Student loan forgiveness IBR: Why relief is delayed, and what you can do now
The U.S. Education Department has paused student loan forgiveness under the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) plan, despite no legal barriers preventing it. Borrowers who've completed their repayment term are left in limbo as the department cites vague 'system updates' for the delay. (Representative Image)
The US Department of Education has quietly paused student loan forgiveness under the Income-Based Repayment (IBR) plan, a move that has surprised many, given that IBR is the only major income-driven repayment plan not affected by ongoing legal battles. While other plans like SAVE, PAYE, and ICR are currently blocked due to federal court injunctions, IBR was created by Congress and explicitly authorizes loan forgiveness after 20 or 25 years of qualifying payments.
Also Read: How rich was Malcolm-Jamal Warner? Inside the late actor's career earnings and net worth Despite this legal clarity, thousands of eligible borrowers who have reached their forgiveness milestone have found their relief stalled with no clear explanation. This sudden pause comes amid overall disruption in the federal student loan system, marked by massive processing delays, legal uncertainty, and significant policy shifts under the Trump administration.
The Education Department has attributed the IBR freeze to 'system updates' in response to the SAVE-related court rulings, but critics and legal experts argue that no such updates should interfere with IBR discharges.
The IBR plan is one of several income-driven repayment (IDR) options for federal student loan borrowers. It helps borrowers by lowering their monthly payments based on their income and family size. After 20 or 25 years of qualifying payments, borrowers are supposed to get their remaining loan balance forgiven.What makes IBR unique is that it was created by Congress, and unlike newer plans such as SAVE, it has clear legal authority for forgiveness. That's why recent court rulings do not apply to IBR.
Despite its legal backing, the Education Department has paused forgiveness processing under IBR, citing "system updates."In a recent update, the department said: 'Currently, IBR forgiveness is paused while our systems are updated… forgiveness will resume once those updates are completed.'There is no clear timeline for when this pause will end. Some borrowers who met the 20- or 25-year threshold have been waiting since mid-2024 without getting their promised discharge.
Other IDR plans like SAVE, PAYE, and ICR are blocked due to a court injunction from a lawsuit challenging the legality of the SAVE plan. Since these were created by regulation, not by Congress, they are on hold. However, Congress passed IBR into law, and courts have not blocked forgiveness under it. The Department of Education itself confirmed: 'ED can and will still process loan forgiveness for the IBR Plan, which Congress separately enacted.'The IBR pause is happening alongside massive disruptions across the student loan system: Over 1.5 million IDR applications are stuck in a backlog.
The Department recently told borrowers on SAVE to switch to IBR, even though IBR forgiveness is currently paused.
Interest will restart in August for borrowers previously under SAVE forbearance.
Under the recently signed " Big, Beautiful Bill, " a new plan, the Repayment Assistance Plan (RAP), will replace SAVE, PAYE, and ICR. Current IBR borrowers will be allowed to stay enrolled and qualify for forgiveness, but new borrowers won't have access to the plan once RAP takes over.If you've already reached your IBR forgiveness threshold but haven't received a discharge: You can continue making payments; any extra payments beyond your qualifying 20 or 25 years should eventually be refunded.
You can also ask your servicer for a temporary forbearance, but be aware that interest will continue accruing during this time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
16 minutes ago
- The Hindu
‘Grave error': Why Bombay HC acquitted all 12 convicted in 2006 Mumbai train blasts
The Bombay High Court on Monday (July 21, 2025) acquitted all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai serial train blasts case, overturning a 2015 verdict by a special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court that had sentenced five of them to death and seven to life imprisonment. A Division Bench of Justices Anil S. Kilor and Shyam C. Chandak delivered a scathing indictment of the Mumbai Police's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), remarking that it had created 'a false appearance of having solved a case.' The judgment ordered the release of 11 men after 19 years of incarceration. One of the accused had died in custody in 2021 due to COVID-19. Only one among them, Wahid Shaikh, had been acquitted earlier by the trial court in 2015 after it found no evidence against him. He, too, had spent nine years in prison before being exonerated. What is the case? Nearly two decades ago, on July 11, 2006, Mumbai was shaken by a coordinated series of bomb blasts that left an indelible scar on the city's collective memory. Within a matter of minutes, seven explosions ripped through suburban trains on the Western Railway line during the peak evening rush hour, killing 189 people and seriously injuring 824. According to the Mumbai Police, the bombs had been assembled using pressure cookers and strategically planted to cause maximum devastation during the city's busiest commute hours. In the immediate aftermath, the Congress-led Maharashtra government handed over the investigation to the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). Eventually, 13 individuals were put on trial in connection with the blasts and 17 others, including Pakistani nationals, were named in the ATS chargesheet. Why did the High Court set aside the convictions? The prosecution's case rested primarily on eyewitness testimonies, the recovery of explosives, and confessional statements. However, the High Court found the evidence to be fundamentally compromised. It opined that the confessions were extracted through 'barbaric and inhuman' torture, the eyewitness accounts lacked credibility, and the recovered materials were 'vulnerable to tampering' and therefore inadmissible. 