Opinion: Moving Education Programs Around Washington Is Bad Policy

The SAVE student loan repayment plan is dead — and a federal appeals court just made that official.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled on March 9, 2026 (PDF File) that a lower court wrongly dismissed the Republican states’ lawsuit against the plan, directing the district court to enter a December 2025 settlement agreement that permanently bans the Biden-era income-driven repayment program. The request to force the joint settlement was one of the alternatives presented in the GOP appeal to the 8th Circuit Court.Here's what borrowers need to know.

Senators Elizabeth Warren and Jeff Merkley accused the U.S. Department of Education of obstructing congressional oversight of federal student loan servicers. In a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon (PDF File), the senators wrote that the department “appears to have progressed to active obstruction” of lawmakers’ efforts to obtain servicer performance data.The dispute centers on basic service metrics: how long borrowers wait on hold, how often calls are dropped, how quickly written inquiries are answered, and how satisfied borrowers report being.For families navigating student loan repayment (especially with all the changes), those details can mean the difference between staying current and slipping into delinquency.With more than 42 million Americans holding federal student loans totaling over $1.81 trillion, even slight declines in servicing quality can ripple across household budgets.

A new federal court filing (PDF File) shows that borrowers seeking Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) credit through the buyback process could face waits approaching three years under current processing speeds.The latest status report from the U.S. Department of Education reveals that 86,520 PSLF Buyback applications were still pending as of January 31, 2026. During January, only 2,430 buyback applications were decided.At that pace (and assuming no new applications were submitted) clearing the existing backlog alone would take roughly 35 months. In reality, new requests continue to arrive each month and processing times have varied month-to-month - meaning the wait time could be longer.For public service workers who have already reached or are near 120 qualifying payments, the numbers suggest a long period of uncertainty.

A new report from the Pew Research Center offers one of the most detailed looks at how educational attainment differs across religious groups in America.The findings come from Pew’s 2023-24 Religious Landscape Study, a survey of 36,908 U.S. adults. Because of its large sample size, researchers were able to analyze not only broad religious categories, but also specific denominations within Protestantism and other traditions.The headline finding: Hindus and Jews stand apart by a wide margin.

A federal judge on Friday dismissed the central lawsuit challenging the Biden-era SAVE student loan repayment plan — not because the court endorsed it, but because there is no longer a dispute to decide.The ruling clarifies the legal posture of the case but does not immediately end the administrative forbearance for the roughly 7 million borrowers enrolled in SAVE.The decision (PDF FIle), issued by Judge John A. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, ends the case State of Missouri v. Trump without prejudice and rejects a joint request from the parties to vacate the SAVE rule outright.The judge notes "that clarity must come from the Department of Education, and not from this Court, which is no longer empowered to weigh the merits of a case that is now moot."

The U.S. Department of Education has announced two new interagency agreements, handing off selected responsibilities to the Departments of State and Health and Human Services. The stated goal: break up federal education bureaucracy, improve efficiency, and return education to the states.As someone who believes deeply in higher education (and in the value of federal student aid programs that expand opportunity), I also believe in an efficient government where tax dollars are spent purposefully to achieve specific goals. That’s why these interagency agreements deserve a closer look.Shifting programs from one federal agency to another does not necessarily make government smaller. It makes it more complex. And if we’re not careful, it may reduce accountability while ignoring the structural reforms that education policy actually needs.

Borrowers who were a part of a years-long legal battle over student loan servicing practices are now seeing tangible results: compensation checks arriving in their mailboxes.According to the CFPB’s website, a third-party administrator began issuing payments on or about February 13, 2026, from a $100 million fund tied to a 2024 enforcement settlement with Navient, one of the nation’s largest former federal student loan servicers. The case accused the company of steering borrowers into repeated forbearances (temporary pauses on payments) even when they qualified for more affordable income-driven repayment plans.For affected borrowers, some of whom report receiving checks in the thousands of dollars, the payments represent long-awaited financial relief.

When voters think of student loan forgiveness, they often picture executive actions and legal battles. Under President Biden, student loan debt relief efforts dominated headlines, particularly after the Supreme Court struck down his broad cancellation proposal.But what you may not realize: The Trump administration could be on track to oversee one of the largest dollar amounts of student loan forgiveness in U.S. history, largely because of repayment programs already written into law.This projection is not about a new sweeping forgiveness plan. Instead, it reflects the mechanics of existing federal student loan programs (some dating back decades) that are now reaching maturity.

The Trump administration is once again weighing whether to sell off parts of the federal government’s $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio to private investors — a move that could reshape the nation’s higher education finance system and affect more than 45 million borrowers.According to reports, senior officials at the Education Department and Treasury Department have been exploring how to offload “high-performing” federal loans to the private market. The discussions, which have allegedly involved finance industry executives and potential buyers, reflect the administration’s broader goal of shrinking the government’s role in student lending and reviving private-sector competition.This comes after reports earlier this year that Trump wanted the Small Business Administration to take over the student loan portfolio.The administration is looking at whether privatization could help reduce administrative costs and improve portfolio performance. However, the move could borrower protections, including income-driven repayment options, loan forgiveness programs, and the government’s unique ability to offer flexible hardship relief.This isn’t the first time the idea has surfaced. The Department of Education chapter in the Project 2025 document proposes reviving the old Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program to “privatize all lending programs, including subsidized, unsubsidized, and PLUS loans (both Grad and Parent).”So what exactly would it mean if federal student loans were sold to private lenders and could it really happen this time? Let’s unpack the latest proposals, political motivations, and potential consequences for borrowers.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against Harvard University, arguing that the university has unlawfully withheld admissions records needed for a federal civil rights compliance review.The complaint (PDF File), filed February 13, 2026, in federal court in Massachusetts, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to compel Harvard to provide applicant-level admissions data and internal communications related to race and diversity policies . The government is not seeking monetary damages or revocation of federal funds.At the center of the dispute is compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race in programs receiving federal financial assistance.