The future of the US Department of Education: 8 tips for journalists covering the agency under Trump’s second term

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource
January 23, 2025

The U.S. Department of Education, one of the federal government’s smallest Cabinet-level agencies, operates programs across every level of education. With an annual budget of about $242 billion, it helps fund approximately 98,000 public schools and 32,000 private schools serving kindergarten through grade 12 as well as thousands of colleges, universities, vocational schools and other higher education institutions.

During his reelection campaign, President Donald Trump pledged to close the U.S. Department of Education if he returned to the White House. In the months leading to his inauguration on Monday, some Republican state leaders and members of Congress expressed support for his proposal, although it is still unclear how he would implement it.

In Oklahoma, for example, Ryan Walters, the state superintendent of public instruction, has formed a committee to oversee the changes in federal education policy he expects the Trump administration to make.

“The education system has needed these reforms for decades,” Walters told FOX23 News Tulsa in November. “We’re going to be the first state ready to go to enact them.”

Even if the federal Education Department remains intact, which academic researchers and other experts assert is most likely, there probably will be changes. Trump has said he plans to use federal funding as leverage to limit what he considers “left-wing indoctrination” in K-12 schools and higher education institutions.

He has made it clear that he opposes so called “diversity programs” as well as school vaccine requirements, teaching critical race theory in K-12 classrooms and allowing transgender students to participate in sports that align with their gender identity.

“The big question isn’t whether the Department of Education is going to go away -- I think the big question is what it’s going to do,” says education historian Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania who wrote the books Whose America? Culture Wars in the Public Schools and The Amateur Hour: A History of College Teaching in America.

We created this tip sheet to help journalists tackle this very complicated issue. Below, we spotlight eight tips to help you better understand the Education Department’s role, put Trump’s plan into historical context, and examine possible consequences for students, families, educators and their communities.

1. Make clear what the U.S. Department of Education does and that most of its funding is spent on programs for adults.

Many people don’t realize the U.S. Department of Education spends most of its budget on education and training for adults, namely college students, students enrolled in career and technical programs, and people with disabilities who need help finding jobs. In fiscal year 2024, the Education Department spent about $161 billion -- 60% of its $268 billion budget -- to fund its office of Federal Student Aid, the country’s largest provider of student financial aid.

Another $2 billion went to the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, which administers a variety of education and training programs for adults, including adults with disabilities and incarcerated individuals. About $4 billion went to the Office of Postsecondary Education, which, among other things, provides grants for colleges controlled by tribal governments and for other minority serving institutions. The Rutgers Center for Minority Serving Institutions maintains a list of MSIs, which are public and private colleges and universities that serve a large percentage of Black, Hispanic, Asian or Indigenous students.

K-12 public schools receive relatively little money from the U.S. Department of Education. In fact, less than 8% of public school revenue came from federal agencies, including the Education Department, before COVID-19 reached the U.S. in 2020. Since then, the federal government has sent schools a combined $189.5 billion in emergency aid to help them deal with the wide-ranging impacts of the pandemic.

This temporary infusion of money bumped the federal government's share of public school funding to 13.7% during the 2021-22 academic year, the most recent year for which data is available.

The U.S. Department of Education’s largest K-12 programs are grant programs, designed to help public schools afford the higher cost of educating certain groups of students. For example, special education grants help schools pay for education and services for students with disabilities until they turn 21 years old. The Title I program, which gets its name from Title I of the federal law known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, provides financial assistance to schools where at least 40% students come from lower-income families.

A key function of the U.S. Department of Education is investigating civil rights complaints at K-12 schools, colleges, universities, trade schools and the other institutions it funds. Meanwhile, the agency’s research arm, the Institute of Education Sciences, collects a variety of education data and publishes regular reports on topics such as K-12 student demographics, high school graduation rates, college costs and college enrollment trends.

2. Note that some federal education programs are funded by other government agencies.

Much of the public probably does not realize that several major education programs are not run by the U.S. Department of Education. For example:

• Head Start, which provides education-related services to preschool children from low-income families, is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
• The National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program are funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
• While the Education Department provides some funding for K-12 schools controlled by tribal governments, most comes from the Bureau of Indian Education, part of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Some K-12 schools located on tribal land are operated and funded by the Bureau of Indian Education, which also funds and operates two tribal higher education institutions: the Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in New Mexico.
• The GI Bill, which helps military veterans and their family members pay for college and other types of education, is funded by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
• The primary federal agencies that provide research funding to colleges and universities are the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Department of Agriculture.

3. Emphasize that closing the U.S. Department of Education has been a goal of conservative politicians for decades.

Several high-ranking Republicans have sought to eliminate the Education Department since it opened in 1980 under Democratic President Jimmy Carter. Ronald Reagan, who won the presidential election that year, announced his plan to shutter it during his first State of the Union address.

“In campaigning for the presidency, Mr. Reagan called for the total elimination of the U.S. Department of Education, severe curtailment of bilingual education, and massive cutbacks in the federal role in education,” education historian Gary K. Clabaugh writes in “The Educational Legacy of Ronald Reagan,” published in the academic journal Educational Horizons in 2004.

Bob Dole, the Republican presidential nominee in 1996, also advocated for closure, as did Trump and several other Republicans competing for the U.S. presidency in 2024. Former Vice President Mike Pence, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy have all said they would eliminate the Education Department.

Shortly after Trump’s reelection in November, U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds, a Republican from South Dakota, introduced the “Returning Education to Our States Act.” The bill seeks to abolish the Department of Education and transfer its programs and responsibilities to other federal agencies. For example, the Department of the Treasury would take over federal financial aid programs and the Department of Health and Human Services would administer the special education program.

U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, introduced bills in 2017, 2019, 2021 and 2023 to either terminate or reduce the size of the Education Department.