'Punishing the actual perpetrator of a crime is a concrete and essential step toward curbing criminal activities, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring the safety and security of citizens. But creating a false appearance of having solved a case by presenting that the accused have been brought to justice gives a misleading sense of resolution. This deceptive closure undermines public trust and falsely reassures society, while in reality, the true threat remains at large. Essentially, this is what the case at hand conveys,' the Bench underscored in its 671-page judgement. Here are some of the key findings: Unreliable eyewitnesses The prosecution's case relied heavily on eight eyewitnesses, including taxi drivers who allegedly ferried the accused and train passengers who claimed to have seen them planting the bombs. However, the court deemed this testimony 'unsafe,' citing significant delays and a lack of corroboration. Most witnesses approached the police over three months after the incident, casting doubt on the reliability of their recollections. The court was particularly critical of the two taxi drivers, who remained silent for nearly four months. It found it implausible that they could accurately recall the faces of passengers given the fleeting and routine nature of taxi rides in a metropolis like Mumbai. Similarly, a witness who had assisted in preparing sketches of the suspects was never brought to testify in the trial or asked to identify the accused in court. A significant procedural lapse that further weakened the prosecution's case was the invalidity of the test identification parades. The special executive officer who conducted them, Shri Barve, lacked the legal authority, as his tenure had ended more than a year earlier. As a result, the identifications made during these parades, including that of three accused, were ruled inadmissible. Coerced confessions The High Court held that the confessional statements of 11 convicts were inadmissible, citing grave violations of statutory safeguards. Most notably, the Bench concluded that the confessions had been extracted through torture. The judgment detailed chilling allegations by the accused, who described being beaten with belts, having their legs forcibly stretched apart, subjected to electric shocks, and deprived of sleep. These accounts were corroborated by medical reports from King Edward Memorial and Bhabha hospitals. The prosecution's case was further weakened by the striking similarity across the confessions, even though they were recorded by different officers at different times and locations. The statements were found to be 'verbatim', including the phrasing of questions, responses, and even grammatical errors, raising serious doubts about their voluntariness. The court also found that key procedural safeguards were ignored. The accused were not informed of their right to legal counsel before their statements were recorded, and there was neither certification of the language used nor any confirmation that the confessions were read back and acknowledged by them. No 'prior sanction' under MCOCA The High Court delivered a decisive blow to the prosecution by holding that the very invocation of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA), was unlawful. The statute requires 'prior sanction' by a competent authority, a police officer not below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, before it can be invoked in a case. This is a crucial safeguard since the stringent anti-terror law reverses the burden of proof, allows prolonged detention and dilutes evidentiary standards. The court found that the sanctioning officer had granted approval without examining the necessary documents, some of which were submitted only after the approval had been issued. 'Mere reproduction of some expressions, used in the definition of 'organised crime', 'continuing unlawful activities' or 'organised crime syndicate' to show the compliance, cannot be said to be in tune with the letter and spirit of the law relating to grant of approval for invocation of the provisions of the MCOCA,' the court underscored. The prosecution's failure to call the sanctioning officer as a witness further compounded the lapse. The court concluded that without his testimony, the approval for invoking MCOCA lacked legal validity. Destruction of evidence A key point of contention was the call detail records (CDRs) of the accused. Although the defence repeatedly sought access to them, the prosecution claimed the records had been destroyed. The court found this deeply troubling, noting that the CDRs were crucial for establishing the accused's whereabouts during alleged conspiracy meetings and for verifying or refuting claims of contact with operatives in Pakistan. It concluded that the destruction of such potentially exculpatory evidence appeared deliberate and amounted to the suppression of material facts. This, the court held, cast 'serious doubts over the integrity of the investigation' and constituted a 'grave violation of the right to a fair trial.' The judges also found serious lapses in the handling of physical evidence allegedly recovered, such as RDX granules, detonators, pressure cookers, circuit boards, hooks, and maps. They pointed out that the prosecution's failure to maintain a clear chain of custody and ensure secure sealing before submission to the Forensic Science Laboratory severely compromised the evidentiary value of these items. What happens next? The Maharashtra government has already approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's verdict. The appeal is scheduled to be heard on July 24. Earlier, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai briefly observed that staying a judgment of acquittal at the appellate stage is an option exercised only in the 'rarest of rare' cases. His oral remark came when a lawyer mentioned the State's petition before his Bench.
