Trump's tax bill makes big changes to student loans and financial aid

Lower loan limits. Fewer repayment options. A 30-year path to forgiveness. New Pell restrictions.
Those are among the major changes coming to the federal student lending program under measures Republicans included in their sweeping tax and budget bill that passed the House early Thursday.
The legislation is designed to rationalize the government's famously convoluted education loan program while saving around $351 billion. Unlike the current system, the overhaul would require pretty much every borrower — including the lowest earners — to at least make small payments toward their loans, and they would have a narrower chance of getting their debt canceled.
"It's no secret that colleges have exploited the availability of uncapped federal lending and generous forgiveness programs to raise prices rather than improve access and affordability,' Rep. Tim Walberg, who chairs the Education and Workforce Committee, said at an April 29 hearing. 'Streamlining loan options as done in this bill will increase affordability for students and families as well as curtail the extent to which schools use taxpayer dollars to line their pocketbooks by loading students up with debt they can't repay.'
But some outside experts have suggested that the reforms, including a complicated new system for determining how much students can receive in aid each year, could end up making aspects of the loan program more confusing for families, while also limiting access to federal aid for many lower-income students.
Here are the key things to know.
The student loan program has become notorious for its baffling array of repayment plans, which have accumulated over time as previous administrations have stacked new, more generous options atop one another. Those choices have been made messier by federal court rulings that blocked all or parts of some plans over the past year. President Biden's SAVE plan, for instance, is entirely on hold, as are the loan forgiveness features of Pay As You Earn and its successor, REPAYE.
The GOP bill would prune the system to just a pair of options — one standard plan, and one linked to income — both designed to make monthly payments manageable for borrowers.
The new standard plan would still require fixed monthly payments. But instead of automatically being placed on a 10-year repayment schedule, like in today's program, former students would have between 10 and 25 years to pay down their debts depending on how much they borrowed — similar to how federal consolidation loans work today.
Read more: Can you change your student loan repayment plan?
Meanwhile, the alphabet soup of plans that currently set payments based on a borrower's income — ICR, IBR, PAYE, REPAYE, and SAVE — would be slimmed down to a single option. The new Repayment Assistance Plan will require participants to pay between 1% and 10% of their income toward their loans, with higher earners owing more.
Notably, the bill would ban the Secretary of Education from modifying the two new plans, so a future president couldn't make their terms more lenient.
'I'd say this step toward simplification is a massive improvement when it comes to making these programs understandable to the general public,' said Beth Akers, an education expert at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute.
The new Repayment Assistance plan is in some ways less generous than some of the options that have been available until recently. For instance, current income-driven plans drop monthly payments to $0 per month for the lowest earners. The new proposal would require a minimum $10 monthly payment. Instead of forgiveness after 20 or 25 years, the new plan would require 360 on-time payments, or essentially 30 years.
Read more: How to apply for IDR forgiveness
The reforms also eliminate subsidized loans, which don't begin charging interest until repayment begins, as well as forbearance and deferments for unemployment and economic hardship.
Still, the new income-linked plan would have some borrower-friendly features. For instance, the government would waive unpaid interest each month instead of adding it back to a borrower's balance, as long as enrollees make their minimum payment. It would also offer matching principal payments of up to $50 a month and make payments lower for parents.
The bill would not change the way interest rates are calculated.
There's at least one quirk of the Repayment Assistance Plan that could frustrate a few participants. Because of the way payments increase with income, there's a chance some borrowers may end up losing money if they get a small raise, because their payment could theoretically go up more than their earnings — the sort of phenomenon income tax brackets, for instance, are designed to avoid.
A spokeswoman for the Education and Workforce Committee suggested that borrowers in that situation wouldn't necessarily be losing money, since they'd save on interest by paying their loans faster.
What about borrowers who already have loans? Some could end up with higher monthly payments. The proposal would terminate SAVE, PAYE, and REPAYE and transfer them into the existing Income-Based Repayment plan, with monthly payments set at 15% of discretionary income, and offer forgiveness after 20 years for undergraduate debt and 25 years for graduate student loans. PAYE and REPAYE had offered monthly payments at 10% of discretionary income.