4. Explain what it would take to close the U.S. Department of Education. 

Closing the Education Department would require federal legislation and, likely, a supermajority vote in the U.S. Senate. Although senators can pass bills with a simple majority vote, it takes a supermajority vote to halt discussion on a bill so a vote can take place.

That means that unless the Senate eliminates its filibuster rule, which often has been used to block controversial legislation, three-fifths of senators would have to vote in favor of closing the debate on such a bill to allow a vote. Political observers have said they doubt 60 of the 100 senators would vote in favor of that. Only 53 are Republicans.

Less than two years ago, the U.S. House of Representatives considered a legislative amendment that endorsed moving K-12 education programs out of the Department of Education. It failed, with 60 Republicans and 205 Democrats voting against it.

The Education Department generally enjoys bipartisan support, Pedro Noguera, dean of the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, explained recently on a podcast he co-hosts and in an essay he co-wrote for The Hill.

“There are a lot of red states, red communities across the country that benefit from the policies and the programs,” Noguera said on the “Sparking Equity” podcast.

Education scholar Frederick Hess supports closing the department but says it will not happen. Not only do Republicans lack the votes to make the change, they have shown little interest in cutting programs that serve lower-income kids and kids with disabilities, says Hess, an executive editor of the Education Next journal, which, like The Journalist's Resource, is housed at Harvard Kennedy School.

Hess is also director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, and the author of several books on education policy, including "Getting Education Right: A Conservative Vision for Improving Early Childhood, K–12, and College" and "The Great School Rethink."

"What really matters for people who want to shrink the federal role or change it is: What are we changing about spending and rules and regulations?" he says, adding that journalists need to examine how the current rules for spending federal education dollars harm K-12 students. For one, he notes, they create a lot of paperwork for teachers at a time when public schools are struggling to hire and retain teachers, particularly special education teachers.

Says Hess: "There's a real opportunity here to look at the role of federal aid and the use of federal funds -- how are they used and are they actually creating budgetary problems rather than solving them?"

5. Provide your audiences with a realistic sense of how K-12 and higher education could be affected by an Education Department closure.

Educators, school administrators, policymakers and academic researchers have all speculated on how an Education Department closure could impact federal education funding and programs. Ten journalists from the Hechinger Report, a nonprofit news outlet that focuses on education issues, teamed up recently to examine that question. The resulting article is a must-read for journalists covering this topic.

Among its main takeaways: Abolishing the agency would not undo federal laws that established federal funding for K-12 programs that serve some of the nation’s most marginalized students, including students with disabilities and those from lower-income families. “But doling out that money and overseeing it could get messy,” the outlet reports.

Marguerite Roza, a research professor who studies education finances at Georgetown University, has said funding for K-12 schools probably would not change much.

“We've been telling school districts, ‘Don't expect massive changes in your federal dollars,’” Roza, who directs Georgetown’s Edunomics Lab, said in a Dec. 12 interview on a podcast produced by the right-leaning Defense of Freedom Institute for Policy Studies.

Meanwhile, higher education scholars like Marybeth Gasman, the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Endowed Chair in Education at Rutgers University, are concerned about college funding. She’s especially worried about funding aimed at helping marginalized youth get to and through college. Trump and some other conservative lawmakers have expressed disdain for so-called “diversity programs.”

A drop in funding could be devastating for minority serving institutions, which serve close to half of all U.S. college students who are racial or ethnic minorities, says Gasman, who is also executive director of both the Rutgers Center for Minority Serving Institutions and the Samuel DeWitt Proctor Institute for Leadership, Equity & Justice. 

For example, 25% of Historically Black Colleges and Universities’ revenue came from the federal Education Department in fiscal year 2022, according to a report released last month by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association. At the same time, most students enrolled at HBCUs qualify for Pell grants, a type of financial aid the Education Department offers lower-income students that they do not pay back.

Most minority serving institutions, commonly referred to as MSIs, are designated as Hispanic serving institutions because a large percentage of their students are Hispanic. They get 18% of their revenue directly from the Education Department grants. Many of their students also qualify for Pell grants.

“There needs to be more exploration into the ramifications of Trump’s presidency on MSIs,” Gasman says. “If they change loan forgiveness [policies], if they change Pell [grants], if they change aid to MSIs, it will have profound impacts.”

6. Evaluate how well the U.S. Department of Education runs its programs.

When President Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act, which created the Education Department, he said he wanted to ensure Americans got a better return on their investment in education. He said the new department would, among other things, save tax dollars and make federal education programs more accountable and responsive.

Has the department accomplished those goals? That’s a question journalists should try to answer for their audiences. Here are resources to get you started:

• Investigative reports from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, often referred to as Congress’ watchdog. The office examines the use of public funds and makes recommendations for improvement.
• Performance Results Reports and Congressional Reports compiled by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General. The purpose of that office is to “promote the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department’s programs and operations through independent and objective audits, investigations, inspections, and other activities.”
• The National Center for Education Statistics provides an assortment of data on various K-12 student groups, including students who participate in Title I, special education and English language acquisition programs. It also provides data on students who participate in federal higher education programs, including the graduation rates of lower-income college students who receive Pell grants, one type of federal financial aid.
• The Congressional Research Service, which assists Congress in researching issues and creating laws and policies, regularly releases reports focusing on Education Department programs.
• Researchers have studied the effectiveness of the Title I program specifically, although no academic articles have been published in recent years. An analysis from George Mason University’s School of Policy, Government and International Affairs, updated in 2015, looks at the results of national assessments of the Title I program conducted from 1966 to 2013. It finds “little evidence that Title I has contributed significantly to closing achievement gaps nationwide.” A 2015 analysis by the Brookings Institution, a centrist think tank, asserts that the Title I program “doesn’t work,” in part because Title 1 “is spread so thin that its budget of $14 billion a year turns out not to be much money.”
• Some school districts have hired the American Institutes for Research to review their special education programs. A handful of recent reviews are posted on the organization’s website, and others could be obtained directly from school districts through public records requests.
• Several academic journal articles examine the burden of paperwork associated with federal K-12 education programs. In a paper published in 2023, for example, researchers write that “excessive paperwork” is a main reason special education teachers leave the field.
• A June 2024 analysis from EdSource, a nonprofit news outlet in California, finds that students who are learning to speak English do worse on California’s state exam the longer they are enrolled in the federal English language acquisition program.
• Many news outlets have reported on the Education Department’s botched rollout of the new FAFSA -- the Free Application for Federal Student Aid -- that students must submit to determine their eligibility for college grants and loans.

