Student Loans: Borrowers See Balances Surge Despite Forbearance Promise
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Student loan borrowers enrolled in the federal Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan reported unexpected increases in their loan balances, despite government assurances that no interest would accrue during their forbearance period.
Affected individuals saw debts rise by thousands after receiving notices from the loan servicer Mohela indicating continued interest accrual, CNBC reported Monday.
Newsweek has reached out to the Department of Education (ED) for comment via email on Monday.
Why It Matters
The situation has left borrowers—many of whom had relied on policy assurances of an interest-free reprieve—in financial limbo.
The broader significance lies in the destabilizing effect on household budgets and future repayment plans, with the fate of Biden-era relief policies such as SAVE now uncertain and new federal actions ramping up collections on unpaid loans.
What To Know
The ED and Mohela confirmed their policy that interest should remain at 0 percent for borrowers under SAVE administrative forbearance, contradicting communications sent to some borrowers.
"If you recently received an interest notice for your student loan account, please know that this is not a bill, and no action is necessary at this time," Mohela wrote in a notice at the top of its website.
The resulting confusion arrived amid ongoing legal battles and staff cutbacks at the ED, complicating responses for those seeking help over their swelling balances.
"The Biden Administration put a forbearance in place, promising that borrowers enrolled in the SAVE plan wouldn't accrue interest during the forbearance period. But some are now seeing their balances go up—despite that promise," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek.
On Monday, CNBC reported that Mohela, a federal loan servicer, sent borrowers enrolled in the SAVE plan letters warning, "interest continues to accrue on your loan(s) during the forbearance period."
Ellie Bruecker, director of research at The Institute for College Access & Success, told CNBC her student loan balance grew by approximately $3,000 during a year-long reprieve that was supposed to be interest-free.
"I saw those numbers and my eyes bugged out of my head," the 34-year-old told CNBC, adding, "With the level of dysfunction at the Education Department right now, I have a real distrust this is going to get resolved for people.
Other student loan borrowers also got the same message from Mohela and have gone on social media platforms like Reddit seeking answers, CNBC reported.
An ED spokesperson reiterated that the SAVE Plan's forbearance does not accrue interest, a statement supported by Mohela's own website, which sets the interest rate for these borrowers at 0 percent.
Nonetheless, servicing backlogs and miscommunications left many borrowers uncertain of their true balances—and with limited recourse.
"If you're one of these students, you need to reach out to your loan provider immediately," Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. "However, in terms of the overall student loan situation, more clarity is needed from both the government and the providers."
These complications followed legal challenges that halted the SAVE program in July 2024 after lawsuits brought by Republican-led states. As a result, approximately 8 million borrowers have remained in an administrative forbearance that was intended to be interest-free.
The ED faced a severe backlog, with more than 1.98 million income-driven repayment applications pending at the end of April. At current rates, it could take over two years to process the backlog, potentially forcing millions to default or miss repayment opportunities.
The Trump administration's moves to limit repayment options and resume collections on defaulted loans have deepened borrower uncertainty.
A sign is displayed outside of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education building on May 18 in Washington, D.C.
A sign is displayed outside of the Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education building on May 18 in Washington, D.C.What People Are Saying
Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "The Department of Education has been anything but stable. With talk of restructuring or even eliminating the department altogether, morale is low, staff have been cut, and there's a massive backlog of applications. Borrowers are falling through the cracks, plain and simple."
Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "It's yet another sign of real complications in the current student loan system in terms of clarity and consistency. Many borrowers were pleased with the new options meant to lower their payments during the Biden administration. However, with starts and pauses due to legal action, and now a new administration making sweeping changes, many of these same borrowers are growing frustrated, especially when a select few are seeing interest accrue on loans after being promised the plan they were enrolled in would not do so."
What Happens Next?
Borrowers in the SAVE plan forbearance are expected to remain in limbo until court proceedings resolve the program's future or until the ED updates its policies and systems.
In the meantime, affected borrowers have been advised to closely monitor account statements and report discrepancies to their loan servicers.