Under the new program, many Americans would be able to borrow significantly less for school. For undergraduates, the lifetime Stafford Loan limit would be set at $50,000, higher than the current $31,000 cap for dependent students, but lower than the $57,000 cap for those who are independent. At the same time, Parent PLUS loans, which today are uncapped, would max out at $50,000 per parent across all of their children.
Grad PLUS loans, which allowed unlimited borrowing for advanced degree programs, are getting the ax entirely. Instead, borrowers will be limited to $100,000 in loans for graduate programs and $150,000 for professional programs. The caps are meant to tamp down on rampant tuition inflation and prevent overborrowing, but some experts are concerned they will simply push some students toward private lenders, especially in fields like law and medicine, who charge higher interest rates and offer fewer protections.
'It sounds like a massive play to increase the private student loan market,' said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of The Century Foundation and a former Department of Education official under the Biden administration.
There are major changes in store for how financial aid eligibility is calculated. Today, that math is based on the cost of attending the school where the student intends to enroll. Under the rule Republicans have proposed, each student's aid would be based on the median cost of attending a similar program of study nationally. So the aid for an engineering major at MIT would be based on the cost of engineering programs across the country, for instance.
The measure is being pitched as a way to help students pick lower-cost programs.
"The opaque tuition pricing model used today by colleges and universities is extremely confusing to borrowers and plays a large part in high costs,' said an Education and Workforce Committee spokeswoman. They added that the new aid formula is designed to help students 'be more informed consumers when comparing programs at different institutions.'
But some experts told Yahoo Finance that they were baffled by how the system would function in practice, or what it would mean for the typical student's aid package. It's also unclear if the Department of Education has the data collection capability to manage such a new system, since its statistics team has been cut down to three employees as part of recent layoffs.
'I have no idea what it's going to do,' said Rachel Fishman, director of higher education at the think tank New America. 'I don't think anybody understands what it is going to do.'
The Pell Grant program, which provides aid to low- and moderate-income households, would also see an overhaul.
Some of the changes would limit access for part-time students. For instance, undergrads would need to be enrolled at least half-time to qualify for any aid and would have to take a full course load of at least 15 credits per semester to receive a maximum grant, instead of the current 12 credits.
At the same time, the GOP would make more short-term certificate courses that offer vocational training for workers like truck drivers and nursing assistants Pell-eligible, by lowering the minimum length of a program to 8 weeks from the current 15.
Fishman said she was worried that the combined changes would lead to more 'stratification' in higher education.
'We're taking away your ability to get a bachelor's if you're working on the side, but if you want to get a short-term credential to get a really low-paying job, go ahead,' she said.
One thing that won't be getting a huge overhaul: The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which cancels the remaining debt for nonprofit and government employees after they make 10 years of payments.
The program has long been a target for conservatives — the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 advocated for eliminating it. But the GOP's bill only makes one change: Payments by medical and dental residents wouldn't qualify for forgiveness.
Read more: How to apply for Public Service Loan Forgiveness
One of the biggest changes to the lending program would be aimed at colleges themselves. The bill includes a 'skin-in-the-game' provision that would essentially put schools on the hook for paying back a portion of their students' loans if they miss payments and potentially cut them off from federal aid programs entirely.
The idea, which has been discussed in Washington policy circles for some time, is intended to create more accountability in higher education without singling out for-profit colleges. But some critics worry that it could disincentivize colleges from enrolling lower-income students, who are at higher risk of failing to pay back their loans.
Partly to prevent that, the bill includes a new grant program for colleges that gives them more funding based on a formula that rewards enrolling and graduating lower-income students. To qualify, the colleges would have to offer students a guaranteed maximum price to complete their degree when they first enroll.
Still, lobbying associations that represent universities are unhappy with the potential for new penalties, arguing in a recent letter that they would create 'enormous negative consequences' that 'unduly penalize the very institutions serving the largest numbers of those students who struggle most in the labor market: low income, first generation, and underrepresented student populations.'
Jordan Weissmann is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance.
Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Newsweek