7. Find out whether state Education Departments are prepared to take on additional duties if the U.S. Department of Education closes.

Trump and many other influential Republicans want states to oversee their own education programs. But it is unclear which responsibilities would be transferred from the federal Education Department and how changes would be rolled out. What also is unclear is whether individual states are ready and able to take on these new duties.

It’s well known that state and local governments struggled with staffing during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in law enforcement, public health and education. Hiring has picked up recently, but some human resource managers have reported an uptick in resignations and retirements, according to a 2024 analysis conducted on behalf of the National Association of State Personnel Executives and the Public Sector HR Association. Some of the hiring officials surveyed for that report also said they expect a major wave of retirements during the next few years.

Veteran education journalist Daarel Burnette recommends journalists visit state Education Departments and look into how well they are handling their current workloads.

“You can just walk into those buildings and see rows and rows of empty desks -- they look like newsrooms,” says Burnette, a senior editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education and a former assistant managing editor and reporter for Education Week.

He notes that state education officials have been widely criticized for their response to the pandemic and the decline of K-12 students’ test scores in the wake of it. Individual legislators and the American Civil Liberties Union have requested investigations into the alleged misuse of schools’ COVID-19 relief funds.

The federal Education Department’s Office of the Inspector General has released several reports investigating individual state’s use of those funds. In December 2024, a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives released a 557-page report examining the nation’s response to the pandemic, indicating that “[t]he unprecedented scale and lack of transparency in COVID-19 pandemic relief programs exposed vulnerabilities for waste, fraud, and abuse.”

8. Ask education experts about angles and issues you have not yet considered.

Even if the Education Department is not dismantled, close federal scrutiny could easily open the door for other conversations about funding cuts and changes to the agency’s programs and procedures. Journalists should ask education researchers and other experts for help identifying issues the public needs to know about.

Laura Enriquez, director of the University of California Collaborative to Promote Immigrant and Student Equity, urges journalists to look beyond their regular sources and ask about students the news media tend to overlook. For example, while journalists frequently report on how public policies affect unauthorized immigrants, their coverage does not often include children born in the U.S. to parents who are unauthorized immigrants, she says.

These individuals can face challenges accessing programs and services that government agencies provide to U.S. citizens. Last year, these students had trouble submitting their FAFSA forms to obtain financial aid for college if their parents did not have social security numbers, says Enriquez, who is also an associate professor of Chicano/Latino studies and director of the Center for Liberation, Anti-racism, and Belonging at the University of California, Irvine. 

“There are so many ways to tinker with aid award formulas and make the process more complicated than it already is for first-generation college students, racial minorities and citizens with undocumented parents,” she says.

She urges journalists to routinely ask themselves who is missing from their coverage. She adds: “The question you need to ask of yourself as a reporter is ‘Who else could be impacted through social ties?’ That’s a guiding question I wish more reporters asked of themselves.”

This article first appeared on The Journalist's Resource and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Social Security Offsets and Defaulted Student Loans (CFPB)

Executive Summary

When borrowers default on their federal student loans, the U.S. Department of Education (“Department of Education”) can collect the outstanding balance through forced collections, including the offset of tax refunds and Social Security benefits and the garnishment of wages. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Education paused collections on defaulted federal student loans.¹ This year, collections are set to resume and almost 6 million student loan borrowers with loans in default will again be subject to the Department of Education’s forced collection of their tax refunds, wages, and Social Security benefits.² Among the borrowers who are likely to experience forced collections are an estimated 452,000 borrowers ages 62 and older with defaulted loans who are likely receiving Social Security benefits.³

This spotlight describes the circumstances and experiences of student loan borrowers affected by the forced collection of Social Security benefits.⁴ It also describes how forced collections can push older borrowers into poverty, undermining the purpose of the Social Security program.⁵

Key findings

• The number of Social Security beneficiaries experiencing forced collection grew by more than 3,000 percent in fewer than 20 years; the count is likely to grow as the age of student loan borrowers trends older. Between 2001 and 2019, the number of Social Security beneficiaries experiencing reduced benefits due to forced collection increased from approximately 6,200 to 192,300. This exponential growth is likely driven by older borrowers who make up an increasingly large share of the federal student loan portfolio. The number of student loan borrowers ages 62 and older increased by 59 percent from 1.7 million in 2017 to 2.7 million in 2023, compared to a 1 percent decline among borrowers under the age of 62.
• The total amount of Social Security benefits the Department of Education collected between 2001 and 2019 through the offset program increased from $16.2 million to $429.7 million. Despite the exponential increase in collections from Social Security, the majority of money the Department of Education has collected has been applied to interest and fees and has not affected borrowers’ principal amount owed. Furthermore, between 2016 and 2019, the Department of the Treasury’s fees alone accounted for nearly 10 percent of the average borrower’s lost Social Security benefits.
• More than one in three Social Security recipients with student loans are reliant on Social Security payments, meaning forced collections could significantly imperil their financial well-being. Approximately 37 percent of the 1.3 million Social Security beneficiaries with student loans rely on modest payments, an average monthly benefit of $1,523, for 90 percent of their income. This population is particularly vulnerable to reduction in their benefits especially if benefits are offset year-round. In 2019, the average annual amount collected from individual beneficiaries was $2,232 ($186 per month).
• The physical well-being of half of Social Security beneficiaries with student loans in default may be at risk. Half of Social Security beneficiaries with student loans in default and collections skipped a doctor’s visit or did not obtain prescription medication due to cost.
• Existing minimum income protections fail to protect student loan borrowers with Social Security against financial hardship. Currently, only $750 per month of Social Security income—an amount that is $400 below the monthly poverty threshold for an individual and has not been adjusted for inflation since 1996—is protected from forced collections by statute. Even if the minimum protected income was adjusted for inflation, beneficiaries would likely still experience hardship, such as food insecurity and problems paying utility bills. A higher threshold could protect borrowers against hardship more effectively. The CFPB found that for 87 percent of student loan borrowers who receive Social Security, their benefit amount is below 225 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL), an income level at which people are as likely to experience material hardship as those with incomes below the federal poverty level.
• Large shares of Social Security beneficiaries affected by forced collections may be eligible for relief or outright loan cancellation, yet they are unable to access these benefits, possibly due to insufficient automation or borrowers’ cognitive and physical decline. As many as eight in ten Social Security beneficiaries with loans in default may be eligible to suspend or reduce forced collections due to financial hardship. Moreover, one in five Social Security beneficiaries may be eligible for discharge of their loans due to a disability. Yet these individuals are not accessing such relief because the Department of Education’s data matching process insufficiently identifies those who may be eligible.