"The burden is falling squarely on the borrowers. This administration isn't interested in what the last one promised—and they may not honor prior forbearance terms," Thompson said. "Bottom line: These loans are expected to be paid back. No wiggle room. Whether your loan came from a predatory, unaccredited school or a legitimate institution, the message is the same—debt is debt—and the government intends to collect."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
32 minutes ago
- New York Post
Hollywood and Obama should be judged for covering up Joe Biden's frailty
One year ago this month, attendees packed the 7,100 seats inside the Peacock Theater in Los Angeles to watch a parade of A-list celebrities — George Clooney! Julia Roberts! Barbra Streisand! — unite in a common goal: to raise more money for President Biden's re-election campaign than had ever before been tallied for a single fundraising event. By that standard the evening was a smashing success: Over $30 million, a record, was raised. 6 George Clooney, Joe Biden, Julia Roberts and Barack Obama at the Los Angeles fundraiser last June 15th, the beginning of the end of the wide-scale cover-up of Biden's inability to maintain his presidential campaign. X/Chris Jackson 'How important the event was to his re-election bid could be seen,' the Associated Press reported, 'in Biden's decision to fly through the night across nine time zones, from the G7 summit in southern Italy to Southern California, to attend.' Advertisement Nothing was left to chance. Outside the Peacock, riot police ringed the Gaza protesters; inside, the biggest weapon was rolled out. Former President Barack Obama appeared onstage with his old No. 2, the pair of presidents interviewed by the ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. Their recurring theme: A second Trump presidency would ruin America. Obama called the current moment 'a by-product of 2016,' when, he said, 'a whole bunch of folks . . . sat out . . . Hopefully, we have learned our lesson, because these elections matter.' When Roe v. Wade came up, and the audience hissed, Obama scolded them: 'Don't hiss; vote.' 6 Within weeks of the event at the Peacock Theater, Biden would bow out of the campaign, which passed onto Vice President Kamala Harris. AP Still sharp, still charming, the familiar smile still beguiling, the forty-fourth president deployed all his gifts to urge the high rollers at the Peacock — and by extension, all Americans — to support Biden with money and votes: the most precious commodities a civic-minded American can be asked to invest. Advertisement The only problem was: Biden. At the event's end, as he and Obama waved goodbye with Kimmel, the incumbent became catatonic, just as he had five days earlier, at a Juneteenth concert at the White House. His whole body froze, as if immobilized by a science-fiction ray-gun. Obama had to guide his friend, gently but firmly, off the stage. As the Washington Post later reported, the commander-in-chief, keeper of the nuclear option, appeared 'slow . . . frail.' 'Even with Kimmel posing softball questions, and Obama frequently interjecting to provide support,' the story said, 'Biden struggled to explain key parts of his campaign platform, with attendees saying that the president frequently stumbled over his remarks, trailed off or was simply confusing.' 6 Pres. Obama has staked his post-presidential legacy on moral authority, clarity and legitimacy. His role in clouding Biden's health demands that legacy be reconsidered. AP Advertisement By June 27, Biden's disastrous performance in the CNN debate with former President Trump in Atlanta had triggered an open revolt, with leading Democrats and rank-and-file primary voters clamoring for Biden to withdraw from the contest. Throughout the incumbent's long political death-spiral, former President Obama — who had urged Biden against running in 2016 and 2020, worried the older man might 'embarrass himself' — remained silent. In what the Associated Press called 'the most delicate political moment for Democrats since former President Bill Clinton's impeachment,' Obama was seen struggling 'to balance his role as a party elder and an honest broker for Democrats seeking advice while avoiding being seen as betraying his former vice president.' Missing from this depiction was a key group: the American people. In Biden's season of torment, Obama may have deemed it prudent to keep his own counsel; but that doesn't explain his presence at the Peacock Theater in the first place. Could someone as perceptive and politically astute as Obama, a bestselling memoirist and two-time winner of the Electoral College, really have failed to discern Biden's unfitness until the fundraiser? Advertisement 6 Despite being enabled by sycophantic aides — and his Vice President — Biden's deterioration was well-known among much of Washington. Getty Images And even if that were true, why did Obama wait until after the debate, almost two weeks, before taking action to protect the electorate? By July 11, 'Morning Joe' relayed the whispering of top Democrats who believed Obama was 'working behind the scenes to orchestrate' Biden's withdrawal. In short: What took him so long? Barack Obama entered office with a Gallup approval rating of 67% and, after sinking to 40% in 2011, left office with a robust 59%. Polling on former presidents is scant; but Gallup still has Obama at 59%, while a recent YouGov survey lists him at 62%. 6 Following his humiliating defeat to Ronald Reagan in 1980, Jimmy Carter went on to rehabilitate his legacy via ambitious, progressive humanitarian efforts. Getty Images What does it say for a man who, trusted by so many, colluded in a lie to them — that Joe Biden was fit for office — and moreover participated in an enormous transfer of wealth, $30 million in a single evening, to prop up that lie until it became impossible even for the most deluded souls to believe? Rather than use his enduring appeal to force the Democratic Party to do the right thing in mid-2023 — when Biden was still officially mulling whether to seek re-election — Obama held his tongue and hoped for the best. For the winner of the 2017 Profile in Courage Award, the crucible of 2024 was not a Profile in Courage moment. 6 Biden and Obama on that fateful Peacock Theater stage last June, which raised $30 million. AP Advertisement Obama's historical legacy won't rest entirely on the arc and perceptions of his presidency. His actions since 2017 matter, too; and in covering for Biden for so long, Obama displayed a contempt for our democracy, and his own party, unbefitting of a two-term president. Jimmy Carter's post-presidency helped lift his standing in history. For Barack Obama, at least so far, the narrative runs in the other direction. James Rosen is chief Washington correspondent at Newsmax and the author, most recently, of 'Scalia: Rise to Greatness, 1936-1986.'