24 minutes ago

• Newsweek

War Powers Act Explained as Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna Push House Resolution

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. A bipartisan group of House lawmakers, led by Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna of California introduced a War Powers Resolution Tuesday, just days before President Donald Trump authorized a military strike on three key nuclear facilities in Iran. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit the president's ability to commit U.S. armed forces to hostilities abroad without Congressional consent. The current legislative push invokes the act's provisions and highlights persistent congressional frustration over what many see as executive overreach in the deployment of military force. Khanna called for Congress to return to Washington, D.C., to vote on the measure, which he said Sunday had up to 50 co-sponsors across both parties. Why It Matters The House resolution spotlights a critical debate over constitutional war powers at a moment when U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts risks escalation. Lawmakers are seeking to reinforce Congress's authority to declare war amid rising tensions between Iran and Israel and amid U.S. military actions that, according to critics, may exceed presidential powers. The House initiative mirrors concurrent moves in the Senate, where Democratic Virginia Senator Tim Kaine and others have advanced parallel resolutions to restrict executive military action in Iran without legislative consent. This legislative surge reflects mounting concerns about the scope and legality of recent U.S. military activity abroad. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. United States Capitol Building, Washington DC, October 27, 2024. Getty What To Know Massie introduced the War Powers Resolution on Tuesday, emphasizing that the U.S. Constitution vests the power to declare war with Congress, not the President. Massie invited participation from lawmakers across the aisle, underscoring bipartisan concern about unauthorized military actions, Newsweek previously reported. Khanna quickly co-sponsored the measure and publicly called for Congress to reconvene and vote. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution," Khanna said in a press release. "Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," Khanna said. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." "Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace," Rep. Khanna concluded. The resolution has garnered support from 50 House members, including Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Pramila Jayapal. The list remains heavily Democrat, though more Republicans may break with the party in the coming days as the aftermath of Trump's military strikes continue to play out. What People Are Saying Rep. Ro Khanna, Democrat of California, said in an official statement "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk. Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation. Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace." President Donald Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, in part: "Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes "NO," no matter how good something may be. He's a simple minded "grandstander" who thinks it's good politics for Iran to have the highest level Nuclear weapon, while at the same time yelling "DEATH TO AMERICA" at every chance they get." What Happens Next The House War Powers Resolution is scheduled for a mandatory floor vote within 15 days under the chamber's rules. Parallel debates are ongoing in the Senate. As U.S. lawmakers weigh the resolution, the outcome may set new precedents for executive military authority and the balance of war powers between Congress and the White House.

