Student loan cuts ahead? Here is what the US Senate's plan could mean for college affordability

The U.S. Senate has introduced a new proposal that could dramatically reshape how students and families pay for college. As part of the higher education section of President Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' lawmakers aim to cap how much can be borrowed through federal student loans and reduce the number of repayment options.
These changes, while slightly less aggressive than an earlier House version, still represent a significant shift in student aid policy.
For undergraduates, graduate students, and parents, this could mean reassessing how to finance education or even reconsidering which schools to attend. Understanding what's in this bill is essential for students looking to make informed financial decisions about college in the coming years.
Lower federal loan limits
One of the most notable proposals in the Senate bill is the introduction of stricter caps on how much students can borrow. While undergraduates would still be eligible for both subsidized and unsubsidized federal loans, graduate students and parents would see a reduction in the total amount they can access.
Unlike the House version, the Senate's proposal retains subsidized loans, which cover interest while the student is in school.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Switch to UnionBank Rewards Card
UnionBank Credit Card
Apply Now
Undo
However, the overall borrowing ceiling would be lowered, especially for graduate-level education and for federal PLUS loans taken out by parents. This could limit the financial flexibility of families who rely heavily on federal aid to cover tuition and living costs.
Students aiming for expensive professional degrees or relying on parent loans may now face shortfalls that were previously covered by federal borrowing.
These students might have to explore private loans or consider part-time study, alternative institutions, or delayed enrollment.
Risks of shifting to private lending
Tighter limits on federal loans may lead more students and families to turn to private lenders to bridge the gap. Unlike federal loans, private student loans generally lack key protections such as income-driven repayment plans, deferment options, and forgiveness programs.
This shift could expose students to more rigid repayment terms, variable interest rates, and fewer safety nets in times of financial hardship.
Those without strong credit histories or co-signers might also struggle to secure private financing altogether.
At the same time, with fewer repayment plan choices under the new bill—only two federal repayment options would remain—students would lose the flexibility offered by current systems like the SAVE plan. For many, this could increase monthly payments or extend the life of their loans.
What this means for future borrowers
For students planning their academic futures, this proposed legislation means careful financial planning will become even more important.
Changes to borrowing limits could make some institutions less affordable or shift the balance toward more cost-conscious choices such as in-state public universities or community colleges.
Students may also need to be more proactive in seeking scholarships, applying early for federal and institutional aid, and comparing total costs of attendance across different schools. Understanding the long-term impact of borrowing less—or turning to private loans—will be critical in maintaining financial stability post-graduation.
Those pursuing graduate or professional education may need to adjust their timelines, explore alternative funding sources, or reconsider program choices based on the new financial realities.
While the Senate version of the bill is less severe than the House's earlier draft, it still signals a major overhaul in how college is financed in the United States. Many of these proposals could still be altered during the legislative process, but the direction is clear: federal support for student borrowing is tightening.
As the bill moves through Congress, students and families should stay informed and engaged. Whether you're applying for college, currently enrolled, or planning for graduate school, understanding these potential changes will be essential for making smart, sustainable choices.
Is your child ready for the careers of tomorrow? Enroll now and take advantage of our early bird offer! Spaces are limited.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

