What Will Happen to Your Student Loans if Trump Closes the Department of Education?
The Trump administration has promised to eliminate the Department of Education, shifting more responsibility back to the states. States already have significant control over education — particularly when it comes to setting standards and deciding on curriculum, but eliminating the department would have major repercussions for college students.
Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take
Setting aside the fact that Congress would have to approve the closure, doing so or otherwise dismantling the agency could disrupt programs and protections that millions of students and families rely on, including federal Pell grants for low-income students, other key forms of financial aid, and campus civil rights protections. Students need to recognize this as a direct attack on their future. And these threats extend beyond education. They're part of Trump's broader push to undermine public institutions, redirect public funding to private schools that lack accountability, and upend American civil rights and protections.
Ever since the Supreme Court handed down its 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, certain localities have resisted desegregation. Without strong oversight that federal funds and programs must be implemented legally and equitably, the limited social progress we've made could quickly be lost. If the administration moves forward with dismantling the Department of Education, students of all ages could face a more divided, unequal system that restricts opportunities instead of creating them.
The civil servants who staff the Department of Education oversee programs that students rely on to pay for college, like Pell Grants, student loans, and work-study programs. The department also provides direct funding to colleges that enroll a high number of low-income students, as well as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), tribal colleges and universities, and small schools with limited resources.
Dismantling the department would put Pell grants and other need-based aid programs at risk, which would disproportionately harm low-income students. In 2021, the Department of Education revived its enforcement office, which protects students who receive federal aid from being subjected to fraud and abuse. Without federal oversight, nefarious parties that stand to profit from the higher education industry, like the for-profit college industry, would operate with fewer consequences, leading to more students being saddled with useless degrees and high debts.
Student loan borrowers have already faced mass confusion over the last five years and eliminating the department could exacerbate existing issues. Federal student loan payments were paused to provide relief at the start of the pandemic in 2020, and legal challenges thwarted the Biden administration's multiple efforts to provide additional debt relief. Conservatives have laid out plans to again privatize the student loan industry through legislation. Abolishing the department and moving student loans elsewhere could throw borrowers' accounts into further disarray and cause more financial harm.
Regardless of where the student loan program ultimately lives, borrowers who count on Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) face an uncertain future. PSLF was dysfunctional for years, but recent improvements were finally moving the program closer to the way Congress intended, which is to provide debt relief to borrowers who work for a certain number of years in public service and make qualifying payments. It is unclear how the Trump administration will handle PSLF, though a plan to eliminate it was outlined in Project 2025. Eliminating PSLF would most severely impact the hopeful students seeking careers in education, health care, and government. PSLF helps students, who might otherwise be deterred because of high student loan debt, to enter these important public service job sectors, allowing these industries to diversify their ranks to include more first-generation graduates.
Beyond the massive amount of funding managed by Department of Education employees, they also play a key role in making sure students' civil rights are respected in places of learning. The department is tasked with investigating complaints of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, disability status, or age, as well as sex-based discrimination and harassment under Title IX. Title IX has been heavily politicized as debates over LGBTQ+ student rights, sexual misconduct policies, and gender equity have led to shifting regulations under different administrations. The Trump administration has signed an executive order banning transgender girls and women from participating in women's sports and has reinstated rules criticized for making it harder for students to report sexual violence.
Title VI, which protects students against discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, has been equally politicized amid debates over race-conscious admissions, campus speech, and discrimination protections. The Trump administration is expected to weaponize Title VI enforcement to suppress certain topics and activities. Indeed, they've already begun via executive orders that affect diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Taken together, these orders could reduce students' protection against all forms of discrimination and harassment.
So, who stands to benefit from eliminating the Department of Education? Aside from the bad actors who have always lurked around our public education system hoping to make a profit, anyone who wants higher education to be an exclusive luxury would celebrate this regression. A college degree has long been seen as elitist because of who's had access from the beginning: white, wealthy families. However, for some people, a degree is necessary for overcoming racist, sexist barriers in the job market. To help more students reach higher education, advocates have chipped away at barriers to access, empowered by federal funding and expertise flowing from the Department of Education. If it is abolished, states with weaker higher education systems could struggle to fill the gaps, leading to a higher risk of disparities and segregation between well-funded and underfunded institutions — and the students who attend them.