CNBC
4 hours ago
- CNBC
The lookahead: What next after U.S. strikes on Iran and Europe's 5% defense problem
After a week of global market jitters, the reaction to U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities will be front and center over the coming days. Meanwhile, a trio of heavyweight events could also shape the economic and geopolitical mood. From NATO tensions in The Hague to trade talks in Tianjin and industrial optimism in Berlin — investors will be watching closely. Addressing the nation on Saturday evening, U.S. President Donald Trump said strikes on three of Iran's nuclear sites were a "spectacular military success" that "completely obliterated" the country's major enrichment facilities. The strikes, which mark the first time the U.S. has conducted a direct military attack on Iran, mark a dramatic escalation in geopolitical tensions. Trump's claim about the result of the operation could not be independently confirmed. Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi slammed the U.S. strikes, describing them as "outrageous" and saying the country "reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people." Global investors will be scrambling to assess the fallout. NATO meetings with Trump in attendance have a history of being dramatic. Back in 2017, the White House leader consistently questioned America's commitment to the alliance, and accused other members of owing "massive amounts of money" to the overall share of defense spending. Fast forward to 2025 and the next NATO Leaders Summit with Trump is set to take place in The Hague, the Netherlands on Wednesday. Some problems are familiar – while defense spending has increased dramatically across Europe, countries like Spain risk derailing talks by calling the 5% of GDP target "unreasonable." In addition, the war in Ukraine rages on. Meanwhile other problems are new – hostilities are rising between Israel and Iran, alongside other neighbors in the Middle East, are testing international relations to the limit. U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whittaker, told CNBC's "Squawk Box Europe" that the region should not expect a free ride from the U.S. on defense spending, as "the 5% target is not a negotiating tactic." On the other side of the world, the Chinese city of Tianjin plays host to the World Economic Forum's Meeting of New Champions running from Tuesday to Thursday, also known as the Summer Davos. Technology dominates the agenda at a tricky time for relations between China and the West, as trade negotiations with the U.S. are still on-going. Trump may have bought more time for TikTok, extending the deadline for China's ByteDance to divest the social media platform's U.S. business to September, but the latest round of trade talks in London led to a vague stand-off between the two superpowers, with no official readout. Speaking to CNBC right after those negotiations, U.S .Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was asked if current tariffs on China would not shift again, to which he replied, "you can definitely say that." But this may do little to ease the conversations between Chinese officials and corporates in Tianjin, and the international delegates in attendance, who will be looking for more certainty from both the White House and Beijing. Closer to home, it's the Day of Industry conference in Germany on Monday and Tuesday. This annual meeting in Berlin highlights German economic policy and global trade strategies. It could be a good time for the new government to be touting Europe's so-called Engine of Growth, with four economic institutes raising their 2025 and 2026 GDP growth forecasts for Europe's largest economy. During a recent trip to Washington DC, Chancellor Friedrich Merz dodged the ire that other world leaders have faced in the Oval Office, with Trump's focus mostly dominated by his public spat with Elon Musk. But it's not all clear roads ahead for Germany, as the country's auto industry body reports that domestic auto-makers have shouldered around 500 million euros ($576.1 million) in costs associated with Trump's import tariffs.
