Latest news with #LindaMcMahon
Newsweek
a day ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Nearly Half a Million Student Loan Repayment Plans at Risk: Report
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Department of Education plans to deny 460,000 federal student loan borrowers from accessing lower repayment plans, according to a Politico report citing internal department documents. The affected students had selected the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan, a Biden-era policy that generally came with the lowest monthly payments and which the Education Department functionally abolished earlier this month. Newsweek has contacted the Department of Education for comment outside regular hours. Why It Matters The amendments to the SAVE Plan and the decision to deny lower-income students access is in line with the steps taken by President Donald Trump's administration to phase out educational policies and financial support systems enacted under his predecessor. While the Education Department has said it will support students transitioning to alternative plans, experts have said this could result in hundreds of dollars being tacked onto their monthly payments. What Was the SAVE Plan? The SAVE Plan was introduced in 2023, replacing the Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) Program. Intended as a more generous income-driven option, undergraduates enrolled in the plan had payments capped at 5 percent of their discretionary income, rising to 10 percent for graduate borrowers, per Politico. According to the Department of Education, there are almost 7.7 million borrowers enrolled in SAVE. Amid a string of legal disputes and a court injunction blocking elements of SAVE in June 2024, enrollees have been in legal limbo and their loans placed in general forbearance with a zero percent interest rate since then. What To Know In early July, the Education Department announced that it would recommence interest accrual on loans in the "illegal" SAVE Plan. The change is set to take effect on August 1. An Education Department spokesperson told Politico that the reason for the 460,000 applications being denied was because loan servicers were now unable to process these "as SAVE is no longer an option, as it is illegal." In the place of SAVE, the department is rolling out two alternatives as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a budget package that Trump signed into law on July 4. These include a revised 10-year standard repayment plan and a new Repayment Assistance Plan. Education Secretary Linda McMahon testifies before the Senate Appropriations Committee's Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on June 3. Education Secretary Linda McMahon testifies before the Senate Appropriations Committee's Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on June its early July news release, the Education Department said it would "support borrowers in selecting a new, legal repayment plan that best fits their needs and helps them get on a sustainable financial path while protecting American taxpayers." The department has also begun outreach to the almost 8 million borrowers enrolled in SAVE, advising them on how to switch to a new plan. However, the new plans are "generally less generous than SAVE, requiring borrowers to pay more," according to Robert Kelchen, the head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. According to the Student Borrower Protection Center, the decision to resume interest payments on SAVE debts could also force borrowers to pay more than $3,500 annually, or $300 per month, in additional fees. What People Are Saying Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a news release on July 9: "Since day one of the Trump Administration, we've focused on strengthening the student loan portfolio and simplifying repayment to better serve borrowers. As part of this effort, the Department urges all borrowers in the SAVE Plan to quickly transition to a legally compliant repayment plan—such as the Income-Based Repayment Plan. Borrowers in SAVE cannot access important loan benefits and cannot make progress toward loan discharge programs authorized by Congress." Robert Kelchen, the head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, told Newsweek: "The Department of Education fundamentally disagrees with the SAVE Plan and wants to quickly move to the new repayment options passed in the recent budget reconciliation bill. The fate of the 460,000 borrowers currently in SAVE will likely end up in court again, and the Trump administration will likely win based on other recent Supreme Court decisions in favor of [the Education Department]." What Happens Next The department has said interest will not be added retroactively to those previously enrolled on the SAVE Plan. It has urged borrowers to visit the government's Loan Simulator to assess monthly repayment options.
