Student loans are about to get worse
University tuition in the United States is notoriously expensive — so much so that Americans currently have over $1.6 trillion in student loan debt. But now, the routine process of taking out student loans has been overhauled as a result of the One Big Beautiful Bill, which President Donald Trump signed into law last week.
The new law eliminates some student loan programs and adds borrowing caps that could make it harder for people to earn advanced degrees. In some cases, it could make financing college more difficult.
'This bill makes monumental changes to the higher education system,' said Sarah Sattelmeyer, project director for education, opportunity, and mobility in the Higher Education initiative at the liberal think tank New America. 'And a lot of the elements in the bill are going to make college more expensive or harder to access, especially for the lowest-income students, families, and borrowers.'
So what, exactly, is in this bill, and how will it impact student loan borrowers?
Borrowers will have fewer repayment options
On X, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said that the president's spending bill 'simplifies the overly complex student loan repayment system.' In a way, she's right. The law consolidates a variety of student loan repayment options.
Before, students could choose from roughly a dozen financing options, including the Biden-era SAVE plan, an income-driven repayment plan that eventually leads to loan forgiveness. Now, they have just two options. The first is the standard repayment plan, which includes a fixed monthly payment over a set period of time based on how much someone borrowed. The second is the Repayment Assistance Plan (or RAP), which is an income-driven repayment plan where borrowers' payments are a certain percentage of their income. The more money someone makes, the more that percentage increases.
But while McMahon was right to say that the student loan repayment system is simpler, she left out the fact that dramatically limiting the number of repayment options will make it harder for people to finance their student loans according to their particular needs. 'Streamlining this system is a really important goal,' Sattelmeyer said. 'But one outcome of this plan is that payments would be more expensive for those at the bottom of the income ladder, and that's a really important piece in terms of people's ability to repay their loans.'
One analysis found that under RAP, monthly payments could be hundreds of dollars more than they are under the SAVE plan, which is currently blocked by the courts and will be officially eliminated under Trump's new law.
The Urban Institute also pointed out that the bills passed by the House and Senate don't account for inflation. 'This means as incomes rise over time, borrowers who make the same amount of income in real terms would gradually pay a larger percentage of their income over time,' wrote Kristin Blagg, principal research associate in the Work, Education, and Labor Division at the Urban Institute.
The new caps on loans will make it harder to afford advanced degrees
As this bill was making its way through Congress, experts were warning that it could worsen America's doctor shortage. That's because the law imposes new limits on how much people can borrow for graduate school and scraps the Grad PLUS loan program, which allows students to take out enough loans to cover the full cost of their programs.
For graduate students, the new law puts an annual cap of $20,500 and a lifetime cap of $100,000 on borrowing. Those seeking professional degrees, like medical or law degrees, have an annual limit of $50,000 and a $200,000 limit in a lifetime. As I wrote last month, putting limits on how much money people can borrow is generally a good idea, because high amounts of debt can drag people down and get people in financial trouble. The problem is that the limits this law imposes simply won't be enough to cover the actual costs of these programs. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, the median cost of attending a four-year medical program at a public school is over $280,000. At private institutions, it's just under $400,000.
'Loan limits are an important tool but I think the challenge here is it can be hard to know where, exactly, to set those limits,' Sattelmeyer said. 'The bill also doesn't address a lot of the other underlying issues with the program: It does not provide additional grant aid or funding to low resource students. And so it is limiting loans and not necessarily providing additional resources.'