Taken together, these findings suggest that the Department of Education’s forced collections of Social Security benefits increasingly interfere with Social Security’s longstanding purpose of protecting its beneficiaries from poverty and financial instability.

Introduction

When borrowers default on their federal student loans, the Department of Education can collect the outstanding balance through forced collections, including the offset of tax refunds and Social Security benefits, and the garnishment of wages. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Education paused collections on defaulted federal student loans. This year, collections are set to resume and almost 6 million student loan borrowers with loans in default will again be subject to the Department of Education’s forced collection of their tax refunds, wages, and Social Security benefits.⁶

Among the borrowers who are likely to experience the Department of Education’s renewed forced collections are an estimated 452,000 borrowers with defaulted loans who are ages 62 and older and who are likely receiving Social Security benefits.⁷ Congress created the Social Security program in 1935 to provide a basic level of income that protects insured workers and their families from poverty due to situations including old age, widowhood, or disability.⁸ The Social Security Administration calls the program “one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in our nation's history.”⁹ In 2022, Social Security lifted over 29 million Americans from poverty, including retirees, disabled adults, and their spouses and dependents.¹⁰ Congress has recognized the importance of securing the value of Social Security benefits and on several occasions has intervened to protect them.¹¹

This spotlight describes the circumstances and experiences of student loan borrowers affected by the forced collection of their Social Security benefits.¹² It also describes how the purpose of Social Security is being increasingly undermined by the limited and deficient options the Department of Education has to protect Social Security beneficiaries from poverty and hardship.

The forced collection of Social Security benefits has increased exponentially.

Federal student loans enter default after 270 days of missed payments and transfer to the Department of Education’s default collections program after 360 days. Borrowers with a loan in default face several consequences: (1) their credit is negatively affected; (2) they lose eligibility to receive federal student aid while their loans are in default; (3) they are unable to change repayment plans and request deferment and forbearance;¹³ and (4) they face forced collections of tax refunds, Social Security benefits, and wages among other payments.¹⁴ To conduct its forced collections of federal payments like tax refunds and Social Security benefits, the Department of Education relies on a collection service run by the U.S. Department of the Treasury called the Treasury Offset Program.¹⁵

Between 2001 and 2019, the number of student loan borrowers facing forced collection of their Social Security benefits increased from at least 6,200 to 192,300.¹⁶ That is a more than 3,000 percent increase in fewer than 20 years. By comparison, the number of borrowers facing forced collections of their tax refunds increased by about 90 percent from 1.17 million to 2.22 million during the same period.¹⁷

This exponential growth of Social Security offsets between 2001 and 2019 is likely driven by multiple factors including:

• Older borrowers accounted for an increasingly large share of the federal student loan portfolio due to increasing average age of enrollment and length of time in repayment. Data from the Department of Education (which is only available since 2017), show that the number of student loan borrowers ages 62 and older, increased 24 percent from 1.7 million in 2017 to 2.1 million in 2019, compared to less than 1 percent among borrowers under the age of 62.¹⁸
• A larger number of borrowers, especially older borrowers, had loans in default. Data from the Department of Education show that the number of student loan borrowers with a defaulted loan increased by 230 percent from 3.8 million in 2006 to 8.8 million in 2019.¹⁹ Compounding these trends is the fact that older borrowers are twice as likely to have a loan in default than younger borrowers.²⁰

Due to these factors, the total amount of Social Security benefits the Department of Education collected between 2001 and 2019 through the offset program increased annually from $16.2 million to $429.7 million (when adjusted for inflation).²¹ This increase occurred even though the average monthly amount the Department of Education collected from individual beneficiaries was the same for most years, at approximately $180 per month.²²

Figure 1: Number of Social Security beneficiaries and total amount collected for student loans (2001-2019)

Source: CFPB analysis of public data from U.S. Treasury’s Fiscal Data portal. Amounts are presented in 2024 dollars.

While the total collected from Social Security benefits has increased exponentially, the majority of money the Department of Education collected has not been applied to borrowers’ principal amount owed. Specifically, nearly three-quarters of the monies the Department of Education collects through offsets is applied to interest and fees, and not towards paying down principal balances.²³ Between 2016 and 2019, the U.S. Department of the Treasury charged the Department of Education between $13.12 and $15.00 per Social Security offset, or approximately between $157.44 and $180 for 12 months of Social Security offsets per beneficiary with defaulted federal student loans.²⁴ As a matter of practice, the Department of Education often passes these fees on directly to borrowers.²⁵ Furthermore, these fees accounted for nearly 10 percent of the average monthly borrower’s lost Social Security benefits which was $183 during this time.²⁶ Interest and fees not only reduce beneficiaries’ monthly benefits, but also prolong the period that beneficiaries are likely subject to forced collections.

