Three student loan changes in Republican bill: Getting out of debt would be 'extremely hard,' advocate says
Republicans' 'big beautiful' bill, if enacted as drafted, would make some of the biggest changes to the federal student loan system in decades.
GOP House and Senate lawmakers' proposals would eliminate several repayment plans, keep borrowers in debt longer and roll back relief options for those who become unemployed or run into another financial challenge.
The House advanced its version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in May. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions released its budget bill recommendations related to student loans on June 10. Senate lawmakers are preparing to debate the massive tax and spending package.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said his party's plans would lift the burden on taxpayers of subsidizing college graduates' loan payments.
″[Former President Joe] Biden and Democrats unfairly attempted to shift student debt onto taxpayers that chose not to go to college,' Cassidy said in a statement on June 10. He said his committee's bill would save an estimated $300 billion out of the federal budget.
However, consumer advocates say that the legislation will deepen a lending crisis in which millions of borrowers are already struggling to pay off the debt from their education.
'It's not about fiscal responsibility, it's about doing some funny math that justifies tax cuts,' said Astra Taylor, co-founder of the Debt Collective, a union for debtors.
'It's going to be extremely hard for people to get out of debt with these changes,' Taylor said.
Here are three big proposals in the GOP bills to overhaul federal student lending.
1. Fewer repayment plans, larger bills
Under the Republican proposals, there would be just two repayment plan choices for new borrowers, compared with roughly a dozen options now.
Student loan borrowers could either enroll in a standard repayment plan with fixed payments, or an income-based repayment plan known as the ' Repayment Assistance Plan,' or RAP.
Under RAP, monthly payments would typically range from 1% to 10% of a borrower's income; the more they earn, the bigger their required payment. There would be a minimum monthly payment of $10 for all borrowers.
A typical student loan borrower with a college degree could pay an extra $2,929 per year if the Senate GOP proposal of RAP is enacted, compared with the Biden administration's now-blocked SAVE plan, according to a recent analysis by the Student Borrower Protection Center.
The new plan would fail to provide many borrowers with an affordable monthly bill — the goal of Congress when it established income-driven repayment plans in the 1990s, said Michele Zampini, senior director of college affordability at The Institute for College Access & Success.
'If Republicans' proposed 'Repayment Assistance Plan' is the only thing standing between borrowers and default, we can expect many to suffer the nightmarish experience of default,' Zampini said.
2. Longer timelines to loan forgiveness
As of now, borrowers who enroll in the standard repayment plan typically get their debt divided into 120 fixed payments, over 10 years. But the Republicans' new standard plan would provide borrowers fixed payments over a period of between 10 years and 25 years, depending on how much they owe.
For example, those with a balance exceeding $50,000 would be in repayment for 15 years; if you owe over $100,000, your fixed payments will last for 25 years.
Meanwhile, current income-driven repayment plans now conclude in loan forgiveness after 20 years or 25 years. But RAP wouldn't lead to debt erasure until 30 years.
'Thirty years is your adult life,' Taylor said.
If RAP becomes law, she said, 'We anticipate an explosion of senior debtors.'
3. Fewer ways to pause bills
House and Senate Republicans are also calling for the elimination of the economic hardship and unemployment deferments.
Those deferments allow federal student loan borrowers to pause their monthly bills during periods of joblessness or other financial setbacks, often without interest accruing on their debt. Under both options, which have existed for decades, borrowers can avoid payments for up to three years.
Under the Senate Republicans' proposal, student loans received on or after July 1, 2026, would no longer qualify for the unemployment deferment or economic hardship deferment. The House plan does away with both deferments a year earlier, on July 1, 2025.
'These protections enable borrowers to stay in good standing on their loans while they get back on their feet,' Zampini said.