First Post

26 minutes ago

• First Post

Why Donald Trump is desperate to win Nobel Peace Prize

Donald Trump has once again ranted about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. In a long post on Truth Social, he listed a number of reasons why he deserves it. Now, Islamabad has nominated him for the honour for his 'decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis'. But why does the US president long for the validation of the prize so much? read more US President Donald Trump has once again complained about not getting the Nobel Peace Prize. AP United States President Donald Trump has made no bones about coveting a Nobel Peace Prize. He brought up the award again while reiterating his claim of ending hostilities between India and Pakistan — an assertion rejected by New Delhi. Trump has mentioned the Nobel Peace Prize dozens of times publicly, be it in his speeches, interviews or campaign rallies. After failing to get the award in his first term, his obsession with the prestigious award has returned. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But why does Trump desire the Nobel Peace Prize so strongly? We will take a look. Trump says 'won't get Nobel Peace Prize' US President Donald Trump reiterated his claims of brokering a peace deal between India and Pakistan, griping he would not get a Nobel Peace Prize for 'stopping' the 'war' between the two South Asian neighbours. In a long post on his Truth Social platform on Friday (June 20), the Republican leader mentioned the prestigious award six times. He listed a variety of reasons why he should get the award. The Republican leader complained he would not get the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in the Russia-Ukraine or Israel-Iran conflicts. 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize, no matter what I do,' Trump said in his post. The US President began the post saying he was 'very happy' to report that he, along with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, has arranged a 'wonderful treaty between Congo and Rwanda, in their war, which was known for violent bloodshed and death, more so even than most other Wars, and has gone on for decades.' He went on to say that representatives from Rwanda and Congo will be in Washington on Monday to sign documents, adding that this was a 'Great Day for Africa and, quite frankly, a Great Day for the World!' Donald J. Trump Truth Social 06.20.25 05:58 PM EST — Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) June 20, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump said he 'won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between India and Pakistan, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for stopping the War between Serbia and Kosovo, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for keeping Peace between Egypt and Ethiopia.' The US president has claimed multiple times that he halted the 'war between India and Pakistan' . New Delhi has, however, maintained that an understanding to cease fire with Pakistan was reached after direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two militaries. Trump then said that he 'won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for doing the Abraham Accords' in West Asia, which, 'if all goes well, will be loaded to the brim with additional countries signing on, and will 'unify' West Asia 'for the first time in 'The Ages!'' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Abraham Accords, signed during Trump's first term at the White House, are landmark agreements to establish ties between Israel and four Arab countries. Trump ended his post with: 'No, I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that's all that matters to me!' Trump's obsession with Nobel Peace Prize This is not the first time that Trump has lamented not winning the Nobel Peace Prize. He has spoken about it several times, and as per New York Times (NYT), complained 'publicly and privately' about not getting it for nearly a decade. As Trump pushes for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine and a peace deal in West Asia, the 'award is looming large in his mind', the American newspaper reported, citing current and former advisers. At an Oval Office meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in February, the US president said: 'They will never give me a Nobel Peace Prize.' 'It's too bad. I deserve it, but they will never give it to me,' he added. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump has been nominated many times for the Nobel Peace Prize. A wide variety of people can nominate someone for the honour. Last year, Congresswoman Claudia Tenney, a Republican from New York, nominated him for brokering the Abraham Accords. Norwegian politician Christian Tybring-Gjedde and a Swedish political figure, Magnus Jacobsson, nominated Trump during his first term. But the esteemed prize evaded the US president. Trump has been nominated once again. In February, Anat Alon-Beck, an Israeli-born professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, submitted a letter to the Nobel committee, arguing that Trump should get the award for his early work on securing a peace deal in West Asia. 'By securing the release of hostages, standing firm against antisemitism, and fostering historic agreements that bring stability to the world's most volatile regions, [Trump] has once again demonstrated why he is a deserving recipient,' Alon-Beck wrote, as per Axios. The Trump administration officials have also rallied behind the US president in his quest for the prestigious prize, which is decided by the Nobel Committee – appointed by Norway's parliament. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The Nobel Peace Prize is illegitimate if President Trump — the ultimate peace president — is denied his rightful recognition of bringing harmony across the world,' Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, said in a statement earlier. Speaking to Fox News in February, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Trump deserves a Nobel for his efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine war. 'If it were fairly awarded, I think in a year, he should get it from what I've seen,' he said. US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and New York Representative Elise Stefanik have also advocated for Trump winning the Nobel. Meanwhile, Pakistan has nominated Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize 'in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis'. 'At a moment of heightened regional turbulence, President Trump demonstrated great strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship through robust diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi which de-escalated a rapidly deteriorating situation, ultimately securing a ceasefire and averting a broader conflict between the two nuclear states that would have had catastrophic consequences for millions of people in the region and beyond', a statement by Pakistan on Saturday (June 21) claimed. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The announcement came just days after the US president hosted Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir at the White House for lunch. Islamabad has parroted Trump's claim that he 'helped settle' the hostilities between the neighbours. ALSO READ: Not so Noble: How the Nobel Prize has become the most controversial award ever Why is Trump pushing for the Nobel Peace Prize? Trump's obsession with the Nobel Peace Prize may have to do with former US President Barack Obama, who had won the award less than nine months after taking office in 2009. Obama, who was a highly controversial choice, got the prize for his 'extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples'. Trump has criticised the Nobel committee for picking Obama for the award. In 2019, the Republican leader said he should get the prize 'for a lot of things, if they gave it out fairly — which they don't. They gave one to Obama immediately upon his ascent to the presidency, and he had no idea why he got it. … That was the only thing I agreed with him on.' Towards the end of his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly brought up Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, ranting that he did not deserve the award. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'If I were named Obama, I would have had the Nobel Prize given to me in 10 seconds,' he said. John Bolton, who was ousted by Trump as his national security adviser in 2019, told NYT, 'The centre of his public life is the greater glory of Donald Trump, and the Nobel Peace Prize would be a nice thing to hang on the wall.' 'He saw that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and felt if Obama got it for not doing anything, why should he not get it?' he said of the US president. While Trump longs for the validation of the Nobel Peace Prize, critics say he does not deserve it, as there is no guarantee he will achieve a lasting peace between Russia and Ukraine or in West Asia. They also accuse the US president of aligning himself with aggressors. With inputs from agencies