Forced collections are compromising Social Security beneficiaries’ financial well-being.

Forced collection of Social Security benefits affects the financial well-being of the most vulnerable borrowers and can exacerbate any financial and health challenges they may already be experiencing. The CFPB’s analysis of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) pooled data for 2018 to 2021 finds that Social Security beneficiaries with student loans receive an average monthly benefit of $1,524.²⁷ The analysis also indicates that approximately 480,000 (37 percent) of the 1.3 million beneficiaries with student loans rely on these modest payments for 90 percent or more of their income,²⁸ thereby making them particularly vulnerable to reduction in their benefits especially if benefits are offset year-round. In 2019, the average annual amount collected from individual beneficiaries was $2,232 ($186 per month).²⁹

A recent survey from The Pew Charitable Trusts found that more than nine in ten borrowers who reported experiencing wage garnishment or Social Security payment offsets said that these penalties caused them financial hardship.³⁰ Consequently, for many, their ability to meet their basic needs, including access to healthcare, became more difficult. According to our analysis of the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Household Economic and Decision-making (SHED), half of Social Security beneficiaries with defaulted student loans skipped a doctor’s visit and/or did not obtain prescription medication due to cost.³¹ Moreover, 36 percent of Social Security beneficiaries with loans in delinquency or in collections report fair or poor health. Over half of them have medical debt.³²

Figure 2: Selected financial experiences and hardships among subgroups of loan borrowers

Source: CFPB analysis of the Federal Reserve Board Survey of Household Economic and Decision-making (2019-2023).

Social Security recipients subject to forced collection may not be able to access key public benefits that could help them mitigate the loss of income. This is because Social Security beneficiaries must list the unreduced amount of their benefits prior to collections when applying for other means-tested benefits programs such as Social Security Insurance (SSI), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and the Medicare Savings Programs.³³ Consequently, beneficiaries subject to forced collections must report an inflated income relative to what they are actually receiving. As a result, these beneficiaries may be denied public benefits that provide food, medical care, prescription drugs, and assistance with paying for other daily living costs.³⁴

Consumers’ complaints submitted to the CFPB describe the hardship caused by forced collections on borrowers reliant on Social Security benefits to pay for essential expenses.³⁵ Consumers often explain their difficulty paying for such expenses as rent and medical bills. In one complaint, a consumer noted that they were having difficulty paying their rent since their Social Security benefit usually went to paying that expense.³⁶ In another complaint, a caregiver described that the money was being withheld from their mother’s Social Security, which was the only source of income used to pay for their mother’s care at an assisted living facility.³⁷ As forced collections threaten the housing security and health of Social Security beneficiaries, they also create a financial burden on non-borrowers who help address these hardships, including family members and caregivers.

Existing minimum income protections fail to protect student loan borrowers with Social Security against financial hardship.

The Debt Collection Improvement Act set a minimum floor of income below which the federal government cannot offset Social Security benefits and subsequent Treasury regulations established a cap on the percentage of income above that floor.³⁸ Specifically, these statutory guardrails limit collections to 15 percent of Social Security benefits above $750. The minimum threshold was established in 1996 and has not been updated since. As a result, the amount protected by law alone does not adequately protect beneficiaries from financial hardship and in fact no longer protects them from falling below the federal poverty level (FPL). In 1996, $750 was nearly $100 above the monthly poverty threshold for an individual.³⁹ Today that same protection is $400 below the threshold. If the protected amount of $750 per month ($9,000 per year) set in 1996 was adjusted for inflation, in 2024 dollars, it would total $1,450 per month ($17,400 per year).⁴⁰

Figure 3: Comparison of monthly FPL threshold with the current protected amount established in 1996 and the amount that would be protected with inflation adjustment

Source: Calculations by the CFPB. Notes: Inflation adjustments based on the consumer price index (CPI).

Even if the minimum protected income of $750 is adjusted for inflation, beneficiaries will likely still experience hardship as a result of their reduced benefits. Consumers with incomes above the poverty line also commonly experience material hardship.⁴¹ This suggests that a threshold that is higher than the poverty level will more effectively protect against hardship.⁴² Indeed, in determining an income threshold for $0 payments under the SAVE plan, the Department of Education researchers used material hardship (defined as being unable to pay utility bills and reporting food insecurity) as their primary metric, and found similar levels of material hardship among those with incomes below the poverty line and those with incomes up to 225 percent of the FPL.⁴³ Similarly, the CFPB’s analysis of a pooled sample of SIPP respondents finds the same levels of material hardship for Social Security beneficiaries with student loans with incomes below 100 percent of the FPL and those with incomes up to 225 percent of the FPL.⁴⁴ The CFPB found that for 87 percent of student loan borrowers who receive Social Security, their benefit amount is below 225 percent of the FPL.⁴⁵ Accordingly, all of those borrowers would be removed from forced collections if the Department of Education applied the same income metrics it established under the SAVE program to an automatic hardship exemption program.

Existing options for relief from forced collections fail to reach older borrowers.

Borrowers with loans in default remain eligible for certain types of loan cancellation and relief from forced collections. However, our analysis suggests that these programs may not be reaching many eligible consumers. When borrowers do not benefit from these programs, their hardship includes, but is not limited to, unnecessary losses to their Social Security benefits and negative credit reporting.