UPI
a day ago
- Politics
- UPI
Coalition sues Trump admin. for freezing billions in education funds
A coalition on Monday sued the Department of Education, under Secretary Linda McMahon, for freezing billions in education funding. File Photo by Al Drago/UPI | License Photo July 22 (UPI) -- A coalition of school districts, teachers' unions, nonprofits and parents has filed a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of illegally withholding nearly $7 billion in Congress-approved education funding. In the lawsuit filed Monday, the coalition asks a U.S. District Court in Rhode Island to compel the Department of Education and the White House Office of Management and Budget to release the funding, which supports low-income students, teacher training, English learners, immigrant students and after-school programs. According to the lawsuit, the Department of Education is required to disburse Elementary and Secondary Education Act funds on July 1. But on June 30, states were informed that the department would not be disbursing nearly $7 billion in ESEA funds and that a new policy had been adopted requiring a review to first be conducted to ensure the money is spent "in accordance with the president's priorities," the lawsuit states, citing the letter. The Trump administration provided the states with neither a timeline nor assurances that the funds would be released, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit comes as the Trump administration has been dismantling the Department of Education, in line with President Donald Trump's March executive order seeking to shutter the department and return its authorities to the states. Last week, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court approved Trump's mass firings at the department. At the same time, 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over its freezing of billions of dollars in education funds. American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten described the Trump administration's freeze on Monday as throwing a "monkey wrench" at millions of U.S. educators. "These are long-term, school-based programs, already passed by Congress and signed into law by the president," she said in a statement. "Since day one, the Trump administration has attacked public education, undermining opportunity in America. Now it is trying to lawlessly defund education unilaterally through rampant government overreach. It's not only morally repugnant: the administration lacks the legal right to sacrifice kids' futures at the alter of ideology." Among the plaintiffs are Alaska's largest school district, Anchorage School District; Cincinnati Public Schools and Fairbanks North Star Borough, among others.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
What is student loan forgiveness under IBR? What other plans have been paused
President Donald Trump's Department of Education, headed by WWE co-founder Linda McMahon, has suspended student loan forgiveness under Income-Based Repayment Plan (IBR). IBR has been suspended by the Department of Education(AP) This is the only current plan not subject to any legal challenge or court injunction. How IBR works? Student loan forgiveness under IBR works with a formula that is tied to a borrower's income and family size. This is used to determine how much the borrower needs to pay back monthly. Then, payments are recalculated every 12 months. Borrowers who do not pay back their entire student loans by the end of their repayment term – which is 25 years, for borrowings prior to July 1, 2014, and 20 years for anything borrowed after that – would then be entitled to student loan forgiveness. What other plans have been paused? Some of the other plans are paused due to court rulings. These include – Pay As You Earn (PAYE) Plan - As per the US Federal Student Aid site, 'the PAYE Plan is an income-driven repayment plan with monthly payments that are generally equal to 10% of your discretionary income, divided by 12, but never more than the 10-year Standard Repayment amount.' Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan - This plan replaced the Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) Plan. Borrowers on the latter plan were automatically switched to the SAVE plan. The Department of Education describes this to be like any other income-driven repayment plans (IDR). It calculates monthly payment amount based on your income and family size. There are some advantages of opting for the SAVE plan, as highlighted by the Education dept. These include: keeping the balance in check while making required repayments, having more of the income protected for basic needs, seeing the remaining balance forgiven after as few as 10 years of payments, and having payments for undergraduate loans cut in half from July 2024. Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) Plan - The US Federal Student Aid site defines ICR as 'a repayment plan with monthly payments that are the lesser of (1) what you would pay on a repayment plan with a fixed monthly payment over 12 years, adjusted based on your income or (2) 20% of your discretionary income, divided by 12.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Linda McMahon's answer on Holocaust denialism should scare us
Questioner: 'Madam Secretary, does refusing to hire a Holocaust denier as a member of Harvard's history department faculty count as an 'ideological litmus test?'' Witness: 'I believe that there should be diversity of viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campuses.' Had I just heard that correctly? Had Education Secretary Linda McMahon really just said Holocaust denialism was just a diverse view point? I was shocked. But just recently, this exchange really happened. I sat across the dais from McMahon in the House Education and Workforce Committee room. On the desk before me was the April 11 letter sent to Harvard by the Trump administration, laying out their outrageous demands of the university in order to retain their federal funding. Contained in that letter is the phrase which has become a rallying cry for the Trump administration in their crusade against Harvard: 'viewpoint diversity.' This is the one diversity program that the administration has deemed not only important, but imperative to future of higher education. But although McMahon has been beating the drum loudly on the lack of 'diverse viewpoints' on colleges campuses, she's been vague on what that means and whether the administration has the authority to enforce viewpoint diversity on campus. In her hearing before the Senate the previous day, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) pressed the secretary on this very question. Beyond saying that college faculties need more conservative voices, she wasn't able to clearly articulate the powers that the federal government has in that realm, nor was she able to clearly define what viewpoint diversity means, nor the limits that should be recognized. So I asked. I asked if, under the demands listed in the letter, the Harvard government department would be compelled to hire faculty that believe the 2020 election was stolen. I asked if Harvard Medical School would be required to hire immunologists that adhere to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's view on vaccine efficacy. McMahon's response was to bluster about free speech and multiple