How the Consequences of Defaulting on Student Loans Became So Harsh
ROBYN BECK
By the time Patricia Gary contacted a lawyer to help her deal with her student loans, she'd paid $23,000 towards them and still owed $3,882. That was the case even though she only borrowed $6,000 in the first place.
What prompted the call was a notice in 2019 that the government planned to take some of her Social Security check in order to repay the debt. Gary needed that money to afford food and medications, so she raced to figure out how to stop the feds from taking it.
Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take
Gary first took on student loans in the 1980s to attend a for-profit beauty school. She left after about a year, amid concerns she wasn't receiving a valuable education. The school later collapsed in scandal.
Still, the debt Gary took on to attend followed her for years. She would periodically hear from debt collectors and make agreements with them to throw some money at the loan each month. There were stretches where Gary didn't hear from anyone about her loan and so she assumed she'd handled it, but somehow it would always pop up again.
In the meantime, she went back to school with help from her employer and later paid out of pocket to earn a master's degree. Those credentials helped her make a career of working with foster youth.
So how did someone who helped others escape their circumstances find herself at risk of struggling to afford basic needs because of her student loan?
The answer, I found in researching my book, Sunk Cost: Who's to Blame for the Nation's Broken Student Loan System and How to Fix It, is decades of rhetoric that fueled an image of student loan borrowers who didn't pay as people shirking their responsibilities. The result is that a program meant to help low- and middle-income Americans attend college features consequences for falling behind that are harsher in some cases than those credit card users face.
Now those penalties are looming over borrowers as the Trump administration restarts student debt collection following a five year pandemic-era pause. About 5 million borrowers are at risk of having their Social Security checks and tax refunds taken as well as their wages garnished over defaulting on student loans.
But the march towards these punitive consequences began decades before the Trump administration. Over the years, lawmakers layered on policies that made it nearly impossible for borrowers to escape their student loans and delivered punishing penalties when they fell behind.
This pattern started in the mid-1970s when Congress changed the way the bankruptcy court treats student loans. Probably one of the most well-known facts about student debt is that it's nearly impossible to discharge in bankruptcy. But that wasn't always the case.
About 10 years after policymakers created the broad-based student loan program, newspapers across the country chronicled how seemingly easy it was for borrowers to get rid of their student debt. There were stories of graduates with professional degrees and from elite law schools discharging their loans through bankruptcy.
One article in Pennsylvania newspaper, the Lancaster New Era, told the story of a woman in Ohio who got rid of her $4,100 in student debt by filing for bankruptcy. Ultimately, she found a job that would have paid her enough to repay the loan.
A major source for that story was the executive director of a state-backed organization that worked for the government as a middleman in the student loan program. In other words, the organization had an interest in ensuring it would be difficult for borrowers to escape their loans.
The head of the organization described to the paper what he called 'pre-planned bankruptcies.' They, 'really make you sick,' he said. According to the article, he worked with a congressman in his region to draft a bill that would ban borrowers from discharging loans in bankruptcy within five years of graduating.
During congressional debate around this idea, it became clear that stories of widespread efforts from borrowers to get rid of their loans were just that — stories. For example, one congressman cited data indicating a 225% increase in student loan-related bankruptcies over one year in Pennsylvania. That really amounted to an uptick to 13 cases from four.
Despite this evidence, the proposal became law. Lawmakers ultimately expanded the provision to make it nearly impossible to discharge student debt throughout the lifetime of the loan.
Roughly two decades after members of Congress first changed the treatment of student loans in bankruptcy, lawmakers quietly pushed through another change that would make it nearly impossible for borrowers to escape their student loans. For most consumer debt, there's a maximum amount of time a lender can sue to collect, called a statute of limitations. But in the early 1990s, lawmakers eliminated the statute of limitations on federal student loans. In other words, borrowers can be sued or face collections on the debt until they die.