'Without them, borrowers who suddenly can't afford their payments will have little recourse, and many will likely enter delinquency and eventually default,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Lisa Murkowski's new book details centrist senator's clash with Trump, dismay at supreme court
Lisa Murkowski is Alaska's four-term senator, first appointed in 2002 by Frank Murkowski, her father and the state's governor. An avowed moderate Republican, she entertains the possibility of caucusing with the Democrats if the Senate emerges deadlocked from next year's midterms. Her relationship with Donald Trump is fraught. In 2016, she voted for the former Ohio governor John Kasich. In Far From Home, her first book, she writes: 'One of my simple rules … has been to withhold my vote from any candidate of bad character, regardless of the politics.' Trump … failed the test. In office, Murkowski clashed with him over the attempted repeal of the Affordable Care Act, AKA Obamacare, and the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court. Trump trashed her (to Don Young, then Alaska's congressman) as 'that bitch Murkowski'. Young and Murkowski were allies. It made no difference to the president. At Trump's second impeachment trial, Murkowski voted to convict. Out of office, he attempted to doom her 2022 re-election – and failed. Still, of the seven Republican senators who voted to convict, only Murkowski, Susan Collins of Maine and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana remain in Congress. Subtitled An Alaskan Senator Faces the Extreme Climate of Washington, Murkowski's memoir sheds light on her life, family and career, brimming with anecdotes and grudges. Well-paced and informative, with an assist from Charles Wohlforth, a seasoned Alaska writer and politico, the book offers a window into Murkowski's mind. 'I call myself a Republican because of the values I hold, such as personal responsibility, small government, a strong national defense, and the individual's right to make her own choices,' she writes. Along with Collins, she is the last of that tribe. The geographic and ideological centers of the GOP reside in the Rust belt and the south, not in New England and Alaska. Murkowski is wary of populism and shows little respect for Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who was the Republican nominee for vice-president in 2008. Two consecutive sentences sum up her take. 'Sarah Palin didn't know she was helping start a movement – she was just being Sarah Palin – but she became the prototype for Donald Trump, the showman without principle,' Murkowski observes, acidly. 'And he took populism much further, partly because he didn't need a script.' Murkowski viewed Palin as both lazy and a dim bulb, unfit for higher office. 'I would have warned John McCain about selecting her as his vice-presidential running mate if I had given any credence to the rumors that he was considering Palin,' Murkowski writes. 'I did not, because I thought the idea was preposterous.' Palin failed to complete her term as governor, resigning in summer 2009, as she faced ethics investigations and growing legal bills. More recently, she has lost in two attempts to sue the New York Times for defamation. In 2010, Murkowski lost the Republican primary but won in November as a write-in. After the initial loss, Joe Biden, then vice-president, called to console her. 'Goddamn it, what were those people thinking?' he said. Murkowski devotes considerable space to the Kavanaugh confirmation, the #MeToo movement and sexual assault. She discloses for the first time how as a second-grader, walking alone in a forest, she was abused by a relative of a neighbor. 'I was terrified,' she writes. 'He said if I ever told anyone what happened, I would get in horrible trouble for being bad. I believed him. I never told anyone, not even my sisters. I was ashamed as well as afraid.' Murkowski is pro-choice. Kavanaugh signed the majority opinion and wrote a concurrence in Dobbs, the decision that overturned Roe v Wade and gutted the federal right to abortion. She accuses him of bad faith. 'Kavanaugh had emphasized the strength of precedent over and over, in formal and colloquial language, in a way that could hardly be interpreted any other way than as saying Roe should not be overturned,' Murkowski says. 'More than being angry, I was discouraged. I had believed that the court would keep Americans' trust as an institution, as we needed it to do.' Only 44% of the US views the supreme court favorably. Only one-fifth agree that the court is politically neutral – 58% disagree. Murkowski also dives into religion. A Georgetown University graduate and a practicing Catholic, she addresses the role of faith in public life, particularly given her support for Roe. It wasn't simple. 'In my own life, harsh voices declared I was not a good enough version of who I am – a Catholic unworthy of Communion, a Republican in name only … not even a real Alaskan,' Murkowski writes. At church, a parishioner handed out anti-abortion leaflets critical of Murkowski. Her family, including her son Nic, then 13, were offended. Church leaders offered reassurance but tension took its toll. 'My relationship to the church has suffered,' she writes. Murkowski counts former centrist senators – Joe Manchin, Mitt Romney and Kyrsten Sinema – as friends. Manchin and Romney (and Christine Todd Whitman, a former Republican New Jersey governor) provide blurbs for her book jacket. As senators, Manchin, Sinema and Romney voted to convict Trump and bar him from office. Manchin and Sinema later left the Democratic party, to become independents. Might Murkowski follow their path? She laments the stridency exacted by hyper-partisanship. 'The parties demand conformity, and their loudest voices are also their most extreme and uncompromising,' she complains. 'As holdouts for bipartisanship, those of us building consensus brought abuse on ourselves. Now all three of these smart, honorable, productive colleagues have retired from the Senate.' Trump is back in the White House. Murkowski remains in the Senate. She has criticized him over Ukraine and expressed doubts about Medicaid cuts in the 'big, beautiful bill'. Both their terms expire in 2028. Trump is constitutionally barred from seeking re-election. Murkowski is not. Far From Home is published in the US by Penguin Random House
