The 2024 election of Donald J. Trump alongside a Republican Congress marks a sad and devastating moment in the ongoing struggle for student debt relief in America. There is no question that the political landscape has shifted dramatically, requiring a fundamental reassessment of strategies and priorities for those committed to addressing the student debt crisis.
The immediate implications of this political realignment are stark. The US Department of Education, under Republican leadership, signals a return to policies that could severely impact borrower protections. Congressional leadership has already outlined plans to dismantle key programs, including potential restrictions on income-driven repayment plans and the elimination of Public Service Loan Forgiveness. These changes threaten to unravel years of incremental progress in making higher education more accessible and debt management more feasible for millions of Americans. And Trump—even before he took office in January 2025—campaigned on a promise that he would ultimately dismantle the Department of Education.
The student debt crisis remains one of the most pressing civil rights issues of our time, with implications that cut across racial, economic, and generational lines. Black borrowers carry a disproportionate burden, holding nearly 50 percent more debt on average than their white counterparts four years after graduation. Women hold roughly two-thirds of all student debt, creating a gender-based disparity that compounds existing wage gaps. These statistics reflect systemic inequities that the new administrationʼs policies threaten to exacerbate.
The Republican Congress has signaled its intent to pursue several troubling policy changes. First, any proposals to cap or eliminate Grad PLUS loans would devastate graduate education accessibility, particularly affecting HBCUs and other MSIs, where these loans are crucial for professional advancement. Second, plans to privatize aspects of federal loan servicing could remove crucial consumer protections and oversight mechanisms, potentially leading to predatory practices similar to those seen in the subprime mortgage crisis. Finally, proposed changes to Pell Grant funding formulas could reduce access for the most economically vulnerable students, forcing them to take on even more debt or abandon their educational aspirations entirely.
The election of Trump and a conservative-leaning Congress also presents opportunities for strategic innovation at the federal level. The movement for student debt relief must evolve beyond traditional advocacy approaches and develop a multilayered response to these new political realities.
State-level action will become increasingly crucial in this new environment. Several states have already implemented promising programs that could serve as national models. For instance, Massachusettsʼs Student Loan Bill of Rights provides robust borrower protections that could be replicated elsewhere. Maineʼs student loan tax credit program offers relief through the state tax code, demonstrating how states can provide tangible benefits even when federal policy is hostile. The regulatory framework at the state level offers another avenue for progress. State attorneys general have significant authority to oversee loan servicers and protect borrowers from predatory practices. This authority becomes even more critical as federal oversight will undoubtedly weaken under the Trump administration.
Looking ahead to the 2026 midterms and beyond, several strategic priorities must emerge. First, the student debt movement must focus on building durable political power that can withstand administrative changes. This requires developing sophisticated voter education and mobilization programs specifically focused on student debt issues. The demographic shifts in the electorate—with millennials and Gen Z comprising an increasingly large share of voters—create potential for building a powerful voting bloc around educational equity issues. Second, advocates must develop protection strategies for existing programs while simultaneously advancing new solutions. This includes strengthening state-level oversight of loan servicers; developing alternative financing mechanisms through state governments; creating public-private partnerships for debt relief; establishing strong legal frameworks to protect borrower rights; and building strong coalitions with labor union, civil rights organizations, and professional associations. Third, the movement needs to reframe the narrative around student debt in ways that resonate across ideological lines. Emphasizing economic growth, workforce development, and American competitiveness can help build broader support for debt relief policies, even in red states.
More importantly, the role of higher education institutions must evolve in response to this new political reality. Universities and colleges need to develop institutional loan relief programs, implement cost containment measures, create emergency aid programs, and reform financial aid packaging to minimize student borrowing and strengthen partnerships with state governments and private sector entities. My institution—Trinity Washington University—has already started to move in this direction.
There’s no question that the Trump administrationʼs approach to higher education financing represents more than just a policy shift—it signals a fundamental challenge to the very idea of education as a public good. The student debt relief movement must respond not only with tactical adjustments but also with a renewed articulation of why accessible, affordable higher education matters for Americaʼs future. The legal framework for protecting borrower rights will become increasingly important under this administration. Strategic litigation, state-level consumer protection laws, and regulatory oversight mechanisms will play crucial roles in maintaining basic protections for student borrowers. The movement must invest in legal infrastructure while simultaneously building political power for longer-term change.
The fundamental challenge facing the student debt movement in this era is not just political but moral: how to maintain momentum for systematic change while protecting vulnerable borrowers from immediate harm. The answer lies in building stronger coalitions, developing more sophisticated policy tools, and maintaining focus on both immediate protection and long-term transformation.
With the next presidential election around the corner, the movement for student debt relief and educational equity faces its greatest test yet. The current political environment demands not just resistance but reimagination—of strategies, of coalitions, and of possibilities for change. The path forward will require unprecedented coordination between state governments, educational institutions, advocacy organizations, and affected communities.
The story of student debt relief in America continues to unfold. While the federal landscape presents significant challenges, the movementʼs strength lies in its adaptability, its growing sophistication, and its deep commitment to educational equity. The arc of history still bends toward justice—but in this era, we must be prepared to bend it ourselves, through sustained organizing, innovative policy solutions, and unwavering commitment to the principle that education is a right, not a privilege reserved for the wealthy.
This is an excerpt from The Student Debt Crisis afterword, Keeping Hope Alive: The Long Arc of the Student Debt Movement in an Era of Political Resistance.