This decision was made without much fanfare. Lawmakers used a process that was meant for technical, non-substantive law changes to push it through. In their limited comments around the decision, members of Congress wrote that student loan borrowers shouldn't be able to escape their debt because their ability to repay the loan would theoretically increase over time.
The wording echoed arguments in favor of making student loans more difficult to discharge in bankruptcy, portraying borrowers who weren't paying their student loans as people looking to escape their debt.
That logic was part of what drove lawmakers to allow the government to take borrowers' Social Security benefits and tax refunds to repay defaulted student loans. In the mid-1990s, a bipartisan pair of lawmakers was looking to make it easier for the government to collect on debt of all kinds to help the federal budget.
In defending the proposal, Carolyn Maloney, then a Democratic congresswoman representing New York, wrote in the New York Times that 'many delinquent debtors are able to pay,' with little data to back up the assertion. Mainstream media outlets fueled that perception, sometimes calling those who owed the government money — including former college students, military veterans and foreign governments — 'deadbeats.'
To address these concerns lawmakers passed the Debt Collection Improvement Act in 1996, which among other things allowed the federal government to take a borrower's Social Security check and tax refund to repay a defaulted student loan.
Years later, borrowers like Patricia Gary have coped with the fallout from decades of policies that assumed borrowers who didn't pay were doing it simply because they didn't want to. In my reporting on the student debt crisis for MarketWatch I've spoken with borrowers who wrestled to navigate the student loan system and then had their Earned Income Tax Credit — a tax credit with bipartisan support that largely helps working parents — taken, making it more difficult for them to afford the basics like shoes for their children.
The data on borrowers who default indicates that most people who fall behind on their student loans are people like Gary or other borrowers I've encountered. They aren't paying because they don't have the money or are struggling to navigate the complexity of the student loan system — not because they're trying to shirk their debt. Borrowers in default are more likely to be unemployed and less likely to have finished school.
Despite this, the government keeps using harsh consequences to essentially pull blood from a stone. That's because the groundwork has been laid for decades to prime policymakers and ordinary Americans to believe that borrowers defaulting on student loans are trying to outrun them, even though the data indicates otherwise.
That begs a question Gary asked me about the efforts to collect her debt during the interviews we conducted for Sunk Cost: 'Does it ever stop? 'Or they just want to keep taking money because they can do it?'
Originally Appeared on Teen Vogue
Check out more Teen Vogue education coverage:
Affirmative Action Benefits White Women Most
How Our Obsession With Trauma Took Over College Essays
So Many People With Student Debt Never Graduated College
The Modern American University Is a Right-Wing Institution
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New York Civil Liberties Union slams DOJ over ICE lawsuit
MANHATTAN (PIX11) — The New York Civil Liberties Union is slamming the U.S. Department of Justice for its lawsuit against New York's Protect Our Courts Act. 'The Trump administration's attack on the Protect Our Courts Act is a blatant assault on justice that would turn New York's courthouses into traps,' Executive Director Donna Lieberman said. 'Our legal system cannot function when people are too scared to step through courthouse doors. Without the Protect Our Courts Act, immigrant New Yorkers may not defend themselves against charges, avoid seeking protective orders, miss custody hearings, and stop fighting unlawful wage theft or eviction. No one is better off when justice is denied.' More Local News New York State Assemblywoman Michaelle Solages, who sponsored the Protect Our Courts Act, told PIX 11 News 'This lawsuit is a shameful display of federal overreach and political cruelty. They're using taxpayer dollars to uphold a law that upholds due process and the human rights of people and I think its really despicable.' Attorney General Pamela Bondi said, 'Lawless sanctuary city policies are the root cause of the violence that Americans have seen in California, and New York State is similarly employing sanctuary city policies to prevent illegal aliens from apprehension.' Bondi added, 'This latest lawsuit in a series of sanctuary city litigation underscores the Department of Justice's commitment to keeping Americans safe and aggressively enforcing the law.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Boston Globe
31 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Israeli strikes on Iran lead to new test of Trump's ability to deliver on ‘America first' agenda