Times
17 minutes ago
- Times
Alan Grieve
In the late 1950s Alan Grieve was a bright young lawyer making his name in company and tax law at the legal firm Taylor & Humbert. Among its clients was John Jerwood, an enigmatic British millionaire living in Tokyo who had made his fortune in the postwar years through one of the world's largest cultured-pearl dealerships. Senior partners regarded Jerwood as 'a little difficult' and were delighted to palm him off to Grieve. He began travelling the world with his client, who was soon also his friend and confidant. The pair bonded over the arts and in 1977 Jerwood, advised by Grieve, started the Jerwood Foundation as a personal vehicle for supporting music and educational projects. 'He had no children but he had money and liked education and the arts,' Grieve told The Independent, adding on another occasion: 'He wanted to give people that next step up.'
NBC News
18 minutes ago
- NBC News
To fight Trump's funding freezes, states propose a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against President Donald Trump's efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine. The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure. These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections. 'Trump is illegally withholding funds that have been previously approved,' said David Moon, the Democratic majority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates. 'Without these funds, we are going to see Maryland residents severely harmed — we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could respond and protect its residents.' Moon said the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have withheld federal funding for programs that pay to assist with children's mental health and flood wall protections. He compared the bills he's introduced to traditional 'collections' actions that one would take against a 'deadbeat debtor.' Even if they were not to move forward, Moon said the bills would help to bring about an audit and accounting of federal money to the state. Early in his second term, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency unilaterally froze billions of dollars in funding for programs that states rely on. He's also threatened to withhold federal funding from states that implement policies he politically disagrees with, including 'sanctuary' policies for undocumented immigrants, though some such freezes have been halted by courts. A Trump White House spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this story. Wisconsin state Rep. Renuka Mayadev, a Democrat, introduced two near-identical bills that she said would seek to compel the federal government to release money it has withheld that had previously been paying for Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers, and for child care centers that mostly serve low-income families. 'We've seen the Trump administration is willfully breaking the law by holding back federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. So these bills are really about providing for a legal remedy and protecting Wisconsinites,' she said. In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question. The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session. 'It's a novel concept,' said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. 'I don't think states have ever been in this position before … where there's someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds.' Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted. For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding. More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there's vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around. 'So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn't likely to change very much,' said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law. Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts. 'There's also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people,' he said. 'The federal government could say, 'You didn't make this payment, therefore you're out of this program completely.'' But that doesn't mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn't try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power. 'Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it's going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, 'Hey, we know what you're doing and we don't like it,'' he said. 'States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law.' But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump. 'We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget,' said Moon, the Maryland legislator. 'There's certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House.'
