I'll give the Orangutan this... he's finally accomplished something nobody (including Biden) could... he forgave every student loan out there (and then some.)
Finnegan ( and I'll call you that unless you give me a name you prefer), that is an absolutely brilliant piece! I don't have student loans because I never went to college, but if I did I'd be jumping for joy. I think you are 100% correct on contract law based on all the real estate I've bought and sold over the years. The terms of the contract are spelled out and if it's not in the contract it doesn't exist. My only worry is the republican unsupreme court and what they would rule, since they clearly don't base their rulings on established law. Thank you for this. It again proves why my subscription money is well spent.
As I said... if Alito dusts off some porn mag from 1294 BC and it says, "TRUMP CAN REWRITE CONTRACTS!" (because apparently, in the PornHub case, people visit for the articles?) ... well… that’s it. The rule of law has officially flatlined.
I said this in the piece already, but let me make it plain:
This. Cannot. Work.
It’s black letter law.
No, it’s not a valid assignment.
No, it’s not legal.
No, the government can’t just alter contract terms.
No, the Executive Branch doesn’t have some magic authority to reassign debts to other federal agencies like they're trading baseball cards.
Maybe—maybe—in a properly legislated scenario, you could construct a legal framework to allow something like this. But that’s not what’s happening. The reality is that HHS, SBA, and every other agency this is being dumped on have no statutory right to issue student loan debt.
That’s the core issue here: capacity. Legal capacity. These agencies weren’t granted it by Congress. No law was passed. No regulation changed. There’s no authority.
Even if, arguendo, we assumed the MPNs were “assignable,” the government still failed to go through any of the required processes to change the terms of entitlements or issue new regulations.
No Congressional authorization.
No public comment period.
No borrower notice.
Nothing.
And just to be clear: before the Federal Government began holding the principal on student loans, it used private banks to originate them. The interest was guaranteed by the Feds under the Higher Education Act. That’s how the old FFEL program worked.
Later, Congress passed legislation during the 2008–2009 financial crisis (e.g. the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act), which explicitly allowed the Department of Education to purchase those loans from private lenders to provide liquidity.
That authority was baked into the law and reflected in the Master Promissory Note. The banks were originators—not owners. They were issuing loans on behalf of the federal government, and the MPN clearly allowed for sale or transfer to ED so long as the terms didn’t change.
When the mortgage-backed securities crisis hit, those loans became toxic liabilities on bank balance sheets. The Feds stepped in—lawfully—and bought them. Then ED phased out the banks entirely. From that point forward, ED originated the loans directly via FAFSA and schools, and just outsourced servicing to loan sharks like MOHELA and Nelnet.
Again: that change was legal. It was done through Congress, via legislation. The MPN allowed for it.
But what Trump is doing now? That’s straight-up unlawful. I looked at the MPNs again tonight. All this crap—ending IDR, jacking up payments, reassigning agencies, changing terms retroactively—it’s just not in the contract.
The MPN explicitly caps repayment amounts under IDR. Some say 15%, some say 20%—but nowhere does it say, "Well, your payment is now nine thousand dollars. Screw you."
That’s a material breach. A complete disregard for contract law. It’s the legal equivalent of Trump walking into your grandma’s house and saying, “Yeah, Social Security’s done. You’ve lived long enough, Nana.”
That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.
And I'm glad you're happy with your subscription. :D
Hey, I'm new here because this article caught my eye. I have to say I am blown away. Thank you for the time and effort this article took. You will have a new paid subscription shortly.
However, I had a few questions, such as what if they somehow just named SBA as a loan servicer? Is that something they could attempt to do?
If that was successful would you be able to file bankruptcy on student loans then?
And lastly is he really this dumb? I mean like, seriously, or is this a calculated ploy to be able to justify more cuts? See, we don't have this money, so we have to cut more programs that people rely on.
I thought the rule of law already flatlined the moment King Krasnov was permitted to throw his hat/crown in the ring. Something about a section 3 in the fourteenth amendment.
This is (one of) the Supreme Court decision that blew my mind as 4 (4!) judges thought the federal government should not be forced to pay for services in accordance with the contract terms. Compared to the 6-3 decision on presidential immunity then it seems like it's not guaranteed to go the way this author explained.