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Facing $400 million funding freeze, Columbia University cracks down on Pro-Palestinian protests, expels students
Under mounting federal pressure and facing $400 million in revoked research grants, Columbia University has expelled and suspended several students for participating in last year's pro-Palestinian protests. The disciplinary crackdown and policy reforms come after the Trump administration penalised the Ivy League school for what it called a failure to respond sufficiently to antisemitism on campus. The university confirmed Wednesday that it has taken disciplinary action against students involved in two protests events, which is a sit-in at the campus library last month and a protest encampment during alumni weekend this spring, according to the CNN reports. While Columbia has not officially disclosed the number of students expelled or suspended, a student-led coalition claimed that at least 80 students are being targeted, with some even revoking their degrees. This wave of disciplinary measures is only one part of Columbia's broader capitulation to a list of demands from the Trump administration, which in March froze hundreds of millions in funding. That move made Columbia the first university to face financial consequences under Trump's sweeping executive order aimed at combating antisemitism on college campuses. Since then, at least 60 other institutions have reportedly been warned of similar action. The university had become a lightning rod for campus trouble in 2024, following Israel's war in Gaza which began in October 2023. Student protests intensified in the spring when the coalition Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) demanded the university cut its financial ties to Israel and publicly call for a ceasefire. After administrators missed a deadline to engage in divestment talks, protesters, some of them unaffiliated with the university, occupied Columbia's historic Hamilton Hall in April. The university responded by calling in the NYPD. More than 110 people were arrested. Now, months later, Columbia appears to be disciplining their students. According to internal documents shared with the Trump administration, a new university judicial board, overseen by the provost's office, has been tasked with enacting rigorous and consistent disciplinary actions. But the changes go far beyond punishing protesters. In an internal letter obtained by CNN and addressed to faculty and students, Columbia's board of trustees endorsed an aggressive overhaul of campus policy and culture from how protests are policed to the way Middle East studies are taught. Among the most controversial reforms: These moves appear to directly respond to a list of nine demands issued by the Trump administration earlier this year. Trump, now in his second term, has made cracking down on campus antisemitism a foundation of his higher education policy. A 2025 executive order called on universities to monitor and report international students' political activity and enforce discipline for campus unrest including the revocation of student visas. It remains unclear whether Columbia's sweeping response will lead to the restoration of the $400 million in federal funding. 'The university has submitted its full compliance report… and we await the administration's decision' says a Columbia spokesperson. Civil liberties groups and free speech advocates have expressed alarm at the university's concessions. 'This is the most significant federal intervention into campus speech in modern American history. Columbia is setting a precedent that other universities may now be forced to follow,' said an attorney with the Academic Freedom Defense Fund, according to The Guardian reports. 'We take seriously the concerns of antisemitism, harassment, and discrimination. These reforms reflect our commitment to fostering a respectful and inclusive learning environment, ' trustees wrote in their letter.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
16 minutes ago
- First Post
UK brings Turkey to Eurofighter club with a preliminary deal for Typhoon jets
Turkish Defence Minister Yasar Guler and his British counterpart, John Healey, signed a MOU during a defence industry show in Istanbul, according to the Turkish Ministry of National Defence read more Turkey, a NATO member, has long sought to purchase 40 Eurofighter planes produced by a collaboration of British, German, and Italian businesses. File image/ AP Turkey and Britain inked a preliminary deal on Wednesday for the sale of Eurofighter Typhoon fighter planes to Turkey, marking a significant step forward in Ankara's goals to modernise its air fleet. Turkish Defence Minister Yasar Guler and his British counterpart, John Healey, signed a memorandum of understanding during a defence industry show in Istanbul, according to the Turkish Ministry of National Defence. Turkey, a NATO member, has long sought to purchase 40 Eurofighter planes produced by a collaboration of British, German, and Italian businesses. Germany apparently first rejected the transaction but eventually changed its position. Britain oversaw discussions on behalf of the group. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to a statement from Turkey's defence ministry, the pact brings the two countries 'one step closer to a full agreement on the Typhoon.' 'Both Ministers welcome signature as a positive step towards bringing Turkey into the Typhoon club and share a mutual ambition to conclude the necessary arrangements as soon as possible,' it added. Britain's BAE Systems, a part of the consortium, hailed the agreement and stated that it will continue to work with the Turkish and British governments to finalise the procurement deal. Turkish authorities have stated that they are currently negotiating price and technical details, having received an initial bid and want to submit a counter-proposal. Turkey is also looking to return to the US-led F-35 fighter jet program, from which it was expelled in 2019 after purchasing Russian-made S-400 missile defence systems. The US said the systems presented a threat to the F-35s. Turkey is also building a homegrown fifth-generation fighter plane, the KAAN, which is expected to be operational in 2028.
