the presidency.
Boston Globe
7 hours ago
- Boston Globe
How Trump's EPA is giving up the role of US protector
Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, last week proposed to repeal the landmark scientific finding that enables the federal government to regulate the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet. In effect, the EPA will eliminate its authority to combat climate change. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Speaking at a truck dealership in Indianapolis, Zeldin said the EPA would reverse a 2009 scientific conclusion, known as the endangerment finding, that greenhouse gas emissions pose a threat to public health. He said the agency would also rescind Biden-era regulations designed to reduce planet-warming emissions from automobile tailpipes. Advertisement While few people have heard of the endangerment finding, it has had a profound effect on society. Its establishment cleared the way for the Obama administration to set the country's first limits on greenhouse gases from cars and power plants, with the goal of putting more electric vehicles on the roads and adding more renewable energy to the electric grid. Advertisement But Zeldin's announcement was only the latest in a rapid-fire series of actions to weaken or eliminate protections against climate change. In April, the Trump administration dismissed hundreds of scientists and experts who had been compiling the federal government's flagship analysis of how climate change is affecting the country. In May, President Trump proposed to stop collecting key measurements of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as part of his 2026 budget plan. And since January, he has called for eliminating or overhauling the Federal Emergency Management Agency to shift disaster response to the states. Joe Aldy, a professor of environmental policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, said that by repealing the endangerment finding, the Trump administration was relinquishing the country's historical role as a protector of public health. 'The concern here isn't just the attack on regulation,' he said. 'There is this much bigger question of what does it mean to promote the general welfare?' In response to questions, an EPA spokesperson, Brigit Hirsch, said in an email, referring to the 2009 endangerment finding: 'How does a partisan policy from the mid-2000s qualify as a 'time-honored American tradition'? EPA is bound by the laws established by Congress and Congress never explicitly gave EPA authority to impose greenhouse gas regulations for cars and trucks.' Taylor Rogers, a White House spokesperson, said that the endangerment finding had been misused to justify excessive regulation and that the administration was 'putting everyday Americans First by restoring consumer choice and sidestepping the left's out-of-touch climate policies.' Governments have taken steps to protect citizens from environmental hazards for centuries. After cholera outbreaks in the mid-1800s, England worked to improve sanitation and water quality. In the United States, research into contaminated drinking water in the early 20th century led to investments in sanitation. And the Clean Air Act, enacted in 1963 and amended in 1990, helped solve issues including smog in Los Angeles, acid rain in New England, and the depletion of the ozone layer high in the atmosphere. Advertisement 'This is a real retreat from the social compact that I think has been dominant in the US for some time,' said Margaret Levi, a professor of political science at Stanford University. 'Part of government's responsibility is to protect the health and well-being of its citizens to the extent that it can, and that does require some regulation.' The Trump administration's approach has supporters. Several conservative scholars and politicians applauded the imminent end of the endangerment finding, saying it had empowered the EPA to restrict Americans' choices of how to heat their homes and what kinds of cars to drive. 'The endangerment finding became a pretext for the agency, without congressional authorization, to impose centralized economic planning on the US transportation and electric power sectors,' said Marlo Lewis Jr., a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a right-wing research organization. After the proposal to repeal the endangerment finding is published in the Federal Register, the EPA will solicit public comments for 45 days. The agency will then finalize the rule, most likely within the next year. The debate over the proper use of the government's regulatory hand has been going on for centuries. Adam Smith, an 18th-century philosopher and economist, argued that governments should play a limited role, emphasizing the importance of free markets and individual rights. A century later, philosopher John Stuart Mill contended that governments should promote the common good. Advertisement 'What this government is doing is going outside the frame of that debate,' Levi said. 'It's not talking about what are the cost to citizens. It's only really focusing on what are the costs to business, and denying the science that demonstrates there is a cost to the public.' This article originally appeared in