Newsweek

34 minutes ago

• Newsweek

Map Shows US Military Presence in Middle East as Iran Weighs Retaliation

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. Following U.S. airstrikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran on Saturday night, the Islamic Republic is weighing its response, which, among other options, could include targeting American assets in the region. Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi on Sunday condemned the strikes, warning they would have "everlasting consequences," and said Iran reserves "all options to defend its sovereignty, interests and people." Why It Matters Tehran's reaction to the U.S. bombing and joining Israel in its war against Iran, will be critical for determining whether it leads to a major regional or international conflict. Its options are widely considered to include retaliation against U.S. forces in the region as well as choking a major global oil supply route, the Strait of Hormuz. Trump on Saturday evening announced what he described as a "very successful attack" against three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan The president's decision came after Israel and Iran have exchanged consistent strikes since June 13. Israel had urged the U.S. to target Iran's nuclear facilities, saying Tehran was moving close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons. The U.S. is Israel's closest ally and provides billions of dollars in military aid each year. The strikes, meanwhile, have also sparked concerns from some Democrats and some Republicans about a wider war breaking out—with some lawmakers accusing the president of violating the U.S. Constitution with the strikes. Elsewhere in the Middle East, the U.S. maintains some strategic military bases, as well as partnerships and temporary presence across several countries. What To Know Called "Operation Midnight Hammer," Saturday's strikes on the three Iranian nuclear sites mark the first direct involvement of America in the escalating war between Iran and Israel. The U.S. dropped over dozen Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs, using its stealth B-2 bombers to strike Fordow. President Donald Trump has warned of further military action if Iran does not now pursue peace. He had previously threatened to attack if Iran did not agree through negotiations to curb its nuclear program, which the U.S. and Israel say is aimed at building nuclear weapons—something Iran denies. Israel welcomed and applauded Trump's involvement. Over the past two decades, the U.S. military has maintained a significant presence across the Middle East, with major operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and deployments throughout the region for training, counterterrorism, and strategic support. While several countries support U.S. military operations through personnel transfers and joint activities, the U.S. also maintains larger, formal military bases in Bahrain, Djibouti and Qatar. In addition, the U.S. has bases in Turkey. In addition, there are a number of embassies in the region, notably none in Iran, Syria, and Yemen. Shahram Akbarzadeh, director of the Middle East Studies Forum of Australia's Deakin University, told Reuters following the strikes that the U.S. "has made itself a legitimate target of Iranian retaliation." Military personnel and equipment have been moving into the region over the past few days, with reports of the U.S. sending largest military aircraft in the world, C-5m Super Galaxy, to Saudi Arabia. Multiple destroyers are positioned in the nearby seas. The Pentagon declined to provide any comment to Newsweek. In this Sunday, Jan. 24, 2016 file photo, Iraqi soldiers participate in a training exercise with American and Spanish trainers, which includes live ammunition, at Basmaya base, 40 kilometers southeast of Baghdad, Iraq. In this Sunday, Jan. 24, 2016 file photo, Iraqi soldiers participate in a training exercise with American and Spanish trainers, which includes live ammunition, at Basmaya base, 40 kilometers southeast of Baghdad, Iraq. AP Photo/Karim Kadim What People Are Saying President Donald Trump: "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace." He added: "Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal." Iranian Foreign Ministry on Sunday: "The war-mongering and lawless regime of the United States of America is held fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far-reaching implications of this egregious act of aggression and heinous crime." The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI): "It is unfortunate that this action—clearly against international law—has taken place with the indifference and, in some cases, complicity of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran assures the noble Iranian nation that, despite the enemies' evil conspiracies, it will not allow the peaceful development of this national industry—born from the blood of nuclear martyrs—to be derailed." What Happens Next? Iran, led by Supreme Leader Ali Ayatollah Khamenei, must decide on the country's response, ranging from possible retaliation to negotiations. The Iranian Parliament has voted to in support of closing the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most critical oil transit chokepoints, according to media reports. Any final decision on retaliation, however, is up to Khamenei.

