Overview
Joe Biden sold the SAVE plan as a fix for a broken student loan system: smaller payments, faster forgiveness, and protection from ballooning interest for millions. Eighteen months, two Supreme Court losses, and a barrage of lawsuits later, Donald Trump’s Education Department has cut a deal with Missouri and other Republican-led states to kill SAVE and shove its 7‑plus million borrowers into more expensive plans.
The settlement, still awaiting a judge’s approval, doesn’t just end one program. It locks in a decade of constraints on mass debt relief, accelerates a shift toward harsher long-term repayment under a new Repayment Assistance Plan, and leaves borrowers—especially low-income and public‑service workers—scrambling to rebuild budgets around suddenly higher bills.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The federal agency that both created SAVE and is now responsible for killing it and rerouting borrowers.
Missouri’s AG office turned a fight over SAVE into a national test of executive power on student debt.
Borrower-rights group arguing the SAVE deal goes far beyond what courts required and worsens hardship.
Grassroots group that helped sell SAVE to borrowers and now scrambles to help them survive its demise.
Timeline
-
Trump administration and Missouri strike deal to kill SAVE
LegalEducation Department announces settlement ending SAVE, halting new enrollments and shifting borrowers to other plans.
-
Trump administration pauses applications for most IDR plans
PolicyEducation Department quietly pulls online IDR applications, citing need to comply with SAVE injunction.
-
Appeals court rules SAVE exceeds Education Department authority
LegalThe Eighth Circuit says the Higher Education Act allows repayment plans, not sweeping loan forgiveness.
-
Eighth Circuit expands injunction, freezing SAVE implementation
LegalAppeals court bars new SAVE benefits, including lower payments and interest waivers, pending litigation.
-
Judge in Missouri limits SAVE’s forgiveness features
LegalA federal judge blocks SAVE loan forgiveness but leaves reduced-payment provisions temporarily in place.
-
Missouri launches second multistate attack on SAVE
LegalMissouri and six states sue in federal court, targeting SAVE’s repayment terms and forgiveness.
-
Kansas-led states sue to block SAVE nationwide
LegalKansas and 10 other Republican-led states file suit claiming SAVE is unlawful mass cancellation.
-
First wave of SAVE borrowers get early loan cancellation
PolicyBiden announces $1.2 billion in debt erased for 153,000 low-balance borrowers under SAVE.
-
Biden launches SAVE, a far more generous repayment plan
PolicyThe White House unveils SAVE, cutting payments for many borrowers and promising faster forgiveness.
-
Supreme Court kills Biden’s first mass forgiveness plan
LegalThe Supreme Court strikes down Biden’s $430 billion HEROES Act relief, forcing a new strategy.
Scenarios
SAVE Dies, RAP Becomes the New Normal for Struggling Borrowers
Discussed by: MarketWatch, Washington Post, borrower advocates, conservative policy groups
If the Missouri judge approves the settlement largely as written, SAVE enrollment stops permanently and existing participants are pushed into a menu dominated by the statutory Income-Based Repayment plan and Trump’s new Repayment Assistance Plan, which stretches repayment over decades with mandatory minimum payments. Over a few years, the political heat cools, defaults creep up, and Trump’s allies point to stable federal costs as vindication while Democrats campaign—but fail—for a statutory replacement. This is the path most experts quietly assume unless courts or Congress intervene.
Court Narrows the Deal, Preserving Space for Future Forgiveness
Discussed by: Legal analysts, borrower-rights groups like Protect Borrowers and SDCC
Advocates argue the settlement reaches beyond what the Eighth Circuit required, especially the 10-year notice clause and the commitment to strip SAVE from regulations. The district court could approve the core compromise—ending SAVE—for now but sever or narrow provisions that constrain future large-scale cancellation. That would still force borrowers off SAVE but keep more legal room open for a later administration to design a different, more generous plan under clearer statutory authority or a revised Higher Education Act. This outcome hinges on how aggressively the judge scrutinizes the deal.
Congress Steps In With a Bipartisan, Statutory Income-Driven Plan
Discussed by: Some centrist think tanks and higher-education policy experts
Years of legal whiplash could finally persuade lawmakers that executive action is too fragile a foundation for the student loan system. In this scenario, moderate Republicans worried about defaults and moderate Democrats wary of open-ended forgiveness hammer out a narrow statute: a single, clearly defined income-driven plan with capped costs, limited forgiveness, and strict eligibility, replacing the current patchwork. That would stabilize rules for borrowers but lock in far less generous terms than SAVE offered. Given polarization and budget politics, this remains more thought experiment than imminent path.
Historical Context
Biden’s Original Mass Student Debt Cancellation Struck Down
2022–2023What Happened
In 2022, Biden moved to cancel up to $20,000 in federal student debt for most borrowers using emergency powers under the HEROES Act. Republican-led states sued, and in June 2023 the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that such sweeping cancellation required explicit congressional authorization, blocking relief for roughly 40 million people.
Outcome
Short term: The ruling forced the administration to pivot to narrower tools like SAVE and targeted fixes to existing programs.
Long term: It cemented the “major questions” doctrine in student loan law, emboldening later challenges to SAVE itself.
Why It's Relevant
Shows how courts have repeatedly narrowed executive leeway on debt relief, making SAVE’s demise part of a longer pattern, not a one-off.
The Affordable Care Act’s Decade of Legal and Political Warfare
2010–2015What Happened
After Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act without Republican votes, GOP-led states filed multiple lawsuits challenging the law’s insurance mandate, Medicaid expansion, and subsidies. The Supreme Court preserved the basic framework but limited federal leverage over states and left key implementation choices to shifting political majorities.
Outcome
Short term: Coverage expanded unevenly as some states embraced Medicaid expansion while others refused, leaving millions in limbo.
Long term: The ACA survived but remained vulnerable to administrative rewrites and budget maneuvers every time control of Washington changed.
Why It's Relevant
Illustrates how state lawsuits and hostile administrations can partially gut marquee social programs without fully repealing them—similar to SAVE’s fate.
DACA and the Fight Over Executive Power on Immigration
2012–2020What Happened
The Obama administration created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) by executive action after Congress failed to pass immigration reform. Subsequent efforts to expand or end the program were challenged in court by opposing coalitions of states, leaving hundreds of thousands of young immigrants in protracted legal uncertainty.
Outcome
Short term: Courts blocked both aggressive rollbacks and expansions, keeping DACA alive but precarious and limiting who could newly enroll.
Long term: The saga underscored how major policy made by pen stroke can be reversed—or frozen—by the next administration and the courts.
Why It's Relevant
Parallels SAVE as another case where reliance on executive discretion left millions’ futures hinging on elections and litigation rather than durable statute.