Advertisement 'Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense,' Rubio said in a statement. 'President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up As Israel stepped up planning for strikes in recent weeks, however, Iran, had signaled that the United States would be held responsible in the event of an Israeli attack. The warning was issued by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi even as he engaged in talks with Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff over Tehran's rapidly advancing nuclear program. On Thursday, just hours before the strikes, Trump made the case that there was still time for diplomacy — but it was running out. The White House had even planned to dispatch Witkoff to Oman on Sunday for the next round of talks with Araghchi. It wasn't immediately clear how the strikes would affect plans for those discussions. Advertisement Trump is set to meet with his National Security Council in the Situation Room on Friday to discuss the tricky path ahead. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., offered rare words of Democratic praise for the Trump administration after the attack 'for prioritizing diplomacy' and 'refraining from participating in tonight's actions.' But he also expressed deep concern about what the Israeli strikes could mean for U.S. personnel in the region. Iranian officials made clear that they intended to retaliate with decisive action after the Israeli strikes targeted Iran's main enrichment facility in Natanz and the country's ballistic missile program, as well as top nuclear scientists and officials. 'I cannot understand why Israel would launch a preemptive strike at this juncture, knowing high level diplomatic discussions between the United States and Iran are scheduled for this weekend,' Kaine said. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the U.S. Senate 'stands ready to work with President Trump and with our allies in Israel to restore peace in the region and, first and foremost, to defend the American people from Iranian aggression, especially our troops and civilians serving overseas.' Trump in the hours before the attack still appeared hopeful that there would be more time for diplomacy. The president, in an exchange with reporters, again urged Iran to negotiate a deal. He warned that a 'massive conflict' could occur in the Middle East without it. He later took to social media to emphasize that his 'entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran.' Advertisement As long as there was a chance for an agreement, Trump said of Israel, 'I don't want them going in because I think it would blow it.' But it was clear to the administration that Israel was edging toward taking military action against Iran. The State Department on Wednesday directed a voluntary evacuation of nonessential personnel and their families from some U.S. diplomatic outposts in the Middle East. 'I don't want to be the one that didn't give any warning, and missiles are flying into their buildings. It's possible. So I had to do it,' Trump explained. Before Israel launched the strikes, some of Trump's strongest supporters were raising concerns about what another expansive conflict in the Mideast could mean for the Republican president who ran on a promise to quickly end the brutal wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Trump has struggled to find an endgame to either of those conflicts and to make good on two of his biggest foreign policy campaign promises. And after criticizing President Joe Biden during last year's campaign for preventing Israel from carrying out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, Trump found himself making the case to the Israelis to give diplomacy a chance. The push by the Trump administration to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear program came after the U.S. and other world powers in 2015 reached a long-term, comprehensive nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. But Trump unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Obama-administration brokered agreement in 2018, calling it the 'worst deal ever.' The way forward is even more clouded now. Advertisement 'No issue currently divides the right as much as foreign policy,' Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA and an ally of the Trump White House, posted on X Thursday. 'I'm very concerned based on (everything) I've seen in the grassroots the last few months that this will cause a massive schism in MAGA and potentially disrupt our momentum and our insanely successful Presidency.' Jack Posobiec, another prominent Trump supporter, warned a 'direct strike on Iran right now would disastrously split the Trump coalition.' 'Trump smartly ran against starting new wars, this is what the swing states voted for — the midterms are not far and Congress' majority is already razor-thin,' Posobiec added in a posting on X. Rosemary Kelanic, director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, said the job ahead for Trump and his team is to protect U.S. forces who are highly vulnerable to Iranian retaliation. 'Israel's strike on Iran must not become the United States' war,' Kelanic said. 'The U.S. public overwhelmingly opposes another military engagement in the Middle East for good reason — an open-ended military campaign in Iran would risk repeating the catastrophic mistakes of the 2003 war in Iraq, which inadvertently strengthened Tehran's influence there.' ___ AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro contributed reporting.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'No Kings' protests: What to know about the June 14 rallies against Trump
Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images No Kings Day protest at the Capitol Reflection Pool on Presidents Day, Washington DC, February 2025 This Saturday, June 14, is set to be the largest mass protest of President Donald Trump's second term so far. June 14 is a notable day for many reasons. In the United States, the day is known as Flag Day, commemorating the adoption of the U.S. flag on that day in 1777. It's the anniversary of the Army's founding, which will have happened 250 years ago this year. It's Donald Trump's 79th birthday. It will also be marked by the largest mass mobilization of protests and rallies since Trump's second term started in January. In celebration of Flag Day, the Army's anniversary, and his birthday, Trump has planned a large-scale military parade for Saturday through the streets of Washington, D.C. The parade will reportedly include over 6,000 soldiers, 49 aircraft, and 128 vehicles, including tanks, 25 horses, two mules, and a dog in "a spectacular military parade in Washington, D.C., like no other," according to an Instagram video posted by Trump. That won't be the only significant event that day. Across the country, and in a few places in Mexico and Canada, people are organizing No Kings protests and rallies in response to what many see as an increase in authoritarian power grabs and overreach from the current administration. Over 2,000 No Kings protests and rallies are scheduled for June 14. Here's what you should know about them. DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images No Kings Day protest in front of the Capitol building on Presidents Day, Washington DC, February 2025 The No Kings movement is in direct response to actions taken by the Trump administration that many see as corrupt, authoritarian, and morally wrong. "They've defied our courts, deported Americans, disappeared people off the streets, attacked our civil rights, and slashed our services," the movement's website reads. "The corruption has gone too far. No thrones. No crowns. No kings." The protests are being held on the June 14 to counterbalance Trump's military parade in Washington, D.C., which is seen by many as another sign of his administration's excess and corruption. Organizers are calling for the protests to be peaceful. "No Kings is a nationwide day of defiance," the website says. "From city blocks to small towns, from courthouse steps to community parks, we're taking action to reject authoritarianism — and show the world what democracy really looks like." Michael Siluk/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images Hands Off Rally, St. Paul, Minnesota, April 2025 While the No Kings protests aren't directly related to the anti-ICE protests over recent immigration raids in Los Angeles and surrounding areas, the raids are an important issue to the movement. "Whether you're outraged by attacks on civil rights, skyrocketing costs, abductions and disappearances, the gutting of essential services, or the assault on free speech — this moment is for you," the website says, referencing mass arrests made by ICE agents in workplace raids in areas like the LA Fashion District. Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images No Kings Day protest on Presidents Day, Detroit, Michigan, February 2025 There are over 2,000 No Kings protests planned across the United States, with a few also scheduled to take place in Canada and Mexico. To find out where the closest one is, check out the movement's map. Jeremy Hogan/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images 50501 Movement protest, Indianapolis, Indiana, April 2025 Trump will be in Washington, D.C., celebrating his birthday with a large military parade, something he has wanted to do since his first term as president. DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images Fox News coverage protest, Washington, D.C., June 2025 No, there will not be a No Kings protest in the nation's capital. According to the movement's website, it is avoiding Washington, D.C., because that is where Trump's parade will be. "Instead of allowing this birthday parade to be the center of gravity, we will make action everywhere else the story of America that day: people coming together in communities across the country to reject strongman politics and corruption," it says. Instead, No Kings is hosting a large march and rally in Philadelphia in an attempt "to draw a clear contrast between our people-powered movement and the costly, wasteful, and un-American birthday parade in Washington." Erin Clark/The Boston Globe via Getty Images No Kings rally at Hancock Adams Common, Quincy, MA, April 2025 Trump has said that he has no patience for anyone who wants to protest the parade in the capital. "If there's any protester that wants to come out, they will be met with very big force," Trump said, per NBC News. "I haven't even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force."