Time of India

36 minutes ago

• Time of India

Man shares brutal rejection from HR: ‘You live too far'—Internet is outraged

In a viral Reddit post, a man shared his rejection story—which will shock you. The new corporate excuse for rejection? 'You live far.' Seriously! This was the HR's reply to the person. The job market is already a joke—and now this? This person shared his experience, and many say it reveals the hiring truth that has become all too common: blame the candidate's commute, not the company or the role they're offering. The original poster shared his first in-person interview experience after completing all the online formalities. Despite the company assuring him that location would not be an issue, things quickly went sideways. The story: The questions started with 'How far do you live?' and implied that the commute was a major drawback—even though the person clearly said he was okay with the travel. At one point, the recruiter even asked if his past hires from the same city had 'left the company after probation due to their travel issues.' On top of all this, HR might have even suggested how toxic the workplace can be and that it's not conducive to weaklings—saying, 'We need people who are upfront. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Sciatica & Back Pain? Try This New Breakthrough Device Glokore Learn More Undo ' As soon as he got home, he received an email from the same HR, saying they would not be moving forward with his application due to concerns about commute—questioning whether he was a good fit for their fast-paced and collaborative work culture. Of course, this thread struck a nerve! This is a sheer lack of professionalism. Users on Reddit responded with sharp critiques: 'It sounds like they want everybody to live close, so they can be in the office 5 days a week.' Others pointed out, 'If I had been talking to the recruiter, I could have explained in minutes.' 'I am quite sure she didn't even look at my assignment; her judgment was solely based on my location and assumptions about 'fit.'' This might just be the sad reality for many—something we overlook every day. Does this post have a larger connotation? Commute concerns can mask deeper red flags, like a rigid attendance policy or a problematic culture. This is absolute pressure! Even if the role is remote-capable, does living near the office really decide your future? The 'You live far' post has now become a euphemism for 'You are not hired,' 'You are not wanted'—hurting many talented young individuals. In the end, all the person had to say is, 'He is happy that he is not going to be a part of this toxic place."

Time of India

44 minutes ago

• Time of India

Japan scraps US meeting after Washington demands more defense spending: FT reports

Japan called off a key meeting with the United States. This followed a demand from the Trump administration. The US wanted Japan to significantly increase its defense spending. The request was higher than previous expectations. This development occurred before crucial upper house elections in Japan. It also precedes a NATO meeting where similar spending demands are anticipated from European allies. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Japan has canceled an annual high-level meeting with key ally the United States after the Trump administration demanded it spend more on defense , the Financial Times reported on of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth had been expected to meet Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya and Defense Minister Gen Nakatani in Washington on July 1 for the yearly 2+2 security Tokyo scrapped the meeting after the U.S. asked Japan to boost defense spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product, higher than an earlier request of 3%, the newspaper said, citing unnamed sources familiar with the Nikkei newspaper reported on Saturday that President Donald Trump 's administration was demanding that its Asian allies, including Japan, spend 5% of GDP on defense.A Japanese foreign ministry official, who asked not to be named, told Reuters on Saturday that Japan and the U.S. have never discussed 3.5% or 5% targets for defense spending. The official also said he had no information about the FT is generally difficult to coordinate such four-way meetings, especially as Hegseth is busy with the crisis in the Middle East, he said.A U.S. official who asked not to be identified told Reuters that Japan had "postponed" the talks in a decision made several weeks ago. The official did not cite a reason. A non-government source familiar with the issue said he had also heard Japan had pulled out of the meeting but not the reason for it doing Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said she had no comment on the FT report when asked about it at a regular briefing. The Pentagon also had no immediate embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment. The nation's defense ministry and the Prime Minister's Office did not answer phone calls seeking comment outside business hours on FT said the higher spending demand was made in recent weeks by Elbridge Colby, the third-most senior Pentagon official, who has also recently upset another key U.S. ally in the Indo-Pacific by launching a review of a project to provide Australia with nuclear-powered March, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said that other nations do not decide Japan's defense budget, after Colby called for Tokyo to spend more to counter China in his nomination hearing to be under secretary of defense for and other U.S. allies have been engaged in difficult trade talks with the United States over President Trump's worldwide tariff FT said the decision to cancel the July 1 meeting was also related to Japan's July 20 upper house elections, expected to be a major test for Ishiba's minority coalition move on the 2+2 comes ahead of a meeting of the U.S.-led NATO alliance in Europe next week, at which Trump is expected to press his demand that European allies boost their defense spending to 5% of GDP.