L'administration Trump abandonne la bataille juridique pour réviser le programme de remise des prêts étudiants

Millions of Americans facing default on federal student loans may encounter wage garnishment and tax refund seizures next year, according to reports indicating the Trump administration intends to resume involuntary debt collection. Sources close to the government told the Washington Sun that officials plan to impose these financial penalties in 2027 after repeatedly postponing such measures. The Treasury Department is reportedly moving toward hiring private debt collectors, with potential implementation as early as November. Nearly ten million federal student loan borrowers are currently in default. If they remain in this status, they risk losing portions of their earnings and certain federal benefits. Borrowers generally must receive advance notice before collections begin, allowing them an opportunity to contest the debt or exit default status. The National Consumer Law Center notes that the government can withhold up to 15 percent of a defaulted borrower's wages. This process continues until the debt is repaid or the borrower resolves the default. Additionally, the Treasury Offset Program permits the interception of federal tax refunds and offsets against Social Security benefits. For Social Security retirement or disability benefits, the government may withhold up to 15 percent, provided the remaining monthly benefit does not drop below $750. Supplemental Security Income and veteran benefits are also subject to specific rules under this program. Michael Ryan, a finance expert and founder of MichaelRyanMoney.com, warned that wage garnishment could worsen difficult financial situations for borrowers. He stated that once the government takes money directly from paychecks, individuals lose control over their ability to afford payments. Ryan expressed concern about a domino effect, where falling behind on a loan leads to lost income, making it harder to cover rent, groceries, or car payments. He argued that collecting money households do not have creates negative consequences elsewhere in the economy. Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor at the University of Tennessee at Martin, noted that a stronger approach to enforcing repayment is emerging. He cited expired pandemic forbearance periods and resolved legal disputes as factors driving this shift. Last year, the White House Office of Management and Budget assisted the Education Department in preparing to seize wages and federal benefits. However, Treasury officials resisted proceeding due to concerns about the economic impact on financially vulnerable workers. Consequently, the administration delayed involuntary collections, though time appears limited for affected borrowers. In related developments, the Trump administration ended its legal battle to overhaul the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program on Wednesday. The Department of Justice dropped two appeals following federal judge rulings in June that favored advocates arguing the program risked becoming a tool for political retribution. The joint agreements stipulated that each side would pay its own fees, with no official explanation provided. Dan Zibel, an attorney for the group Student Defense, called the outcome a significant victory for millions of Americans dedicated to public service. He described the administration's attempt to weaponize the program against organizations it disagreed with as anti-democratic and unlawful. The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program aims to attract talent to government, public schools, fire and police departments, public hospitals, and nonprofits by forgiving loans after ten years of qualifying payments. Last fall, the administration introduced a rule empowering Education Secretary Linda McMahon to remove employers from the program if their work serves a substantial illegal purpose. Critics argued this vaguely phrased rule targeted employers supporting undocumented immigrants or transgender youth, potentially affecting borrowers at schools, hospitals, and legal aid groups. The overhaul represented a major change to a program that has canceled loans for over one million Americans. Just before the new rule was scheduled to take effect in July, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Massachusetts vacated the Education Department's changes. Joun ruled that the modifications exceeded the agency's authority and threatened First Amendment free speech protections. This decision responded to lawsuits filed by more than 20 states, alongside a coalition of nonprofit groups and cities. On the same day, District Judge Amir Ali in Washington issued a similar ruling in a separate case brought by nonprofit organizations. These judicial interventions halted the implementation of the controversial regulatory changes.