Borrowers who become disabled after reaching full retirement age may miss out on Total and Permanent Disability

The Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) discharge program cancels federal student loans and effectively stops all forced collections for disabled borrowers who meet certain requirements. After recent revisions to the program, this form of cancelation has become common for those borrowers with Social Security who became disabled prior to full retirement age.⁴⁶ In 2016, a GAO study documented the significant barriers to TPD that Social Security beneficiaries faced.⁴⁷ To address GAO’s concerns, the Department of Education in 2021 took a series of mitigating actions, including entering into a data-matching agreement with the Social Security Administration (SSA) to automate the TPD eligibility determination and discharge process.⁴⁸ This process was expanded further with new final rules being implemented July 1, 2023 that expanded the categories of borrowers eligible for automatic TPD cancellation.⁴⁹ In total, these changes successfully resulted in loan cancelations for approximately 570,000 borrowers.⁵⁰

However, the automation and other regulatory changes did not significantly change the application process for consumers who become disabled after they reach full retirement age or who have already claimed the Social Security retirement benefits. For these beneficiaries, because they are already receiving retirement benefits, SSA does not need to determine disability status. Likewise, SSA does not track disability status for those individuals who become disabled after they start collecting their Social Security retirement benefits.⁵¹

Consequently, SSA does not transfer information on disability to the Department of Education once the beneficiary begins collecting Social Security retirement.⁵² These individuals therefore will not automatically get a TPD discharge of their student loans, and they must be aware and physically and mentally able to proactively apply for the discharge.⁵³

The CFPB’s analysis of the Census survey data suggests that the population that is excluded from the TPD automation process could be substantial. More than one in five (22 percent) Social Security beneficiaries with student loans are receiving retirement benefits and report a disability such as a limitation with vision, hearing, mobility, or cognition.⁵⁴ People with dementia and other cognitive disabilities are among those with the greatest risk of being excluded, since they are more likely to be diagnosed after the age 70, which is the maximum age for claiming retirement benefits.⁵⁵

These limitations may also help explain why older borrowers are less likely to rehabilitate their defaulted student loans. Specifically, 11 percent of student loan borrowers ages 50 to 59 facing forced collections successfully rehabilitated their loans,⁵⁶ while only five percent of borrowers over the age of 75 do so.⁵⁷

Figure 4: Number of student loan borrowers ages 50 and older in forced collection, borrowers who signed a rehabilitation agreement, and borrowers who successfully rehabilitated a loan by selected age groups

Age Group	Number of Borrowers in Offset	Number of Borrowers Who Signed a Rehabilitation Agreement	Percent of Borrowers Who Signed a Rehabilitation Agreement	Number of Borrowers Successfully Rehabilitated	Percent of Borrowers who Successfully Rehabilitated
50 to 59	265,200	50,800	14%	38,400	11%
60 to 74	184,900	24,100	11%	18,500	8%
75 and older	15,800	1,000	6%	800	5%

Source: CFPB analysis of data provided by the Department of Education.

Shifting demographics of student loan borrowers suggest that the current automation process may become less effective to protect Social Security benefits from forced collections as more and more older adults have student loan debt. The fastest growing segment of student loan borrowers are adults ages 62 and older. These individuals are generally eligible for retirement benefits, not disability benefits, because they cannot receive both classifications at the same time. Data from the Department of Education reflect that the number of student loan borrowers ages 62 and older increased by 59 percent from 1.7 million in 2017 to 2.7 million in 2023. In comparison, the number of borrowers under the age of 62 remained unchanged at 43 million in both years.⁵⁸ Furthermore, additional data provided to the CFPB by the Department of Education show that nearly 90,000 borrowers ages 81 and older hold an average amount of $29,000 in federal student loan debt, a substantial amount despite facing an estimated average life expectancy of less than nine years.⁵⁹

Existing exceptions to forced collections fail to protect many Social Security beneficiaries

In addition to TPD discharge, the Department of Education offers reduction or suspension of Social Security offset where borrowers demonstrate financial hardship.⁶⁰ To show hardship, borrowers must provide documentation of their income and expenses, which the Department of Education then uses to make its determination.⁶¹ Unlike the Debt Collection Improvement Act’s minimum protections, the eligibility for hardship is based on a comparison of an individual’s documented income and qualified expenses. If the borrower has eligible monthly expenses that exceed or match their income, the Department of Education then grants a financial hardship exemption.⁶²

The CFPB’s analysis suggests that the vast majority of Social Security beneficiaries with student loans would qualify for a hardship protection. According to CFPB’s analysis of the Federal Reserve Board’s SHED, eight in ten (82 percent) of Social Security beneficiaries with student loans in default report that their expenses equal or exceed their income.⁶³ Accordingly, these individuals would likely qualify for a full suspension of forced collections. Yet the GAO found that in 2015 (when the last data was available) less than ten percent of Social Security beneficiaries with forced collections applied for a hardship exemption or reduction of their offset.⁶⁴ A possible reason for the low uptake rate is that many beneficiaries or their caregivers never learn about the hardship exemption or the possibility of a reduction in the offset amount.⁶⁵ For those that do apply, only a fraction get relief. The GAO study found that at the time of their initial offset, only about 20 percent of Social Security beneficiaries ages 50 and older with forced collections were approved for a financial hardship exemption or a reduction of the offset amount if they applied.⁶⁶

Conclusion

As hundreds of thousands of student loan borrowers with loans in default face the resumption of forced collection of their Social Security benefits, this spotlight shows that the forced collection of Social Security benefits causes significant hardship among affected borrowers. The spotlight also shows that the basic income protections aimed at preventing poverty and hardship among affected borrowers have become increasingly ineffective over time. While the Department of Education has made some improvements to expand access to relief options, especially for those who initially receive Social Security due to a disability, these improvements are insufficient to protect older adults from the forced collection of their Social Security benefits.

