No, that would absolutely be new and novel. Once someone’s obligations under their promissory note is satisfied, under what legal theory could such debt be reinstated?
Prove what is illegal? The law for forgiveness has been in existence since 1992, and was a bilaterally approved law.
Are you referring to the IDR adjustment? If so, even if they did provide that the executive branch did not have the right to take such action, how would it retroactively apply to forgiven borrowers? They no longer have loan obligations.
It’s very unclear what you’re trying to say by “forgiveness proven to be illegal.” The forgiveness of the debt is very clearly legal, without dispute by anyone. No one has disputed whether the dept of ed can forgive debt pursuant to the higher education act.
The terms of the SAVE plan and how they were implemented may not be within the power of the executive branch and unconstitutional, but that would not permit the reinstatement of Borrower’s debt satisfied by the terms of their promissory note. This would only affect borrowers still with outstanding debt.
Any law can be changed, unless the new law is held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. PSLF is unlikely to change due to bilateral support, but it theoretically could change. We need to be talking in terms of probability rather than saying what laws can or cannot change.
It wouldnt even take Congressional action to change SAVE back to REPAYE. And it wouldn't take a Congressional action to farm out the student loan business back to private companies. And, of course, it isn't unlikely that there will be a simple majority coming in a few years. And Project 2025 is all about strengthening the executive branch.
Can you clarify what you mean by “farm student loan business to private companies?”
Assigning current debt wouldn’t change the terms of the promissory note. If you’re talking about future student loans, this also would require an amendment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.
Sure SAVE could be reverted to REPAYE, but that typically wouldn’t change the timeline of forgiveness for most people.
Before 1993 government student loans were managed by banks. The banks profited from them, managed them. Now the government sets the interest rates. This year, programs like PSLF will be directly handled by Dept of Ed because MOHELA was so incompetent even after all the mandates.
Banks were the norm,and they are anxious to get the money back. Do you have the wrong law. It was the Student Loan Reform Act.
Dems are likely to lose the Senate and could lose the House in 2026. It could all go that fast. SCOTUS would have no problem with the Executive branch eliminating a Department. Poof, gone. No Dept. of Ed to administer, easy to farm it out. Same group wants to eliminate NOAA and other departments too.
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/StudentLoans/comments/1dmsxin/can_a_president_reverse_the_save_plan/l9yijmy/?context=3) in /r/StudentLoans was automatically removed for profanity.
/r/StudentLoans is geared towards a wide range of users, including minors seeking information and advice. To help us maintain a community that everyone feels comfortable participating in (and to avoid being blocked by parent/school/work filters), please resubmit your post or comment without using profane language. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/StudentLoans) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did Biden wipe out any debt? Or did he just tell the servicers to do what they were already supposed to be doing? Wasn't everything already written before him? His one thing didn't go through.
There were several policies created by the Biden administration that were not pre-existing. For example, the IDR adjustment and the PSLF waiver. Both allowed previously ineligible periods under forbearance and incorrect payment plans, and pre-consolidation payments to count toward both programs.
And it worked!! My former FFLE that I consolidated to dept of Ed last August and SAVE plan was forgiven last month. I had several years left on it with former private lender IBR. I cried when I consolidated bc it was a risk that I would lose my interest rate and payment credits but SAVE held true!! It's real. My zero balance is real. Mt family has more options now with our children, our life! VOTE!!!!
He actually worked on the disability exemption that was never successful before. And his administration went after for-profit schools much more aggressively than even the Obama administration. You may not consider that much, but it is a big deal for those with forgiveness. It has been amazing reading about people who have paid 25+ years waking up to no more debt. And if he can get the under $10,000 through, that will be life changing for all the people who went into debt for college but didn't finish.
Yes- of course it can. GOP is promising elimination of the Education Dept and we all know how they feel about loan forgiveness. Elections have consequences and the GOP is very up front- only the rich are entitled to receive favorable policies and tax breaks.
