GOP lawmakers are expected to use the budget reconciliation process to make major cuts to the federal budget. The savings from the student repayment plan overhaul would be $127.3 billion over 10 years, according to their estimate.
The timing is uncertain on when any of these changes could surface. It’s also possible that the final Republican plan will be different than those proposed.
But the average student loan borrower could pay nearly $200 a month more if the GOP plans to reshape the repayment program succeed, according to an early estimate by The Institute for College Access & Success.
“Most people don’t have an extra $200 a month to throw toward their student loan bill,” said Michele Shepard Zampini, senior director of college affordability at The Institute.
Under the Republican-backed plans, the average borrower could see their monthly bill swell to $288 from $95, TICAS calculated. Researchers at TICAS estimated the monthly bill from repayment terms floated under current and former GOP-backed proposals. They compared those bills to what borrowers would pay under the Biden administration’s new income-driven repayment option, known as the Saving on a Valuable Education plan, or SAVE.
The changes to the student loan system would likely only apply to new borrowers, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.
If GOP lawmakers mirror the repayment terms in the legislation introduced by Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., and supported by many House Republicans last year, the College Cost Reduction Act, the typical student loan borrower with an associate degree could pay around 50% more over time than they would under SAVE, a new report by the Center for American Progress noted. Graduate students, however, could pay between 10% and 15% less than on SAVE.
“Paying for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy on the backs of student loan borrowers who are already struggling would be deeply unfair and harmful to millions of Americans,” said Sara Partridge, associate director of higher education policy at the Center for American Progress.
A reversal from SAVE plan
Republicans have expressed interest in narrowing the number of income-driven repayment (IDR) plans for student loan borrowers to just one. Congress created IDR plans in the 1990s to make borrowers’ bills more affordable. The plans cap people’s monthly payments at a share of their income, and cancel any remaining debt after a certain period, typically 20 years or 25 years.
More than 12 million people were enrolled in the plans as of September 2024, according to Kantrowitz.
Former President Joe Biden’s SAVE plan, which is currently tied up in legal challenges, had the most generous terms of any IDR plan to date.
It cut many borrowers’ bills in half and offered expedited loan forgiveness to those with smaller balances. SAVE could cost as much as $475 billion over a decade, an analysis by Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model found.
That made it a target for Republicans, who argued that taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to subsidize the loan payments of those who’ve benefited from a higher education, experts explained. Critics also accused Biden of trying, with SAVE, to find a roundabout way to forgive student debt after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2023 that his sweeping debt cancellation plan was unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, consumer advocates say that most families now need to borrow to send their children to college and that they will require more affordable ways to repay their debt. Research shows that student loans make it harder for people to start businesses, buy a house and even have children.
In addition to scrapping SAVE and leaving borrowers’ with just one IDR plan option, Republican lawmakers may also move to end the loan forgiveness that borrowers are currently entitled to after a certain time period on the plans, experts said.
That would deprive many borrowers of a way out of their debt, according to Kantrowitz.
“It will effectively be a form of never-ending indentured servitude,” he said.
A person holds a sign during a protest against cuts made by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to the Social Security Administration, in White Plains, New York, U.S., March 22, 2025.
Nathan Layne | Reuters
The Trump administration’s appeal of a temporary restraining order blocking the so-called Department of Government Efficiency from accessing sensitive personal Social Security Administration data has been dismissed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on Tuesday dismissed the government’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The case will proceed in the district court. A motion for a preliminary injunction will be filed later this week, according to national legal organization Democracy Forward.
The temporary restraining order was issued on March 20 by federal Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander and blocks DOGE and related agents and employees from accessing agency systems that contain personally identifiable information.
That includes information such as Social Security numbers, medical provider information and treatment records, employer and employee payment records, employee earnings, addresses, bank records, and tax information.
DOGE team members were also ordered to delete all nonanonymized personally identifiable information in their possession.
The plaintiffs include unions and retiree advocacy groups, namely the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the Alliance for Retired Americans and the American Federation of Teachers.
“We are pleased the 4th Circuit agreed to let this important case continue in district court,” Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, said in a written statement. “Every American retiree must be able to trust that the Social Security Administration will protect their most sensitive and personal data from unwarranted disclosure.”
The Trump administration’s appeal ignored standard legal procedure, according to Democracy Forward. The administration’s efforts to halt the enforcement of the temporary restraining order have also been denied.
“The president will continue to seek all legal remedies available to ensure the will of the American people is executed,” Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, said via email.
The Social Security Administration did not respond to a request from CNBC for comment.
Immediately after the March 20 temporary restraining order was put in place, Social Security Administration Acting Commissioner Lee Dudek said in press interviews that he may have to shut down the agency since it “applies to almost all SSA employees.”
Dudek was admonished by Hollander, who called that assertion “inaccurate” and said the court order “expressly applies only to SSA employees working on the DOGE agenda.”
Dudek then said that the “clarifying guidance” issued by the court meant he would not shut down the agency. “SSA employees and their work will continue under the [temporary restraining order],” Dudek said in a March 21 statement.
Many Americans are paying a hefty price for their credit card debt.
As a primary source of unsecured borrowing, 60% of credit cardholders carry debt from month to month, according to a new report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
At the same time, credit card interest rates are “very high,” averaging 23% annually in 2023, the New York Fed found, also making credit cards one of the most expensive ways to borrow money.