In short, getting rid of the department could harm many and benefit a few. But for an administration seemingly determined to reverse the social and economic gains made over the past 60 years, maybe that's the point.
Originally Appeared on Teen Vogue
Check out more Teen Vogue education coverage:
Affirmative Action Benefits White Women Most
How Our Obsession With Trauma Took Over College Essays
So Many People With Student Debt Never Graduated College
The Modern American University Is a Right-Wing Institution
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
After a blown deadline, what next for US-Canada trade?
A self-imposed deadline for a new US-Canada trade deal came and went on Friday. So what happens next for these two deeply entwined neighbours? Canada and the US have been locked in a tariff war for six months and, despite talk of "intense" negotiations in recent weeks, a trade agreement remains elusive. Both President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney have poured cold water on the idea they will reach a quick, and tariff-free, deal. And Trump's open criticism of Canada's move to recognise a Palestinian state dashed hopes for a last-minute agreement earlier this week. The pessimism marks a shift in tone from as recently as June's G7 meeting, when the two leaders set themselves the summer deadline. Canadian negotiators have come to the conclusion that "it's not the end of the world" if a quick deal isn't reached and "that quality over speed and a rushed agreement matters a lot", said Fen Hampson, a professor of international affairs at Carleton University in Ottawa. Carney - who has been tight-lipped about the negotiation details - has said as much himself, repeating that just "any deal" won't do. Still, there are pressures on both sides to give businesses a reprieve. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre said on Friday he shares "Canadians' disappointment" that a deal was not reached by the deadline. He urged Carney's Liberals to do more to "take back control of our economic future". Canada is now facing a 35% tariff rate, though there is a carve out for goods compliant under a current free trade deal. American global tariffs on steel, aluminium, autos and auto parts are hurting, as the US is a top market for those sectors. On Sunday, Canada's minister for US-Canada trade Dominic LeBlanc told the BBC's US partner CBS News that trade talks will continue, and that negotiations so far have been "informative, constructive and cordial." LeBlanc added he expects Carney and Trump to speak again in the coming days. "We think there is an option of striking a deal that will bring down some of these tariffs, and provide greater certainty to investment," he said. The Trump administration has justified those tariffs by claiming a lack of co-operation on stemming the flow of illicit drugs like fentanyl. Canada denies that, noting about 1% of US fentanyl imports originate in Canada. It has also brought in new border protections and a "fentanyl czar" in recent months in an effort to address Trump's concerns. Threatened tariffs on copper and the expected end of a global tariff exemption used by shoppers of goods under $800 could also pinch. Canada has responded with C$60bn ($43.3bn; £32.3bn) in counter tariffs on various American goods - the only country along with China to directly retaliate against Trump. "It comes as no surprise that businesses are craving certainty after months and months of tumultuous announcements," said Catherine Fortin-Lefaivre, vice-president of international policy and global partnership at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. "But at the same time, they're not craving certainty at the expense of a really bad deal." A few factors give Canada some breathing room. On paper, it looks like the country is facing a severe tariff rate from the US, but trade is currently more free than the levies suggest at first glance. In March, Trump announced a tariffs reprieve on goods compliant with the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement, known in Canada as CUSMA and the US as the USMCA. That deal - negotiated during Trump's first term in office - came into force five years ago. Almost 90% of Canadian exports to the US are ultimately able to cross the border duty free, if firms file out necessary paperwork, under that agreement. "That has given us a buffer, no question about it, that other countries don't have right now," said Prof Hampson. It means Canada is overall paying a much lower tariff rate than many of the deals already inked with the US, like the EU, South Korea and Japan at 15%, or Indonesia and the Philippines at 19%. Ottawa has also brought in some relief programmes for affected industries and has also collected about C$1.5bn more in import duties than in the same period last year, due to the counter tariffs. Why Trump's global tariffs 'victory' may well come at a high price See the Trump tariffs list by country Five things now pricier in Canada due to tariffs 'In business, indecision is killer' - Canadian firms seek certainty And while in the US consumer confidence is up and prices there have remained contained, it helps Canada's negotiating position if they can wait for Americans to start feeling the pain of tariffs. "It's Americans who are going to squawk," said Prof Hampson. Ms Fortin-Lefaivre predicts US