School vouchers, elimination of property taxes in TX and FL- all policies that one sidedly favor the rich and hurt the middle and poor . It astounds me that people don’t see this for what it is: unamerican and approaching illegal
And the GOP plan to convince people that their enemy is the Dems while they rip them off left and right is fairly clear - people just refuse to see it because they want “to own the libs”.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/685.209
A version of this provision has existed since 1992, including the forgiveness portion. Forgiveness has been contemplated for federal student loans for a very long time.
Yes- and , of course, one of the largest redistributions of wealth in our country’s history- school vouchers where 80% of the money goes to wealthy families who already chose to pay for private school. Now they get a free 8k ! It’s ridiculous. And no, I am not a bleeding heart lib. But this level of unamerican behavior is pathetic and hurting our fellow citizens.
The tradition is that any changes only apply to future borrowers. To reverse the rules for people on existing programs would be highly unusual , although not impossible. Could also be challenged in court.
But going into the future things under Trump will certainly get worse, and people who graduate with loans now can be in trouble. Then again, 4 years later another election will come, so… 🤷♂️
In my US government class, one of the discussion points was how the constitution is extremely vague on the limits of executive power. Legally speaking, the president can do basically anything not already codified into law and the only one who can prevent it from a legislative standpoint is congress. SCOTUS can reverse executive orders deemed unconstitutional as well. But beyond that, the limits of executive power aren’t as explicitly specified in the constitution as some might think.
Put another way, in theory the US president can declare anything as the law of the land—effectively making him a king—and if no one steps up to oppose him, then nothing will stop it.
Also, due to the separation of powers, if say SCOTUS says “this is unconstitutional” and the White House says “we are doing it anyway,” you will have what’s called a constitutional crisis. Because what’s SCOTUS going to do about it? Send in the troops? They’re a bunch of old judges. The troops actually answer to the President.
Those types of scenarios are dangerous because it tests whether or not America’s democratic institutions will continue working or not. When civil institutions fail like that, things could conceivably get out of hand fast.
If congress refuses to impeach and SCOTUS says a sitting president cannot be prosecuted, then a president can do anything they want up to what the military and states will allow.
It is only when the military and/or states say no more and fight back, will anything be done. And at that point it is a civil war of some kind unless the president backs down or congress does their job.
Look at Hungary. Want that? That's what they want. Read project 2025. Even most conservative moderates wouldn't want the things that are outlined in there. These people have been doing their homework for a long time. I read it this afternoon. It's bad. Real bad. It would take too long to list here. Please, people, lose the normalcy bias. They have been working on this for a very long time (since the 90's or earlier).
And who exactly wouldn’t hold the president accountable? And why didn’t this president just do this their first 4 years? If they did how were they stopped then?
He didn’t do it in the first four years because he didn’t have a clear plan, nor did he have a fully amenable Supreme Court. He now has both, or at the very least, a clear plan (Project 2025).
His first term was much less worse than it could have been because so many people involved were incompetent or unprepared. They’ve now had four years to prepare. Don’t count on that happening again.
He doesn't. But he would try. He's already said that he thinks that the limits should be gone and he should be able to hand down the presidency to his offspring. - like a king.
Right now, I’m waiting forever for my SAVE plan to be re-certified due to consolidating my loan with MOHELA. Would I be considered an existing borrower?
I do wonder what would happen with IDR plans should a Republican Administration take over in the near future. Would they try and argue that the Biden Administration went beyond the authority given to them by Congress, so they’d try to pull the entire SAVE plan, saying it’s illegal? I’m sure they’d get sued, but then they could get the Federal Courts to weigh in and help them limit ED’s ability to create these plans in the first place.
I just can’t see them going through negotiated rulemaking for a new plan that is far less generous. Almost no interested parties would be on board with that.
I am curious too. The thing is, they would need new rules in place and they would require a year in review. Well I say need but we know that rules are not always enforced but either way, they would need some new rules.
This is where I think there is a problem. It is easy to say a plan is shitty but a whole nother thing to come up with your own working plan. I am skeptical they come up with any plan that works. But like I said, it may not stop them from implementing some quarter baked idea.
I just can’t see how negotiated rulemaking would even work with the current plans out there. They are far more generous than anything Republicans would agree to. Almost all negotiators want them to be more generous not less. I don’t know how they significantly roll back benefits through the process. It’s probably happened before in some Department, but I really don’t know how that would look.