“With the vast majority of the American public using credit cards for their purchases, the interest rate that is attached to these products is significant,” said Erica Sandberg, consumer finance expert at CardRates.com. “The more a debt costs, the more stress this puts on an already tight budget.”
Most credit cards have a variable rate, which means there’s a direct connection to the Federal Reserve’s benchmark. And yet, credit card lenders set annual percentage rates well above the central bank’s key borrowing rate, currently targeted in a range between 4.25% to 4.5%, where it has been since December.
Following the Federal Reserve’s rate hike in 2022 and 2023, the average credit card rate rose from 16.34% to more than 20% today — a significant increase fueled by the Fed’s actions to combat inflation.
“Card issuers have determined what the market will bear and are comfortable within this range of interest rates,” said Matt Schulz, chief credit analyst at LendingTree.
APRs will come down as the central bank reduces rates, but they will still only ease off extremely high levels. With just a few potential quarter-point cuts on deck, APRs aren’t likely to fall much, according to Schulz.
Despite the steep cost, consumers often turn to credit cards, in part because they are more accessible than other types of loans, Schulz said.
In fact, credit cards are the No. 1 source of unsecured borrowing and Americans’ credit card tab continues to creep higher. In the last year, credit card debt rose to a record $1.21 trillion.
Because credit card lending is unsecured, it is also banks’ riskiest type of lending.
“Lenders adjust interest rates for two primary reasons: cost and risk,” CardRates’ Sandberg said.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s research shows that credit card charge-offs averaged 3.96% of total balances between 2010 and 2023. That compares to only 0.46% and 0.43% for business loans and residential mortgages, respectively.
As a result, roughly 53% of banks’ annual default losses were due to credit card lending, according to the NY Fed research.
“When you offer a product to everyone you are assuming an awful lot of risk,” Schulz said.
Further, “when times get tough they get tough for most everybody,” he added. “That makes it much more challenging for card issuers.”
The best way to pay off debt
The best move for those struggling to pay down revolving credit card debt is to consolidate with a 0% balance transfer card, experts suggest.
“There is enormous competition in the credit card market,” Sandberg said. Because lenders are constantly trying to capture new cardholders, those 0% balance transfer credit card offers are still widely available.
Cards offering 12, 15 or even 24 months with no interest on transferred balances “are basically the best tool in your toolbelt when it comes to knocking down credit card debt,” Schulz said. “Not accruing interest for two years on a balance is pretty hard to argue with.”
Andrew Ross Sorkin speaks with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink during the New York Times DealBook Summit in the Appel Room at the Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York City on Nov. 30, 2022.
In a new letter to investors, Fink writes the traditional allocation comprised of 60% stocks and 40% bonds that dates back to the 1950s “may no longer fully represent true diversification.”
“The future standard portfolio may look more like 50/30/20 — stocks, bonds and private assets like real estate, infrastructure and private credit.” Fink writes.
Most professional investors love to talk their book, and Fink is no exception. BlackRock has pursued several recent acquisitions — Global Infrastructure Partners, Preqin and HPS Investment Partners — with the goal of helping to increase investors’ access to private markets.
The effort to make it easier to incorporate both public and private investments in a portfolio is analogous to index versus active investments in 2009, Fink said.
Those investment strategies that were then considered separately can now be blended easily at a low cost.
Fink hopes the same will eventually be said for public and private markets.
Yet shopping for private investments now can feel “a bit like buying a house in an unfamiliar neighborhood before Zillow existed, where finding accurate prices was difficult or impossible,” Fink writes.
60/40 portfolio still a ‘great starting point’
After both stocks and bonds saw declines in 2022, some analysts declared the 60/40 portfolio strategy dead. In 2024, however, such a balanced portfolio would have provided a return of about 14%.
“If you want to keep things very simple, the 60/40 portfolio or a target date fund is a great starting point,” said Amy Arnott, portfolio strategist at Morningstar.
If you’re willing to add more complexity, you could consider smaller positions in other asset classes like commodities, private equity or private debt, she said.
However, a 20% allocation in private assets is on the aggressive side, Arnott said.
The total value of private assets globally is about $14.3 trillion, while the public markets are worth about $247 trillion, she said.
For investors who want to keep their asset allocations in line with the market value of various asset classes, that would imply a weighting of about 6% instead of 20%, Arnott said.
Yet a 50/30/20 portfolio is a lot closer to how institutional investors have been allocating their portfolios for years, said Michael Rosen, chief investment officer at Angeles Investments.
The 60/40 portfolio, which Rosen previously said reached its “expiration date,” hasn’t been used by his firm’s endowment and foundation clients for decades.
There’s a key reason why. Institutional investors need to guarantee a specific return, also while paying for expenses and beating inflation, Rosen said.
While a 50/30/20 allocation may help deliver “truly outsized returns” to the mass retail market, there’s also a “lot of baggage” that comes with that strategy, Rosen said.
There’s a lack of liquidity, which means those holdings aren’t as easily converted to cash, Rosen said.
What’s more, there’s generally a lack of transparency and significantly higher fees, he said.
Prospective investors should be prepared to commit for 10 years to private investments, Arnott said.
And they also need to be aware that measurement issues with asset classes like private equity means past performance data may not be as reliable, she said.
For the average person, the most likely path toward tapping into private equity will be part of a 401(k) plan, Arnott said. So far, not a lot of companies have added private equity to their 401(k) offerings, but that could change, she said.
“We will probably see more plan sponsors adding private equity options to their lineups going forward,” Arnott said.