Taken together, these findings suggest that forced collections of Social Security benefits increasingly interfere with Social Security’s longstanding purpose of protecting its beneficiaries from poverty and financial instability. These findings also suggest that alternative approaches are needed to address the harm that forced collections cause on beneficiaries and to compensate for the declining effectiveness of existing remedies. One potential solution may be found in the Debt Collection Improvement Act, which provides that when forced collections “interfere substantially with or defeat the purposes of the payment certifying agency’s program” the head of an agency may request from the Secretary of the Treasury an exemption from forced collections.⁶⁷ Given the data findings above, such a request for relief from the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration on behalf of Social Security beneficiaries who have defaulted student loans could be justified. Unless the toll of forced collections on Social Security beneficiaries is considered alongside the program’s stated goals, the number of older adults facing these challenges is only set to grow.

Data and Methodology

To develop this report, the CFPB relied primarily upon original analysis of public-use data from the U.S. Census Bureau Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Federal Reserve Board Board’s Survey of Household Economics and Decision-making (SHED), U.S. Department of the Treasury, Fiscal Data portal, consumer complaints received by the Bureau, and administrative data on borrowers in default provided by the Department of Education. The report also leverages data and findings from other reports, studies, and sources, and cites to these sources accordingly. Readers should note that estimates drawn from survey data are subject to measurement error resulting, among other things, from reporting biases and question wording.

Survey of Income and Program Participation

The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) is a nationally representative survey of U.S. households conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The SIPP collects data from about 20,000 households (40,000 people) per wave. The survey captures a wide range of characteristics and information about these households and their members. The CFPB relied on a pooled sample of responses from 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 waves for a total number of 17,607 responses from student loan borrowers across all waves, including 920 respondents with student loans receiving Social Security benefits. The CFPB’s analysis relied on the public use data. To capture student loan debt, the survey asked to all respondents (variable EOEDDEBT): Owed any money for student loans or educational expenses in own name only during the reference period. To capture receipt of Social Security benefits, the survey asked to all respondents (variable ESSSANY): “Did ... receive Social Security benefits for himself/herself at any time during the reference period?” To capture amount of Social Security benefits, the survey asked to all respondents (variable TSSSAMT): “How much did ... receive in Social Security benefit payment in this month (1-12), prior to any deductions for Medicare premiums?”

The public-use version of the survey dataset, and the survey documentation can be found at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/sipp.html

Survey of Household Economics and Decision-making

The Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Household Economics and Decision-making (SHED) is an annual web-based survey of households. The survey captures information about respondents’ financial situations. The CFPB relied on a pooled sample of responses from 2019 through 2023 waves for a total number of 1,376 responses from student loan borrowers in collection across all waves. The CFPB analysis relied on the public use data. To capture default and collection, the survey asked all respondents with student loans (variable SL6): “Are you behind on payments or in collections for one or more of the student loans from your own education?” To capture receipt of Social Security benefits, the survey asked to all respondents (variable I0_c): “In the past 12 months, did you (and/or your spouse or partner) receive any income from the following sources: Social Security (including old age and DI)?”

The public-use version of the survey dataset, and the survey documentation can be found at https://www.federalreserve.gov/consumerscommunities/shed_data.htm  

Appendix A: Number of student loan borrowers ages 60 and older, total outstanding balance, and average balance by age group, August 2024

Age Group	Borrower Count (in thousands)	Balance (in billions)	Average balance
60 to 65	1,951.4	$87.49	$44,834
66 to 70	909.8	$39.47	$43,383
71 to 75	457.5	$18.95	$41,421
76 to 80	179.0	$6.80	$37,989
81 to 85	59.9	$1.90	$31,720
86 to 90	20.1	$0.51	$25,373
91 to 95	7.0	$0.14	$20,000
96+	2.8	$0.05	$17,857

Source: Data provided by the Department of Education.

The endnotes for this report are available here. 

U.S. Department of Education's Trump Appointees and America First Agenda

The U.S. Department of Education has announced a team of senior-level political appointees who will support the implementation of President Trump’s America First agenda.  

The Trump Administration, by Executive Order, has already required colleges and universities to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion measures and schools are scrambling to be compliant with this new federal policy. New policies may also affect grants from the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.

Notable actions the Department of Education has already taken include: 

• Dissolution of the Department’s Diversity & Inclusion Council, effective immediately;
  • Background:The Diversity & Inclusion Council was established following Executive Order 13583 under then - President Obama. President Trump has rescinded the Executive Orders that guide the Council and issued a new Executive Order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” that terminates groups like the Diversity & Inclusion Council. DEI documents issued and related actions taken by the Council have been withdrawn.
• Dissolution of the Employee Engagement Diversity Equity Inclusion Accessibility Council (EEDIAC) within the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), effective immediately and pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”;
• Cancellation of ongoing DEI training and service contracts which total over $2.6 million;
• Withdrawal of the Department’s Equity Action Plan;
• Placement of career Department staff tasked with implementing the previous administration’s DEI initiatives on paid administrative leave; and
• Identification for removal of over 200 web pages from the Department’s website that housed DEI resources and encouraged schools and institutions of higher education to promote or endorse harmful ideological programs.

At least four appointees to the Department of Education, as well as including incoming Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, have worked at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI). AFPI's higher education proposals are posted here and noted at the bottom of this article. AFPI has been accused of using dark money to prevent student loan forgiveness and its rhetoric clearly advances this agenda.

Rachel Oglesby – Chief of Staff

Rachel Oglesby most recently served as America First Policy Institute's Chief State Action Officer & Director, Center for the American Worker. In this role, she worked to advance policies that promote worker freedom, create opportunities outside of a four-year college degree, and provide workers with the necessary skills to succeed in the modern economy, as well as leading all of AFPI’s state policy development and advocacy work. She previously worked as Chief of Policy and Deputy Chief of Staff for Governor Kristi Noem in South Dakota, overseeing the implementation of the Governor’s pro-freedom agenda across all policy areas and state government agencies. Oglesby holds a master’s degree in public policy from George Mason University and earned her bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Wake Forest University. 