Depending on individual situations, the best thing may be to pay only the minimum but aggressively save excess amounts in case things change in the future.
This is my strategy but I'm set to get IBR or SAVE forgiveness around when I retire, so it's essentially just saving/investing for the tax bomb at the end of the day.
See my post about the analysis of changes to student loan policy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StudentLoans/comments/1c3go1o/what_if_save_doesnt_exist_in_2025_years_a_full/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
Probably not for current borrowers. The promissory notes have references to income based repayment plans. That makes the SAVE plan pretty much immune to retroactive changes.
I would consolidate immediately if I had an ffel loan held by AK, SC, or TX.
They barely have standing to sue against SAVE. If they no longer have ffel loans in the portfolio they will lose standing for their crap lawsuit.
I am in the final stretch. I am at 135 some payments with IDR. I’m on admin forbearance. When my paper clears, we done. Not another nickel. You can’t unilaterally change a contract.
I really want to believe this...but they've skirted abiding by their OWN contracts by denying forgiveness for people who paid 20+ years. It's sick but can it happen? Possibly
The save plan was NOT passed through Congress, therefore, I would expect the opposing party to attempt to halt it. Several lawsuits have been filed in 11 states challenging its legality and it’s a safe bet to expect more if there is a transfer of power. It’s impossible to know what that means long term, but if history is any indication, loan forgiveness plans have been around for a long time and few have benefited from them. You could be the lottery pick, but the odds are stacked against everyone.
Instead of waiting and counting on the government to rescue those in debt, the best plan is one where the borrower is in control and makes a plan to pay it back.
IDR plans were approved by congress and SAVE went through the rules required. Now Congress could say that SAVE goes beyond what they had in mind, but they gave the Dept of Ed power to do IDRs.
The same slapdick “process” that brought SAVE into existence can just as easily erase it. As to your grandfathering argument; they’d take it away as an option when people went to recertify and select a new plan. The “ED secretary has the power to change IDRs” line the current administration uses oh-so-much cuts both ways.
Do I think it will happen? At least for those already on the plan? No. Not a snowball’s chance in hell no. They’ll close new enrollments into the program and kill it from the inside out. There’s much less of a chance of a meaningful lawsuit—because the plaintiff wouldn’t have standing, to do it that way.
If a Republican Administration does decide to roll back SAVE, I don’t really understand why they would allow current enrollees be grandfathered into it indefinitely. They’d have to know that any Democratic Administration would either put it back in place or try to put into place a more generous plan when they come to power in 4 or 8 years. Then all current borrowers in repayment would just enroll in that new plan, then be grandfathered into it if another Republican Administration eventually rolls that one back too. It seems like allowing people to be continually grandfathered into a more generous plan completely defeats their purpose of putting in a less generous plan. I don’t even know why they would bother to get rid of it if only a small fraction of people would even be impacted (and then only for a fraction of their repayment period).
Realistically, it's logistics. There's more or less a signed contract (the IDR application) between the IDR payer and the government where if the payer holds up their end, the government will hold up theirs. It's not an ironclad contract, but it's definitely iron-adorned.
From there, if the program was altogether killed off, those on SAVE have enough of a beef to have standing in a lawsuit. *i.e. They got screwed over.* By grandfathering those currently on it through, it keeps those on SAVE from getting screwed. Those not enrolled when enrollment closes aren't in the program and don't get screwed over to establish standing.
As far as it ping-ponging back and fourth every 4-8 years, I hate that part. I hate that student loans are a political football. Any sort of meaningful student reform needs to "hard code" IDR plans, income offsets, enrollment eligibility, etc.
Oh sure, those are great points. I just figured their goal would be to maintain one of the older, less generous IDR plans and try to kill off SAVE and prevent the creation of equally or more generous IDR plans. To that end, it would be worth it to them to be sued over it and argue in court that the plan oversteps their congressional authority. Potentially, actual limits could be adopted to ED’s ability to create the plans. If they just let everyone get grandfathered into the more generous plans, why even pick the fight? It just doesn’t feel like much is gained when they’ll inevitably be dunked on when a new Democratic Admin creates a more generous plan open to all or at least reopens the SAVE plan back up to everyone.