viewpoints on college campuses. She obfuscated and I pressed. It was at this point I asked, 'Madam Secretary, does refusing to hire a Holocaust denier as a member of Harvard's history department faculty count as an 'ideological litmus test?'' She responded: 'I believe that there should be diversity of viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campuses.' There are a number of deeply disturbing aspects to that answer. I could write at length about the implications that widely discredited and — in the case of the third example, deeply offensive and dangerously ignorant — conspiracy theories should have a place in academic institutions that are at the global forefront of research. There is also much to be said about that fact that an administration which claims to be fighting against antisemitism does not immediately condemn Holocaust denial and insist that it does not have a place or a platform in higher education. But the pressing issue at stake here is that the administration cannot identify a limit to such viewpoint diversity. If a candidate for a position in the government department has a sincere political belief that the 2020 election was stolen, should they be hired in the interest of 'viewpoint diversity' although they would not meet the academic standards required for a serious candidate in political science? If they are not hired by the school, does the federal government have the power to punish the university? What does this mean for current faculty who disagree with the administration? 'Ideological vetting' is already happening to the school's prospective international students; it is not a stretch to imagine that that vetting might extend to faculty and domestic students too. Freedom of speech and freedom of dissent are among the most sacred and fundamental tenets of our democracy, enshrined in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights. Universities are the arenas where those freedoms are exercised; places where ideas are tested and debated and critical thought is encouraged. History teaches us that government interference in and crackdown on colleges and universities is a tactic used by authoritarian governments to quash dissent. That is not to say that there aren't problems on college campuses today, and there should always be an unwavering commitment to student safety and wellbeing. But political dissent is not a crime. Dissent is a function of a healthy and vibrant democracy, and higher education is there to teach students how to think, not what to think. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, all Americans must understand what is at stake in the administration's battle with Harvard. We should all be concerned about the federal government's attempt to force compliance from an independent institution, particularly one tasked with educating our young people and producing the world's preeminent research. If you love what makes this country great — freedom of speech, the right to dissent, the defense of civil rights — then you must know: we have a lot to lose if we do not fight for it. Mark Takano, a Democrat, represents California's 39th Congressional District and is a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
USA Today
2 days ago
- Business
- USA Today
What are the best vocational schools in the US? See USA TODAY's list of the top 250.
USA TODAY partnered with the research firm Statista to create the 2025 list of America's Top Vocational Schools. For decades, the value of a four-year college degree was indisputable. In fact, it was one of the few things Republicans and Democrats seemed to agree on. In recent years, however, that bipartisan agreement about the traditional college experience has shifted toward a different type of post-high school education: trade schools. 'Our workers deserve more postsecondary pathways, career-aligned programs, apprenticeships and on-the-job learning,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon, a Republican, said during her confirmation hearing in February. A year prior, Miguel Cardona, a Democrat who served as education secretary under former President Joe Biden, made similar remarks during a visit to his old high school. "We have a 'four years or bust' mentality in this country, and a stigma around technical education," he said. "Our kids are missing out if we don't give them the full range of options." Vocational programs – in fields like welding, culinary arts and auto repair – have grown in popularity and size. Between 2020 and 2023, trade school enrollment jumped by roughly 5%, according to a 2024 report from Validated Insights, a higher education marketing firm. In an April survey of more than 2,000 adults conducted by the American Staffing Association, 33% advocated for high school graduates enrolling in trade schools, while 28% recommended a four-year college or university. By several accounts, short-term training programs that offer certificates are the fastest-growing type of postsecondary credential in the United States. However, it's difficult to determine which ones are best, because research on vocational education, especially programs that last only a few months, can be contradictory and sometimes difficult to decipher. Listen to USA TODAY's podcast: Rethinking the American dream: Trade schools vs. college degrees | The Excerpt Short-term programs can generate immediate earnings and jobs, according to a recent paper in the Economics of Education Review. However, the paper says those benefits fade over time and many certificate holders end up earning poverty-level wages, according to a 2021 study. Research from New America, a left-leaning think tank, suggests that the economic value of short-term certificate programs is often overestimated. The shorter the program, the more controversial it is, too. For-profit schools, in particular, have developed a reputation in some circles for ripping off students with relatively expensive programs that do not provide the return on investment they promise. Despite these obstacles, politicians have continued to prioritize vocational education, especially as the cost of traditional four-year degrees has become out of reach for many families in recent decades. As part of the major tax and spending bill signed into law by President Donald Trump in July, Congress expanded Pell Grants to career training programs as short as eight weeks. The legislation, which takes effect in July 2026, will make millions of taxpayer dollars available to education providers far beyond traditional colleges. To help students navigate the trade school market, USA TODAY partnered with the market research firm Statista to create our first annual ranking of "America's Top Vocational Schools." The rankings, developed by Statista in collaboration with USA TODAY, were judged on five primary metrics: graduation rate, graduates' salary, years it takes to pay off net cost, social mobility and diversity. More rankings: For Earth Day 2025, list of America's Climate Leaders has grown significantly Data on school performance was collected by Statista through publicly available federal databases. The schools were ranked on a star system and excluded if they were unaccredited, failed specific financial responsibility metrics or had a high percentage of graduates defaulting on their student loans. Here is the 2025 list of America's Top Vocational Schools:
