
Student Loan Borrowers Blocked From Affordable Repayment Plans
The department closed applications to the repayment plans last week after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld and expanded a temporary suspension of the Saving on a Valuable Education plan, known as SAVE.
That income-driven program, a centerpiece of the Biden administration's policy agenda with eight million enrolled borrowers, generated lower payments than previous plans. Given its high cost, SAVE became the target of two separate legal challenges last spring by two groups of Republican-led states, which argued that the Biden administration had overstepped its authority.
The SAVE plan has been in legal limbo ever since, and participants' payments have been on hold since last summer. But last week, applications to the three other income-driven plans were also taken down — older programs that hadn't been subject to any litigation. That effectively shut the door to more affordable plans for borrowers in financial distress, and eliminated a crucial component needed to participate in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program — at least temporarily.
'The department is reviewing repayment applications to conform with the 8th Circuit's ruling,' a spokesman for the Education Department said Thursday, adding that it updated information for borrowers on StudentAid.gov, including on a page about court actions related to SAVE.
Here's what we know now. The situation is fluid, so we'll update as circumstances change.
What just happened?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a temporary ban on a portion of the SAVE plan issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The appeals court sent the case back to the district court with instructions to expand the preliminary injunction to the entire SAVE rule (though other legal rulings had already temporarily suspended the program).
But the appellate court didn't stop there: The judges also said that the Education secretary lacks the explicit authority to grant loan forgiveness in any Income-Contingent Repayment plans, even though it's been done for more than three decades. (Borrowers make monthly payments equal to a percentage of their discretionary income, which varies across income-driven plans. But after a set number of years, usually 20 to 25, any remaining balance is canceled.)
'This is a radical departure from how this statute has been interpreted and administered for nearly 30 years,' said Michele Zampini, senior director of college affordability at the Institute for College Access and Success, a research and advocacy group.
The Education Department posted a banner on its website that said the injunction prevents it from administering SAVE and parts of other income-driven plans — and, as a result, applications for those plans and online loan consolidations were unavailable.
It is important to remember that the decision is not final and that litigation is continuing, said Abby Shafroth, director of the National Consumer Law Center's Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project. 'But the decision is very worrying for borrowers who depend on the SAVE plan to manage their payments and work toward being debt free,' she said.
What's likely to happen next?
Scott Buchanan, the executive director of the Student Loan Servicing Alliance, an industry group, said he would expect that applications for at least one of the income-driven plans, known as income-based repayment, will become available again 'as soon as practical.'
The reasons are complicated: That's because the income-based repayment plan was created as part of a July 2009 law, which explicitly permits loan cancellation at the end of the repayment term, whereas SAVE was a regulation established by the department using authority established under a 1993 law. The states that initially brought the lawsuit argued that loan cancellation wasn't explicitly permitted under the 1993 law, and the appellate court sided with that interpretation.
But the department has relied on that authority to create three other income-driven programs, all before SAVE, each of which incrementally improved on the plans before them. Those included Income-Contingent Repayment, introduced in 1994; Pay As You Earn (PAYE), introduced in 2012; and Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE), which became available in 2015 and was replaced by SAVE.
Are income-driven loan applications being processed now?
No, all applications have been temporarily halted, according to Mr. Buchanan, of the alliance. He said the servicers have received instructions to stop processing the income-driven and loan consolidation applications for three months, but he expected they will receive additional guidance in the coming weeks.
Monthly payments are still being collected on the other existing income-driven plans (Income-Based repayment, Pay As You Earn and Income-Contingent Repayment) while SAVE borrowers remain in an interest-free forbearance while the litigation continues.
Is the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program still available?
Yes, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is still open to government and nonprofit employees such as public schoolteachers, librarians and public defenders. After making 120 qualifying payments, any remaining balance is wiped out.
But there is currently one major obstruction: Most borrowers need to be enrolled in an income-driven repayment plan to be eligible for loan cancellation, and it's not possible to apply to any of those plans right now.
If you're already in a qualifying repayment plan, however, and you become newly eligible for the public service program (because of a new job, for example), you can still enroll. But if you're in the SAVE plan, where payments have been halted because of the ongoing litigation, your qualifying payments have also been put on hold — and you can't make any progress toward forgiveness.
The public service program, which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2007, is not at risk right now, and student loan experts say there isn't a broad appetite dismantle the popular program, which would require Congress to pass a bill.
What if I'm close to making all of my payments in the public service program, but I am stuck in the SAVE plan?
There are more than two million people enrolled in the public service program and hundreds of thousands of them are approaching the finish line: 21,700 borrowers have made enough payments to qualify for cancellation, while 330,100 had made 97 to 119 qualifying payments as of Dec. 31, according to data from the Education Department's Federal Student Aid office.
Borrowers who are enrolled in the SAVE plan and have nearly enough qualifying payments currently have few good options.
'Borrowers stuck in SAVE can either wait for the I.D.R. applications to open back up and switch to another I.D.R. plan,' said Betsy Mayotte, president of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, a group that provides free guidance to borrowers. 'Or, ride out the SAVE forbearance and plan on using what's called 'buy back' to get credit for those months once they have certified 120 months of eligible employment.'
Using the so-called buy back option, borrowers would need to make payments for the months their payments were paused in forbearance. Given the history of the complex program and the fact that many borrowers had found themselves in nightmarish situations and unable to receive forgiveness, be sure to document and keep copies or snapshots of everything — your work history with your eligible employer, all qualifying payments, recertification applications, all of it.
What are my options if I can't afford payments (because I lost my job or some other reason)?
There are other options besides income-driven repayment plans that can generally be requested through your loan servicer or the company that manages your payments. Borrowers can temporarily pause payments through deferments or forbearance, but those programs have different eligibility requirements and consequences, largely because of the way interest is treated.
'Borrowers can receive deferments for things such as economic hardship or being unemployed,' said Ms. Mayotte of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors. 'Forbearances are generally applied in cases of less specific financial hardship.'
There are other repayment plans that can lower your monthly obligation: graduated repayment, where payments start lower and rise over time, and extended repayment, which lowers the monthly payment by lengthening the loan term.
Simply consolidating your loans can also lower your monthly payments by extending the repayment period, but there are drawbacks. You may have a higher interest rate on all of your debt, and you'll end up paying more overall.
And Ms. Shafroth, of the law center, said she would be wary of consolidating until it's clear whether the latest legal development will block all income-driven repayment regulations introduced in 2023. Those rules included a provision that protected borrowers from losing all of their payments that counted toward cancellation of income-driven loans. Before the rule, loan consolidation restarted that clock.
Will I be penalized if I cannot recertify my loans?
Each year, borrowers enrolled in income-driven repayment plans must recertify their income or face negative consequences, including being kicked out of the repayment plan. But those applications are also not available right now.
For now, it's not something you need to worry about, Mr. Buchanan said. The loan servicers have been instructed to push back those deadlines on a month-by-month basis, and will be in touch with borrowers when they receive more clarity from the Education Department.
The Trump administration is focused on cutting programs. Won't it stop defending the SAVE plan in court?
It would seem logical. But several student loan experts said the administration may have strategic reasons to keep SAVE alive, at least for a while. Republicans may be able to make changes to the program through the enormous budget package that Congress will attempt to pass using a process known as reconciliation. That may enable Republicans to capture and cut the projected spending from SAVE to fund other initiatives.
'There is interplay between this and reconciliation, where I think they are trying to legislate SAVE off the books to pay for tax cuts for billionaires, instead of ending the program through the courts,' said Persis Yu, deputy executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, an advocacy group.
The Education Department did not immediately comment.
If I'm in a plan like SAVE that may close, will I be grandfathered in?
It's hard to know exactly what will happen. When the Biden administration replaced the former REPAYE income-driven repayment plan with the SAVE program, REPAYE enrollees were automatically transferred into the new plan. But in that case, they were receiving improved terms.
Still, it may be more difficult to take something away. 'It's too soon to say for sure,' said Ms. Shafroth, of the law center. 'Existing borrowers may have contractual rights to the key benefits in these programs, regardless of whether they're currently enrolled in them.'
That may be why proposals to streamline income-driven programs have typically grandfathered in existing borrowers, she added, and only eliminated the plans for new borrowers.
Hashtags

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


The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Appeals court won't reinstate AP access to presidential events
The U.S. Court of Appeals on Tuesday denied an appeal by The Associated Press for a hearing on its efforts to restore full access to cover presidential events, not ending its case but allowing the White House to continue its control over access to President Donald Trump. The news outlet wanted the court to overturn a three-judge panel's June 6 ruling not to let AP back into the events until merits of the news organization's lawsuit against Trump was decided. But the court on Tuesday declined to hear that appeal. It all stems from Trump's decision in February to keep AP journalists out of the Oval Office, Air Force One and other events too small for a full press corps, in retaliation for the news outlet's decision not to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico's name. The AP sued in response. In April, a district court ruled that the administration could not exclude journalists based on their opinions. The Trump administration immediately turned to the U.S. Court of Appeals to successfully delay implementation of the ruling before the court could consider the full merits of the case. Next up: This fall, the appeals court considers those full merits. 'We are disappointed by today's procedural decision but remain focused on the strong district court opinion in support of free speech as we have our case heard,' said Patrick Maks, an AP spokesman. 'As we've said throughout, the press and the public have a fundamental right to speak freely without government retaliation.' The White House did not immediately return a request for comment. Since the start of the case, the White House has instituted new rules for access to the limited-space events. AP photographers have been regularly permitted back, but its reporters only occasionally. On Monday, the White House said it would not allow a reporter from The Wall Street Journal onto Air Force One to cover Trump's weekend trip to Scotland because of the outlet's 'fake and defamatory conduct' in a story about the president and late financier Jeffrey Epstein.