Miami Herald

an hour ago

• Miami Herald

Full List of Congress Members Backing War Powers Resolution Against Trump

Representatives Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, introduced a bipartisan House resolution last week in a bid to curb President Donald Trump's ability to escalate tensions with Iran. After the U.S. military carried out strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday, Massie told CNN that he believed the resolution would have enough co-sponsors to "be able to force a vote unless [House Speaker Mike] Johnson pulls some shenanigans." Trump on Saturday evening announced what he described as a "very successful attack" against three Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan The president's decision came after Israel and Iran have exchanged consistent strikes since June 13. Israel had urged the U.S. to target Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that Tehran was moving close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes—not for weapons. The strikes have sparked concerns from some Democrats and some Republicans about a wider war breaking out—with some lawmakers accusing the president of violating the U.S. Constitution with the strikes. Massie and Khanna introduced their War Powers Resolution in an effort to prohibit U.S. military involvement in Iran last Tuesday, amid the backdrop of escalating tensions with Iran. "The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn't attacked the United States," Massie said in a press release announcing the resolution. "Congress has the sole power to declare war against Iran. The ongoing war between Israel and Iran is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution." Khanna shared similar concerns in a statement emailed to Newsweek on Sunday after the strikes on Iran moved forward. "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," the congressman said. "Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, introduced companion legislation to the House resolution the day before his House colleagues. "It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States. I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict," the senator said in a press release. Representative Ro Khanna, a California DemocratRepresentative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky RepublicanRepresentative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a New York DemocratRepresentative Val Hoyle, an Oregon DemocratRepresentative Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan DemocratRepresentative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington DemocratRepresentative Donald Beyer, a Virginia DemocratRepresentative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Greg Casar, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Ayanna Pressley, a Massachusetts DemocratRepresentative Delia Ramirez, an Illinois DemocratRepresentative Summer Lee, a Pennsylvania DemocratRepresentative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota DemocratRepresentative Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, an Illinois DemocratRepresentative Nydia Velazquez, a New York DemocratRepresentative James McGovern, a Massachusetts DemocratRepresentative Chellie Pingree, a Maine DemocratRepresentative Mark Pocan, a Wisconsin DemocratRepresentative Veronica Escobar, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Paul Tonko, a New York DemocratRepresentative Becca Balint, a Vermont DemocratRepresentative Bonnie Watson Coleman, a New Jersey DemocratRepresentative Henry "Hank" Johnson, a Georgia DemocratDelegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Washington, D.C., DemocratRepresentative Sara Jacobs, a California DemocratRepresentative Janice Schakowsky, an Illinois DemocratRepresentative Lateefah Simon, a California DemocratRepresentative Christopher Deluzio, a Pennsylvania DemocratRepresentative Gwen Moore, a Wisconsin DemocratRepresentative Mike Thompson, a California DemocratRepresentative Yassamin Ansari, an Arizona DemocratRepresentative Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi DemocratRepresentative Luis Correa, a California DemocratRepresentative Betty McCollum, a Minnesota DemocratRepresentative Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio DemocratRepresentative Mark DeSaulnier, a California DemocratRepresentative Stephen Lynch, a Massachusetts DemocratRepresentative Andre Carson, an Indiana DemocratRepresentative Mary Gay Scanlon, a Pennsylvania DemocratRepresentative Joaquin Castro, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Maxwell Frost, a Florida DemocratRepresentative Al Green, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Debbie Dingell, a Michigan DemocratRepresentative Jamie Raskin, a Maryland DemocratRepresentative Melanie Stansbury, a New Mexico DemocratRepresentative Sylvia Garcia, a Texas DemocratRepresentative Teresa Leger Fernandez, a New Mexico DemocratRepresentative Diana DeGette, a Colorado DemocratSenator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat Jennifer Kavanagh, senior fellow and director of military analysis at Defense Priorities told Newsweek: "Iran has several options when it comes to retaliation, but will need to weigh them carefully. A stronger response may be useful for signaling Tehran's continuing resolve to internal and external audiences but it could also bring further U.S. military action and deeper U.S. involvement. Iran could target U.S. military bases and personnel in the Middle East." President Donald Trump on Truth Social on Saturday evening: "ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU!" Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Sunday: "The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations. The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior. In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people." Iran's foreign minister said after the attack that his country reserves "all options to defend its sovereignty." The U.S. military is preemptively preparing for any attack from Tehran in response. It's unclear whether the War Powers Resolution sponsored by Khanna and Massie, which aims to curb Trump's ability to take military action against Iran, will move forward in the House. However, with Republican control of both chambers of Congress, it is not widely expected to succeed. Related Articles Video of Bernie Sanders Reacting to Trump's Iran Strike Live Goes ViralJD Vance Issues Warning on Trump Admin's 'Biggest Red Line' for IranPutin Ally Says Countries Now Ready to Supply Iran With Nuclear Weapons'Operation Midnight Hammer': What We Know About the Iran Strikes 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.