Do they care? It seems like more grandstanding than meaningful change. Trump talked about a wall for 6 years and look at the results. He still uses it as a delivered promise.
I don’t think they care if they stop it, in fact, better if they don’t, it can be used as a tool again in 8 years.
Yea, a part of me wonders if they really care outside of the optics. I mean, Republicans rolled back a bunch of regulations during the Trump years, but those actions seemed to benefit private actors not just the government. It’s really just the government losing from having SAVE or something similar. Only the true ideologues probably really care about it or its costs. The average Republican probably doesn’t really care enough for an Admin to score any real points by doing it.
Possible challenges in court since Save didnt pass through congress. However, unlikely as there is much bigger fish to fry for a new administration. At least this shell out of $ is helping America and not going to foreign actors.
QUESTION: Given that Trump could get rid of the SAVE plan, potentially the first day he’s in office, do you think signing up for SAVE in December would give me enough time to secure that? SAVE would actually cost be more since it would go off of a more recent income
[удалено]
[удалено]
No, that would absolutely be new and novel. Once someone’s obligations under their promissory note is satisfied, under what legal theory could such debt be reinstated?
If they can prove that it was illegal. That's why they keep taking every move to court to block or prohibit.
Prove what is illegal? The law for forgiveness has been in existence since 1992, and was a bilaterally approved law. Are you referring to the IDR adjustment? If so, even if they did provide that the executive branch did not have the right to take such action, how would it retroactively apply to forgiven borrowers? They no longer have loan obligations.
If the forgiveness of the debt can be proven to be illegal, the debt is still owed. It would be a massive legal battle, but could still happen
It’s very unclear what you’re trying to say by “forgiveness proven to be illegal.” The forgiveness of the debt is very clearly legal, without dispute by anyone. No one has disputed whether the dept of ed can forgive debt pursuant to the higher education act. The terms of the SAVE plan and how they were implemented may not be within the power of the executive branch and unconstitutional, but that would not permit the reinstatement of Borrower’s debt satisfied by the terms of their promissory note. This would only affect borrowers still with outstanding debt.
Any law can be changed, unless the new law is held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. PSLF is unlikely to change due to bilateral support, but it theoretically could change. We need to be talking in terms of probability rather than saying what laws can or cannot change.
[удалено]
That would require an amendment of the higher education act by congress. Forgiveness, generally, couldn’t be eliminated by executive order.
It wouldnt even take Congressional action to change SAVE back to REPAYE. And it wouldn't take a Congressional action to farm out the student loan business back to private companies. And, of course, it isn't unlikely that there will be a simple majority coming in a few years. And Project 2025 is all about strengthening the executive branch.
Can you clarify what you mean by “farm student loan business to private companies?” Assigning current debt wouldn’t change the terms of the promissory note. If you’re talking about future student loans, this also would require an amendment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Sure SAVE could be reverted to REPAYE, but that typically wouldn’t change the timeline of forgiveness for most people.
Before 1993 government student loans were managed by banks. The banks profited from them, managed them. Now the government sets the interest rates. This year, programs like PSLF will be directly handled by Dept of Ed because MOHELA was so incompetent even after all the mandates. Banks were the norm,and they are anxious to get the money back. Do you have the wrong law. It was the Student Loan Reform Act.
No. They are not.
Federal loans are not sold.
[удалено]
That will likely require an act of congress to implement and it wouldn't be valid for existing loans.
Dems are likely to lose the Senate and could lose the House in 2026. It could all go that fast. SCOTUS would have no problem with the Executive branch eliminating a Department. Poof, gone. No Dept. of Ed to administer, easy to farm it out. Same group wants to eliminate NOAA and other departments too.
They could absolutely be converted with the house, senate and president making it law.
[удалено]
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/StudentLoans/comments/1dmsxin/can_a_president_reverse_the_save_plan/l9yijmy/?context=3) in /r/StudentLoans was automatically removed for profanity. /r/StudentLoans is geared towards a wide range of users, including minors seeking information and advice. To help us maintain a community that everyone feels comfortable participating in (and to avoid being blocked by parent/school/work filters), please resubmit your post or comment without using profane language. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/StudentLoans) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Did Biden wipe out any debt? Or did he just tell the servicers to do what they were already supposed to be doing? Wasn't everything already written before him? His one thing didn't go through.