Jonathan Pidluzny – Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs 

Jonathan Pidluzny most recently served as Director of the Higher Education Reform Initiative at the America First Policy Institute. Prior to that, he was Vice President of Academic Affairs at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, where his work focused on academic freedom and general education. Jonathan began his career in higher education teaching political science at Morehead State University, where he was an associate professor, program coordinator, and faculty regent from 2017-2019. He received his Ph.D from Boston College and holds a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from the University of Alberta. 

Chase Forrester – Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 

Virginia “Chase” Forrester most recently served as the Chief Events Officer at America First Policy Institute, where she oversaw the planning and execution of 80+ high-profile events annually for AFPI’s 22 policy centers, featuring former Cabinet Officials and other distinguished speakers. Chase previously served as Operations Manager on the Trump-Pence 2020 presidential campaign, where she spearheaded all event operations for the Vice President of the United States and the Second Family. Chase worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee during the Senate run-off races in Georgia and as a fundraiser for Members of Congress. Chase graduated from Clemson University with a bachelor’s degree in political science and a double-minor in Spanish and legal studies.

Steve Warzoha – White House Liaison

Steve Warzoha joins the U.S. Department of Education after most recently serving on the Trump-Vance Transition Team. A native of Greenwich, CT, he is a former local legislator who served on the Education Committee and as Vice Chairman of both the Budget Overview and Transportation Committees. He is also an elected leader of the Greenwich Republican Town Committee. Steve has run and served in senior positions on numerous local, state, and federal campaigns. Steve comes from a family of educators and public servants and is a proud product of Greenwich Public Schools and an Eagle Scout. 

Tom Wheeler – Principal Deputy General Counsel 

Tom Wheeler’s prior federal service includes as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, a Senior Advisor to the White House Federal Commission on School Safety, and as a Senior Advisor/Counsel to the Secretary of Education. He has also been asked to serve on many Boards and Commissions, including as Chair of the Hate Crimes Sub-Committee for the Federal Violent Crime Reduction Task Force, a member of the Department of Justice’s Regulatory Reform Task Force, and as an advisor to the White House Coronavirus Task Force, where he worked with the CDC and HHS to develop guidelines for the safe reopening of schools and guidelines for law enforcement and jails/prisons. Prior to rejoining the U.S. Department of Education, Tom was a partner at an AM-100 law firm, where he represented federal, state, and local public entities including educational institutions and law enforcement agencies in regulatory, administrative, trial, and appellate matters in local, state and federal venues. He is a frequent author and speaker in the areas of civil rights, free speech, and Constitutional issues, improving law enforcement, and school safety. 

Craig Trainor – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights 

Craig Trainor most recently served as Senior Special Counsel with the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary under Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), where Mr. Trainor investigated and conducted oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice, including its Civil Rights Division, the FBI, the Biden-Harris White House, and the Intelligence Community for civil rights and liberties abuses. He also worked as primary counsel on the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government’s investigation into the suppression of free speech and antisemitic harassment on college and university campuses, resulting in the House passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. Previously, he served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the America First Policy Institute under former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Of Counsel with the Fairness Center, and had his own civil rights and criminal defense law practice in New York City for over a decade. Upon graduating from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, he clerked for Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Trainor is admitted to practice law in the state of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Madi Biedermann – Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach 

Madi Biedermann is an experienced education policy and communications professional with experience spanning both federal and state government and policy advocacy organizations. She most recently worked as the Chief Operating Officer at P2 Public Affairs. Prior to that, she served as an Assistant Secretary of Education for Governor Glenn Youngkin and worked as a Special Assistant and Presidential Management Fellow at the Office of Management and Budget in the first Trump Administration. Madi received her bachelor’s degree and master of public administration from the University of Southern California. 

Candice Jackson – Deputy General Counsel 

Candice Jackson returns to the U.S. Department of Education to serve as Deputy General Counsel. Candice served in the first Trump Administration as Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and Deputy General Counsel, from 2017-2021. For the last few years, Candice has practiced law in Washington State and California and consulted with groups and individuals challenging the harmful effects of the concept of "gender identity" in laws and policies in schools, employment, and public accommodations. Candice is mom to girl-boy twins Madelyn and Zachary, age 11. 

Joshua Kleinfeld – Deputy General Counsel 

Joshua Kleinfeld is the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Professor of Law and Director of the Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law. He writes and teaches about constitutional law, criminal law, and statutory interpretation, focusing in all fields on whether democratic ideals are realized in governmental practice. As a scholar and public intellectual, he has published work in the Harvard, Stanford, and University of Chicago Law Reviews, among other venues. As a practicing lawyer, he has clerked on the D.C. Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Supreme Court of Israel, represented major corporations accused of billion-dollar wrongdoing, and, on a pro bono basis, represented children accused of homicide. As an academic, he was a tenured full professor at Northwestern Law School before lateraling to Scalia Law School. He holds a J.D. in law from Yale Law School, a Ph.D. in philosophy from the Goethe University of Frankfurt, and a B.A. in philosophy from Yale College. 

Hannah Ruth Earl – Director, Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Hannah Ruth Earl is the former executive director of America’s Future, where she cultivated communities of freedom-minded young professionals and local leaders. She previously co-produced award-winning feature films as director of talent and creative development at the Moving Picture Institute. A native of Tennessee, she holds a master of arts in religion from Yale Divinity School.

AFPI Reform Priorities

AFPI's higher education priorities are to:

• Reform America’s Dysfunctional Higher Education Accreditation System

• Rethink Public Financing of Postsecondary Study to Encourage Competition and Accountability

• Open New Pathways to Family-Sustaining Careers

• Combat the Politicization of Higher Education and Encourage Viewpoint Diversity on U.S. Campuses

• Protect Students’ and Professors’ First Amendment Rights

 Related links:

Trump's Education Department dismantles DEI measures, suspends staff (USA Today) 

California State University changes 'illegal' program that excluded White men (Fox News)

America First Policy Institute Team

America First Policy Initiatives