San Francisco Chronicle
27 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Appeals court won't reinstate AP access to presidential events
The U.S. Court of Appeals on Tuesday denied an appeal by The Associated Press for a hearing on its efforts to restore full access to cover presidential events, not ending its case but allowing the White House to continue its control over access to President Donald Trump. The news outlet wanted the court to overturn a three-judge panel's June 6 ruling not to let AP back into the events until merits of the news organization's lawsuit against Trump was decided. But the court on Tuesday declined to hear that appeal. It all stems from Trump's decision in February to keep AP journalists out of the Oval Office, Air Force One and other events too small for a full press corps, in retaliation for the news outlet's decision not to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico's name. The AP sued in response. In April, a district court ruled that the administration could not exclude journalists based on their opinions. The Trump administration immediately turned to the U.S. Court of Appeals to successfully delay implementation of the ruling before the court could consider the full merits of the case. Next up: This fall, the appeals court considers those full merits. 'We are disappointed by today's procedural decision but remain focused on the strong district court opinion in support of free speech as we have our case heard,' said Patrick Maks, an AP spokesman. 'As we've said throughout, the press and the public have a fundamental right to speak freely without government retaliation.' Since the start of the case, the White House has instituted new rules for access to the limited-space events. AP photographers have been regularly permitted back, but its reporters only occasionally. On Monday, the White House said it would not allow a reporter from The Wall Street Journal onto Air Force One to cover Trump's weekend trip to Scotland because of the outlet's 'fake and defamatory conduct' in a story about the president and late financier Jeffrey Epstein. ___


American Military News
27 minutes ago
- American Military News
Top Biden official exposed for spending $80 billion on DEI, delaying air traffic control upgrades: Report
A new report claims that former Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg spent $80 billion on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) grants and failed to implement upgrades to the country's air traffic control systems under former President Joe Biden's administration. According to The New York Post, airline industry sources and federal spending records indicate that Buttigieg prioritized the Biden administration's DEI policies while failing to replace the Department of Transportation's outdated air traffic control systems. Sources told the outlet that Buttigieg told airline industry executives during a meeting that upgrading air traffic control systems would allow airlines to fly additional airplanes, 'and so why would that be in his interest?' The New York Post reported that federal spending records show the Department of Transportation spent over $80 billion under the Biden administration on approximately 400 DEI grants. 'He was definitely pushing an agenda,' an industry official told The New York Post. The source claimed that Buttigieg had 'little to no interest' and took 'definitely zero action' toward the modernization of the country's air traffic control systems. Instead, sources told the outlet that Buttigieg repeatedly blamed airlines for traffic delays and denied that the Department of Transportation's DEI policies led to staffing shortages. READ MORE: Video: Pentagon failure exposed by FAA after deadly DC plane crash One source told The New York Post, 'At first, [the Department of Transportation] and he were reluctant to say there was an air traffic controller shortage or that the shortage had anything to do with flight delays or flight cancellations.' In response to The New York Post's report regarding Buttigieg's leadership of the Department of Transportation, Chris Meagher, a Buttigieg spokesperson, said, 'Suggesting that Secretary Buttigieg chose not to pursue air traffic control modernization is absurd.' 'Secretary Buttigieg's focus was always on safety — not just in aviation, but also on roads and bridges, where 40,000 Americans die on our country's roads each year,' Meagher added. 'Fixing issues with air traffic control was a priority.' The Buttigieg spokesperson claimed that the Department of Transportation's DEI grants that were approved under the Biden administration were a 'separate siloed transportation mode' and did not result in delays to the 'work' of the Federal Aviation Administration. 'You can walk and chew gum at the same time,' Meagher said. 'FAA operates completely separately than other modal administrations. So what happens at FHWA doesn't have a meaningful effect on FAA or NHTSA because they operate independently. It's separate staff, separate budgets, separate programs.'