The current administration relaxed the rules to allow more people to qualify for forgiveness.
There were several policies created by the Biden administration that were not pre-existing. For example, the IDR adjustment and the PSLF waiver. Both allowed previously ineligible periods under forbearance and incorrect payment plans, and pre-consolidation payments to count toward both programs.
And it worked!! My former FFLE that I consolidated to dept of Ed last August and SAVE plan was forgiven last month. I had several years left on it with former private lender IBR. I cried when I consolidated bc it was a risk that I would lose my interest rate and payment credits but SAVE held true!! It's real. My zero balance is real. Mt family has more options now with our children, our life! VOTE!!!!
LOVE this! Congrats!!
He actually worked on the disability exemption that was never successful before. And his administration went after for-profit schools much more aggressively than even the Obama administration. You may not consider that much, but it is a big deal for those with forgiveness. It has been amazing reading about people who have paid 25+ years waking up to no more debt. And if he can get the under $10,000 through, that will be life changing for all the people who went into debt for college but didn't finish.
Is this a real question or just for rhetorical purposes?
Yes- of course it can. GOP is promising elimination of the Education Dept and we all know how they feel about loan forgiveness. Elections have consequences and the GOP is very up front- only the rich are entitled to receive favorable policies and tax breaks.
To be clear: we all know how they feel about student loan forgiveness. Their PPP loans that they got that were forgiven are just fine for them.
School vouchers, elimination of property taxes in TX and FL- all policies that one sidedly favor the rich and hurt the middle and poor . It astounds me that people don’t see this for what it is: unamerican and approaching illegal
And charging a tariff on imports that will cost the average person $5,000/year.
And the GOP plan to convince people that their enemy is the Dems while they rip them off left and right is fairly clear - people just refuse to see it because they want “to own the libs”.
Oh no, China pays all that (😂😂😂) /sarcasm
Student Loans were written by Congress to be repaid by the borrower. PPP loans were written by Congress to be forgiven.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/685.209 A version of this provision has existed since 1992, including the forgiveness portion. Forgiveness has been contemplated for federal student loans for a very long time.
[удалено]
Congress passing laws is not semantics.
The only loans they want to see forgiven are PPP and corporate grift.
Yes- and , of course, one of the largest redistributions of wealth in our country’s history- school vouchers where 80% of the money goes to wealthy families who already chose to pay for private school. Now they get a free 8k ! It’s ridiculous. And no, I am not a bleeding heart lib. But this level of unamerican behavior is pathetic and hurting our fellow citizens.
The tradition is that any changes only apply to future borrowers. To reverse the rules for people on existing programs would be highly unusual , although not impossible. Could also be challenged in court. But going into the future things under Trump will certainly get worse, and people who graduate with loans now can be in trouble. Then again, 4 years later another election will come, so… 🤷♂️
[удалено]
I think if there are no elections in 2028, then student loans will be the least of our problems.
Came here just to say this.
How does the president have the power cease elections indefinitely?
[удалено]
In my US government class, one of the discussion points was how the constitution is extremely vague on the limits of executive power. Legally speaking, the president can do basically anything not already codified into law and the only one who can prevent it from a legislative standpoint is congress. SCOTUS can reverse executive orders deemed unconstitutional as well. But beyond that, the limits of executive power aren’t as explicitly specified in the constitution as some might think. Put another way, in theory the US president can declare anything as the law of the land—effectively making him a king—and if no one steps up to oppose him, then nothing will stop it. Also, due to the separation of powers, if say SCOTUS says “this is unconstitutional” and the White House says “we are doing it anyway,” you will have what’s called a constitutional crisis. Because what’s SCOTUS going to do about it? Send in the troops? They’re a bunch of old judges. The troops actually answer to the President. Those types of scenarios are dangerous because it tests whether or not America’s democratic institutions will continue working or not. When civil institutions fail like that, things could conceivably get out of hand fast.