That means that some students might be pushed to turn to private lenders, who tend to charge higher interest rates. And in some cases, borrowers might not even qualify for those private loans. 'Private student loans often require a cosigner, so some students may not qualify, and they may have no options to fully finance and attend graduate school. So there is a possibility that for some students, this will be a barrier to accessing graduate school,' Sara Partridge, associate director for higher education policy at the Center for American Progress, recently told Business Insider.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has been getting his way on trade, strong-arming the European Union, Japan and other partners to accept once unthinkably high taxes on their exports to the United States. But his radical overhaul of American trade policy, in which he's bypassed Congress to slam big tariffs on most of the world's economies, has not gone unchallenged. He's facing at least seven lawsuits charging that he's overstepped his authority. The plaintiffs want his biggest, boldest tariffs thrown out. And they won Round One. In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Now it goes on to Round Two. On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries. Paul Wiseman, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Are You F**king Kidding Me?': Desi Lydic Slaps Trump Over 1 Burning Failure
'Daily Show' correspondent Desi Lydic on Wednesday slammed President Donald Trump over his State Department's plans to destroy $9.7 million of taxpayer-funded contraceptives intended for women in low-income countries. The U.S. looks to spend $167,000 to burn the birth control — most of which reportedly doesn't expire for several years and sits in a warehouse in Belgium — rather than deliver it to crisis zones and refugee camps after his administration dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). 'Are you fucking kidding me?' Lydic said. She later added, 'At least sell it. You're Donald Trump, just slap your name on it, call them 'Trump Cooter Shooters' and rake in enough cash to pay down the national debt! I don't know, figure it out!' Lydic — who joked that the State Department's target is 'something very close' to her cervix — proceeded to advise Americans to start 'stocking up on birth control now' given the administration's plans. 'Personally, I always have at least seven to nine IUDs implanted at all times,' she quipped. 'You never know when the girl in the next stall is going to need one.' Check out more of Lydic's Wednesday monologue on 'The Daily Show.' Related... 'Daily Show' Uncovers The Brutal Reason Behind Trump's Scotland Trip 'None Of That F**king Matters': Sam Bee Nails A Brutal Truth Of Colbert's Cancellation Stephen Colbert's Audience Erupts Over MAGA Lawmaker's Bonkers Plan To Honor Trump
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Triumphant in trade talks, Trump and his tariffs still face a challenge in federal court
In May, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, ruled that Trump exceeded his powers when he declared a national emergency to plaster taxes — tariffs — on imports from almost every country in the world. In reaching its decision, the court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Now it goes on to Round Two. Advertisement On Thursday, the 11 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which typically specializes in patent law, are scheduled to hear oral arguments from the Trump administration and from the states and businesses that want his sweeping import taxes struck down. That court earlier allowed the federal government to continue collecting Trump's tariffs as the case works its way through the judicial system. The issues are so weighty — involving the president's power to bypass Congress and impose taxes with huge economic consequences in the United States and abroad — that the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the appeals court decides. Advertisement Trump is an unabashed fan of tariffs. He sees the import taxes as an all-purpose economic tool that can bring manufacturing back to the United States, protect American industries, raise revenue to pay for the massive tax cuts in his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,'' pressure countries into bending to his will, even end wars. The U.S. Constitution gives the power to impose taxes — including tariffs — to Congress. But lawmakers have gradually relinquished power over trade policy to the White House. And Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, highest since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. At issue in the pending court case is Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs without seeking congressional approval or conducting investigations first. Instead, he asserted the authority to declare a national emergency that justified his import taxes. In February, he cited the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across the U.S. border to slap tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Then on April 2 — 'Liberation Day,'' Trump called it — he invoked IEEPA to announce 'reciprocal'' tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States ran trade deficits and a 10% 'baseline'' tariff on almost everybody else. The emergency he cited was America's long-running trade deficit. Trump later suspended the reciprocal tariffs, but they remain a threat: They could be imposed again Friday on countries that do not pre-empt them by reaching trade agreements with the United States or that receive letters from Trump setting their tariff rates himself. Advertisement The plaintiffs argue that the emergency power laws does not authorize the use of tariffs. They also note that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an 'unusual and extraordinary'' threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad. The Trump administration argues that courts approved President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA. In May, the trade court rejected the argument, ruling that Trump's Liberation Day tariffs 'exceed any authority granted to the President'' under the emergency powers law. 'The president doesn't get to use open-ended grants of authority to do what he wants,'' said Reilly Stephens, senior counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian legal group that is representing businesses suing the Trump administration over the tariffs. In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA's requirement that they 'deal with'' the problem they were supposed to address. The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security. Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries. Advertisement