Atlantic
5 hours ago
- Atlantic
The Only Iran Hawk Is Trump
By carrying out air-strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites last night, Donald Trump showed the fundamental error of American political ornithology: There have never been Iran hawks and Iran doves. There have been only doves. Every prior U.S. president, including Trump himself, has refrained from attacking Iranian territory, even in response to killings and attempted killings of Americans, not only abroad but also on American soil. Whether this dovish approach was wise is debatable; that it was anomalous among American policies toward hostile countries is not. Imagine if Venezuela relentlessly plotted to kill Americans, in locations around the world—and tried to acquire a weapon that would safeguard its campaign of violence for generations to come. Other countries have not been so bold as Iran, and if they had been, the response might have looked like what Iran saw last night in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. At a press conference, Trump said the nuclear sites were 'completely and totally obliterated.' Also beyond debate are the results of that dovish policy, up to yesterday. Some of those results were positive. The United States and Iran were not at war, and American forces in the Middle East were not all at high alert for reprisals. But Iran had gone metastatic. It had, with impunity, set up armed proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Gaza, and Iraq, and less overt forces around the world. What other country does this? What other country does this without rebuke? The best argument against attacking Iran's nuclear program has always been that the attack will not work—that it would at best set the program back, rather than end it, and that Tehran would respond by building back better, in a deeper bunker and with greater stealth. An enrichment facility capable of producing a nuclear weapon need not be large, perhaps with the size and power needs of a Costco or two. The Obama-era nuclear deal secured unprecedented access for monitoring Iran's known nuclear sites. The demolition of those sites means that any future ones will be unmonitored, remaining a secret from outsiders for years, like China's was. Think of the cavernous chemistry lab built below the laundry-processing plant in Breaking Bad, but churning out uranium-235, not blue meth. If any other country is thinking about going nuclear, it will learn the lesson of last night and start with the Breaking Bad approach, or better yet scrap its plans completely. From the perspective of nonproliferation, Trump's strikes could be good news, in the obvious sense that countries that desire nuclear weapons now have more reason to think their centrifuges will be destroyed before they produce enough material for a bomb. Up to now, most countries that have persevered have eventually succeeded in going nuclear. The most notable counterexamples were Iraq, whose so-called 'nuclear mujahedin' (as Saddam Hussein later called them) had their enrichment plant at Osirak bombed by Israel in 1981; and Syria, which built a secret plutonium-producing nuclear reactor only to have it destroyed, again by Israel, in 2007. If the strikes last night worked (and it is far too early for anyone, including Trump, to say), Iran will join the small club of nations whose nuclear ambitions have been thwarted by force. 'There will be either peace,' Trump said at his press conference last night, 'or far greater tragedy for Iran.' What might peace and its alternatives look like? Trump did not say, as the Iran dove George W. Bush might have, that peace is conditional on the overthrow of Iran's theocracy. Trump has always seemed open to Iran's continued rule by any authoritarian or scumbag or religious nut who is willing to keep to himself and maybe allow the Trump family to open a hotel someday. So peace could conceivably still take many forms, some of which will disappoint Iranian democrats and secularists. The alternative to peace, which Trump promises will draw such a tragic reply, can take both immediate and longer-term forms. The immediate form is continued Iranian strikes against Israel and the expansion of those attacks to include U.S. bases in the region. (The logic of international law, for what little it is worth, would seem to permit retaliation against military targets—but not hospitals, apartment buildings, or other civilian infrastructure—of both Israel and the United States.) It would at this point be foolhardy for Iran to increase such attacks, rather than ending them or tapering them off. But no one familiar with Iran's history would expect it to limit its reply to conventional strikes, or to prefer them to the irregular forms of attack that it has practiced avidly for more than 40 years. A barrage of ballistic missiles, the regime understands, may invite a tragedy for Iran. But what about the mysterious disappearance of an American from the streets of Dubai, Bahrain, or Prague? Or the blowing up of a hostel full of Israelis in Bangkok? Or cutting the brakes of some American or Israeli diplomat's car in Baku? Small acts of harassment, such as these, force Iran's enemies to make hard choices about how to retaliate. The difficulty of those choices are part of the reason for past presidents' consistent reluctance to attack Iran. Do you attack Iran after the death of one U.S. Marine? How about two? How much proof of Iranian involvement in a diplomat's car crash will it take to trigger a renewed state of war? Iran's history suggests that under normal circumstances, it knows the level of provocation that will keep an American president from responding with direct force. Its estimations seem to have failed it for Trump (and Benjamin Netanyahu), but in the past and in the future, one can expect that it will, like a niggling spouse from hell, know the precise limits of its adversaries' patience. The point of the prolonged pressure, staying a smidge under the threshold of renewed hostility, is to drive Iran's adversaries mad, to tire them out, and to convince them to leave the region out of sheer stress and weariness. Ironically Trump's foreign policy is, or was until yesterday, proof that this strategy is effective. Trump came to power as an isolationist in trade and a bring 'em home skeptic of U.S. military action abroad. In his first term he fired John Bolton, a tireless advocate of regime change. In his second he appointed Tulsi Gabbard, high priestess of weary isolationism, as a top adviser. Trump said that he would escalate American attacks 'if peace does not come quickly.' It is possible that peace will come quickly, and Iran's government will survive in humiliated form. It is also possible, under those circumstances, that the peace that comes quickly will again be illusory, and Iran will revert to tactics short of war, so it can wait out Trump's term, and let another dove take his place. In that case, the Middle East and beyond will be a scarier place to be an American than it was a few days ago.