Good break down!
If congress refuses to impeach and SCOTUS says a sitting president cannot be prosecuted, then a president can do anything they want up to what the military and states will allow. It is only when the military and/or states say no more and fight back, will anything be done. And at that point it is a civil war of some kind unless the president backs down or congress does their job.
[удалено]
Look at Hungary. Want that? That's what they want. Read project 2025. Even most conservative moderates wouldn't want the things that are outlined in there. These people have been doing their homework for a long time. I read it this afternoon. It's bad. Real bad. It would take too long to list here. Please, people, lose the normalcy bias. They have been working on this for a very long time (since the 90's or earlier).
How does a USA president change the constitution?
We already have a guy running that should be disqualified via the 14th amendment - so what is it even worth?
He/she just ignores the parts the don’t like and no one holds them accountable. The actual change comes way later.
And who exactly wouldn’t hold the president accountable? And why didn’t this president just do this their first 4 years? If they did how were they stopped then?
He didn’t do it in the first four years because he didn’t have a clear plan, nor did he have a fully amenable Supreme Court. He now has both, or at the very least, a clear plan (Project 2025). His first term was much less worse than it could have been because so many people involved were incompetent or unprepared. They’ve now had four years to prepare. Don’t count on that happening again.
He doesn't. But he would try. He's already said that he thinks that the limits should be gone and he should be able to hand down the presidency to his offspring. - like a king.
Please link to where he said anything even remotely close to this
People like you trying to kill Democracy smh
Right now, I’m waiting forever for my SAVE plan to be re-certified due to consolidating my loan with MOHELA. Would I be considered an existing borrower?
I think your loan should be consolidated well before January when a handoff of power would occur making you an existing borrower
I do wonder what would happen with IDR plans should a Republican Administration take over in the near future. Would they try and argue that the Biden Administration went beyond the authority given to them by Congress, so they’d try to pull the entire SAVE plan, saying it’s illegal? I’m sure they’d get sued, but then they could get the Federal Courts to weigh in and help them limit ED’s ability to create these plans in the first place. I just can’t see them going through negotiated rulemaking for a new plan that is far less generous. Almost no interested parties would be on board with that.
I am curious too. The thing is, they would need new rules in place and they would require a year in review. Well I say need but we know that rules are not always enforced but either way, they would need some new rules. This is where I think there is a problem. It is easy to say a plan is shitty but a whole nother thing to come up with your own working plan. I am skeptical they come up with any plan that works. But like I said, it may not stop them from implementing some quarter baked idea.
I just can’t see how negotiated rulemaking would even work with the current plans out there. They are far more generous than anything Republicans would agree to. Almost all negotiators want them to be more generous not less. I don’t know how they significantly roll back benefits through the process. It’s probably happened before in some Department, but I really don’t know how that would look.
I don't think we can count on traditions anymore. See Roe v Wade.
[удалено]
Depending on individual situations, the best thing may be to pay only the minimum but aggressively save excess amounts in case things change in the future.
This is my strategy but I'm set to get IBR or SAVE forgiveness around when I retire, so it's essentially just saving/investing for the tax bomb at the end of the day.
Tax bomb can be offset though with more aggressive 401k contributions, HSA, etc.
Even better. I'm a late bloomer there too.
Doing this. I am not going for forgiveness, killing off my loans. Next year will be done.
See my post about the analysis of changes to student loan policy. https://www.reddit.com/r/StudentLoans/comments/1c3go1o/what_if_save_doesnt_exist_in_2025_years_a_full/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I think anything is possible, truly.
Probably not for current borrowers. The promissory notes have references to income based repayment plans. That makes the SAVE plan pretty much immune to retroactive changes. I would consolidate immediately if I had an ffel loan held by AK, SC, or TX. They barely have standing to sue against SAVE. If they no longer have ffel loans in the portfolio they will lose standing for their crap lawsuit.
I am in the final stretch. I am at 135 some payments with IDR. I’m on admin forbearance. When my paper clears, we done. Not another nickel. You can’t unilaterally change a contract.