businesses, especially smaller firms that don't have the same resources to withstand them, will be pressuring political leaders. "So that pressure could play to our advantage," she said. Canadians also appear willing to give the new prime minister some leeway. Opinion polls suggest they are generally satisfied with his handling of trade. Carney "understands that doing what's best for the economy right now is actually what's best for him politically", Martha Hall Findlay, director of the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy and a former Liberal MP, told the BBC. Trump has said he is imposing tariffs to boost domestic manufacturing, open overseas markets and raise money for the government. He is also using them to push countries like Canada on a range of non-trade issues, including military spending. In the last few weeks, Ottawa has significantly ramped up its defence spending, boosted security at the shared border and killed a digital tax opposed by American tech firms. Those moves show Canada is "doing what the Americans wanted us to do", said Ms Fortin-Lefaivre. She hopes Canadian negotiators are pushing for tariffs to be as low as possible, as well as working to ensure the two deeply integrated supply chains are able to continue working together. Canada is pressing for relief on the 50% steel and aluminium tariffs, which are squeezing US automakers. And on Thursday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signalled in an interview with CNBC that is an option on the table. Trump meanwhile, has raised a number of longstanding trade irritants besides fentanyl, including Canada's protections around its dairy industry. Ottawa has previously warned of more countermeasures to come if talks collapse, though political appetite for that may be waning. Retaliatory tariffs "haven't seemed to have had the kind of impact that we would hope for", British Columbia Premier David Eby recently told Bloomberg. On retaliation, Prof Hampson said: "The Americans have escalation dominance here. So you want to be smart about it." A spokesperson for Carney declined to say whether more countermeasures remained on the table. Meanwhile, Canadian negotiators have been in Washington most of this week and keep pushing talks forward, with the minister responsible for Canada-US trade saying on Friday an acceptable agreement "was not yet in sight". "We all crave the certainty of a deal," said Ms Fortin-Lefaivre. But research by her business group suggests firms are making contingency plans. Almost 40% of goods exporters have already diversified suppliers outside the US, and 28% have diversified buyers. They are also looking ahead to what may be more challenging talks with CUSMA, which has proven a critical backstop, as it is up for review next year. It is all part of a wider push by the country to diversify trade away from the US, pull down barriers that have hindered trade between provinces, and press forward more quickly on major projects. The economic links between the two countries will stay strong - Canada will still be one of the largest trading partners and economic and security allies of the US. But the irony is that Trump's threats may be "forcing Canada to understand we have to get our own economic house in order," said Ms Hall Findlay. "It's going to take some really tough decisions. And I do think our current government gets this." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
USA Today
9 minutes ago
- USA Today
Top Trump aide accuses India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine
Stephen Miller on Fox News: Trump said, 'It is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia.' WASHINGTON – A top aide to President Donald Trump accused India of effectively financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing oil from Moscow, after the U.S. leader escalated pressure on New Delhi to stop buying Russian oil, in a Fox News interview that aired on Aug. 3. More: President Trump announces 25% tariff on imports from India "What he (Trump) said very clearly is that it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia," said Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff at the White House and one of Trump's most influential aides. More: Russia does not care about Trump's 'theatrical ultimatum', senior official says Miller's criticism was among the strongest yet by the Trump administration about one of the United States' major partners in the Indo-Pacific. "People will be shocked to learn that India is basically tied with China in purchasing Russian oil. That's an astonishing fact," Miller said on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures." The Indian Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Indian government sources told Reuters on Aug. 2 that New Delhi will keep purchasing oil from Moscow despite U.S. threats. More: Trump says he ordered 2 nuclear subs to 'appropriate regions' after Russia nuclear threats A 25% tariff on Indian products went into effect on Aug. 1 as a result of its purchase of military equipment and energy from Russia. Trump has also threatened 100% tariffs on U.S. imports from countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Miller tempered his criticism by noting Trump's relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which he described as "tremendous."
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
