Student loan debt collections resume on May 5
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — The deadline is closing in for student loan borrowers, as the Trump Administration will resume collections next month.
Ozark Firsts spoke to financial aid advisors and residents at Missouri State University about what this means for students.
The assistant financial aid director for Missouri State University said this won't apply to both current and recent graduates.
'For our students who are currently enrolled in school, this won't touch them because they're not in a monthly loan repayment situation,' Victoria Jacobson, MSU Assistant Financial Aid Director said. 'For our previous borrowers, whether or not they graduated, and they've been out of school at least six months, they moved into loan repayment.'
The U.S. Department of Education plans to enforce these cases by seizing federal benefits like social security and trimming wages.
Loan borrowers behind on payments will also have their credit scores go down. This is the first time that these collections have been resumed in the last five years, with President Trump previously pausing them back in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Springfield resident Brian Futrell says it is often challenging for students leaving college to find employment that will support them, while also repaying their debts.
'So many of them, even if they do finish college, they have a very difficult time finding a job that pays anything,' Futrell said. 'And if they keep adding on late charges to the student loans and they're never going to be able to catch up.'
The repayment will go into affect on May 5.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Los Angeles Times
22 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
What will happen to food assistance under Trump's tax cut plan? A look at the numbers
President Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food assistance 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. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food assistance program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states — Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah — to exclude certain items, such as soda or candy. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come from shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come from expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. The House resolution containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts passed last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food assistance and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it. Lieb writes for the Associated Press.


New York Times
26 minutes ago
- New York Times
Protest Is Underrated
The first thing to know is that it was all basically willed into being — not by 'paid protesters' or the Mexican government or socialists or union leaders, but by Stephen Miller, the architect of President Trump's xenophobic immigration plan and his deputy chief of staff. In a May meeting at ICE headquarters, Miller reportedly demanded that field agents forget about targeting only those undocumented immigrants with criminal records and instead stage purposefully cruel, attention-getting sweeps in places like the parking lot of a Home Depot. That is precisely where, last Friday, those raids began. The second thing to know is that the unrest was really quite limited: a roughly five-block stretch downtown, in a city of nearly four million people spread over almost 500 square miles; several driverless Waymo robot taxis, lined up on one street and set ablaze. There was some more serious violence, too: some journalists were shot with rubber bullets and other less-lethal munitions, a few cop cars were pelted with rocks, and at least one was set on fire, but no serious law-enforcement injuries were reported. But this was not 1965, with widespread arson and 34 deaths, or 1992, with disorder spreading through whole neighborhoods and more than 60 people killed. None of that means that what began last Friday in Los Angeles — a series of spectacular ICE raids, a direct-action response to block them, large-scale peaceful protests punctuated in places by bursts of familiar violence — is insignificant. To the contrary: Hundreds of migrants and protesters have been arrested over the last week, with many of the raids conducted by ICE officers in the now-familiar uniform of masked anonymity. The National Guard was mobilized over the objection of California's governor, Gavin Newsom, and without the support of the Los Angeles Police Department's leadership, with hundreds of Marines on active duty mobilized to join them in a rare deployment of military personnel to a site of domestic unrest. On Tuesday, Trump disparaged Los Angeles as a 'trash heap' in an incendiary speech that was met with horrifying applause from assembled loyalists in the Army, and on Thursday, Senator Alex Padilla was hauled out of a local news conference being held by the secretary of homeland security, Kristi Noem. When the senator was wrestled to the floor, the secretary had just declared 'we are not going away,' but would instead stay in L.A. to 'liberate the city' from 'socialists' and its democratically elected local government. The political scientists I spoke to throughout the week used phrases like 'competitive authoritarianism,' 'acute democratic backsliding' and 'autocratic power grab.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is Howmet Aerospace Inc.'s (NYSE:HWM) Recent Stock Performance Tethered To Its Strong Fundamentals?
Howmet Aerospace's (NYSE:HWM) stock is up by a considerable 35% over the past three months. Given the company's impressive performance, we decided to study its financial indicators more closely as a company's financial health over the long-term usually dictates market outcomes. In this article, we decided to focus on Howmet Aerospace's ROE. Return on Equity or ROE is a test of how effectively a company is growing its value and managing investors' money. In short, ROE shows the profit each dollar generates with respect to its shareholder investments. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Return on equity can be calculated by using the formula: Return on Equity = Net Profit (from continuing operations) ÷ Shareholders' Equity So, based on the above formula, the ROE for Howmet Aerospace is: 26% = US$1.3b ÷ US$4.8b (Based on the trailing twelve months to March 2025). The 'return' is the income the business earned over the last year. Another way to think of that is that for every $1 worth of equity, the company was able to earn $0.26 in profit. See our latest analysis for Howmet Aerospace Thus far, we have learned that ROE measures how efficiently a company is generating its profits. We now need to evaluate how much profit the company reinvests or "retains" for future growth which then gives us an idea about the growth potential of the company. Assuming everything else remains unchanged, the higher the ROE and profit retention, the higher the growth rate of a company compared to companies that don't necessarily bear these characteristics. Firstly, we acknowledge that Howmet Aerospace has a significantly high ROE. Secondly, even when compared to the industry average of 12% the company's ROE is quite impressive. As a result, Howmet Aerospace's exceptional 39% net income growth seen over the past five years, doesn't come as a surprise. As a next step, we compared Howmet Aerospace's net income growth with the industry, and pleasingly, we found that the growth seen by the company is higher than the average industry growth of 14%. The basis for attaching value to a company is, to a great extent, tied to its earnings growth. The investor should try to establish if the expected growth or decline in earnings, whichever the case may be, is priced in. This then helps them determine if the stock is placed for a bright or bleak future. One good indicator of expected earnings growth is the P/E ratio which determines the price the market is willing to pay for a stock based on its earnings prospects. So, you may want to check if Howmet Aerospace is trading on a high P/E or a low P/E, relative to its industry. Howmet Aerospace has a really low three-year median payout ratio of 8.9%, meaning that it has the remaining 91% left over to reinvest into its business. So it seems like the management is reinvesting profits heavily to grow its business and this reflects in its earnings growth number. Additionally, Howmet Aerospace has paid dividends over a period of eight years which means that the company is pretty serious about sharing its profits with shareholders. Upon studying the latest analysts' consensus data, we found that the company's future payout ratio is expected to rise to 11% over the next three years. Despite the higher expected payout ratio, the company's ROE is not expected to change by much. In total, we are pretty happy with Howmet Aerospace's performance. Specifically, we like that the company is reinvesting a huge chunk of its profits at a high rate of return. This of course has caused the company to see substantial growth in its earnings. With that said, the latest industry analyst forecasts reveal that the company's earnings growth is expected to slow down. To know more about the company's future earnings growth forecasts take a look at this free report on analyst forecasts for the company to find out more. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data