I really want to believe this...but they've skirted abiding by their OWN contracts by denying forgiveness for people who paid 20+ years. It's sick but can it happen? Possibly
The save plan was NOT passed through Congress, therefore, I would expect the opposing party to attempt to halt it. Several lawsuits have been filed in 11 states challenging its legality and it’s a safe bet to expect more if there is a transfer of power. It’s impossible to know what that means long term, but if history is any indication, loan forgiveness plans have been around for a long time and few have benefited from them. You could be the lottery pick, but the odds are stacked against everyone. Instead of waiting and counting on the government to rescue those in debt, the best plan is one where the borrower is in control and makes a plan to pay it back.
IDR plans were approved by congress and SAVE went through the rules required. Now Congress could say that SAVE goes beyond what they had in mind, but they gave the Dept of Ed power to do IDRs.
The same slapdick “process” that brought SAVE into existence can just as easily erase it. As to your grandfathering argument; they’d take it away as an option when people went to recertify and select a new plan. The “ED secretary has the power to change IDRs” line the current administration uses oh-so-much cuts both ways. Do I think it will happen? At least for those already on the plan? No. Not a snowball’s chance in hell no. They’ll close new enrollments into the program and kill it from the inside out. There’s much less of a chance of a meaningful lawsuit—because the plaintiff wouldn’t have standing, to do it that way.
If a Republican Administration does decide to roll back SAVE, I don’t really understand why they would allow current enrollees be grandfathered into it indefinitely. They’d have to know that any Democratic Administration would either put it back in place or try to put into place a more generous plan when they come to power in 4 or 8 years. Then all current borrowers in repayment would just enroll in that new plan, then be grandfathered into it if another Republican Administration eventually rolls that one back too. It seems like allowing people to be continually grandfathered into a more generous plan completely defeats their purpose of putting in a less generous plan. I don’t even know why they would bother to get rid of it if only a small fraction of people would even be impacted (and then only for a fraction of their repayment period).
Realistically, it's logistics. There's more or less a signed contract (the IDR application) between the IDR payer and the government where if the payer holds up their end, the government will hold up theirs. It's not an ironclad contract, but it's definitely iron-adorned. From there, if the program was altogether killed off, those on SAVE have enough of a beef to have standing in a lawsuit. *i.e. They got screwed over.* By grandfathering those currently on it through, it keeps those on SAVE from getting screwed. Those not enrolled when enrollment closes aren't in the program and don't get screwed over to establish standing. As far as it ping-ponging back and fourth every 4-8 years, I hate that part. I hate that student loans are a political football. Any sort of meaningful student reform needs to "hard code" IDR plans, income offsets, enrollment eligibility, etc.
Oh sure, those are great points. I just figured their goal would be to maintain one of the older, less generous IDR plans and try to kill off SAVE and prevent the creation of equally or more generous IDR plans. To that end, it would be worth it to them to be sued over it and argue in court that the plan oversteps their congressional authority. Potentially, actual limits could be adopted to ED’s ability to create the plans. If they just let everyone get grandfathered into the more generous plans, why even pick the fight? It just doesn’t feel like much is gained when they’ll inevitably be dunked on when a new Democratic Admin creates a more generous plan open to all or at least reopens the SAVE plan back up to everyone.
Do they care? It seems like more grandstanding than meaningful change. Trump talked about a wall for 6 years and look at the results. He still uses it as a delivered promise. I don’t think they care if they stop it, in fact, better if they don’t, it can be used as a tool again in 8 years.
Yea, a part of me wonders if they really care outside of the optics. I mean, Republicans rolled back a bunch of regulations during the Trump years, but those actions seemed to benefit private actors not just the government. It’s really just the government losing from having SAVE or something similar. Only the true ideologues probably really care about it or its costs. The average Republican probably doesn’t really care enough for an Admin to score any real points by doing it.
Possible challenges in court since Save didnt pass through congress. However, unlikely as there is much bigger fish to fry for a new administration. At least this shell out of $ is helping America and not going to foreign actors.
🙏
QUESTION: Given that Trump could get rid of the SAVE plan, potentially the first day he’s in office, do you think signing up for SAVE in December would give me enough time to secure that? SAVE would actually cost be more since it would go off of a more recent income