Thank you for your “colourful,” “descriptive” language. I'm a Canadian 🇨🇦 with a few grievances against the orange-hued buffoon. One includes the breaching of a wee trade contract known as the USMCA. May this little man's hubris bite him really hard. May American student loan holders be smiling big. 🙂 And may the American people do the world a favour and unite sufficiently to get rid of him and his cohorts.
Your cogent layout of the applicability of contract law in regards to the current Trumpian 'initiative' to just wave his orange wand and *voila* all fixed, was a fascinating read. Im a huge health and social policy wonk, but your post makes me wish I'd chosen a career in law over health systems, research and policy ...the gal who wanted once to be a lawyer is salivating to get in this fight. Of course, being both Canadian and retired from academia, it's not my fight and that ship has sailed. I hope it's a challenge taken up by some erstwhile lawyers in the US should Trump blindly continue down this road.
Hey it's never too late to pivot! People who know *things* are helpful in law! If you understand policy and subject matter you'd be a valuable paralegal for a nonprofit in your area of expertise. The legal stuff is a learning curve, but very doable and you've got all the transferable skills. Just throwing it out there as something to think about without knowing you. Nonprofits can use a hand however you show up ❤️
Jen, thanks for that wee prod and vote of confidence. I actually already pivoted 180 degrees in retirement to being a working artist, and do a fair amount of volunteer work in my mum's long-term care home with her and other Alzheimer's residents. But this world won't let my mind relax and your suggestions really just made me recognize that I have the itch to get back into it. Cheers
If ur student loans are forgiven go back to school! I have been educating myself, found free resources of the constitution and Basic civics. Things make a bit more sense.
Wow! I have no student loans, paid mine off by 1980, and I am not sure that I agree with forgiving all student loans, but I applaud this post with everything I have. Just too delicious to have Trump screw himself. Major thanks for your post.
Yeah it really is so good it must be fattening. The Orangutan really outdid himself on this one.
There's precedent too. All his "BLOW UP USAID!" Failed. All his "BLOW UP DEI!" Failed. "FIRE EVERY INSPECTOR'S GENERAL!" Failed.
I mean... it's a shitshow with this clown.
As soon as the first assignment goes out... they will be sued. I believe the federal government will LOSE.
I also believe Congress will attempt a fix... unless there's something in the budget bill I missed (but I checked before writing this piece in case Congress did sneak something in on the 11th Hour in the conference. I didn't see anything obvious.) But you can't fix or amend the contracts period... not by even Congressional Action. You can fix the ones going forward... but you can't fix the MPNs already executed.
I mean...aside from the Grinch publicans trying to bleed the poor, there is no way these thieves would get to tell me I'm now paying X amount of $ I couldn't afford. I'd tell them to get bent. This is gross incompetence. These clowns are such cartoon villains nothing surprises me anymore...
You paid off your loans when things were affordable and salary matched the cost of living. We’re now forced to pay the minimum because salaries don’t match living costs. Because of that, we’ll almost never get out of that debt with interest so honestly you’re not agreeing with forgiveness is bs. Your circumstance doesn’t come close to the current situation.
Right you are, my student loan debt was miniscule both in terms of amount and afordability. On top of that my little family and I were largely supported by an NIH training grant. My mixed feelings about loan forgiveness come from the observation that students willingly took on the debt and benefitted from it and should expect to repay that debt. On the other hand, the cost of a University education is so great today that only a tiny minority of students can afford to avoid accumulating huge debt. That is why I said I am not sure how I feel about loan forgiveness. On balance I think I favor loan forgiveness.
One reason I am unsure is that I do not know who loses when the loan is forgiven. If it is the Federal government then I am fine with forgiveness because loans then become just an awkward and inefficient way of the Federal government, i.e. all of us, supporting students being educated. A really stupid way to support education, and one that generates incredible angst, stress, and economic warfare against former students. But if those loans effectively came from individual investors, then those individuals are getting screwed.
So my being unsure is not bs after all. It is not without sympathy for former students burdened by loans. Your reply was spot on and entirely reasonable, right up to the "bs" business, which was both unnecessary and detrimental to your point.
This is generally directed at all who are either vehemently against loan forgiveness or on the fence- why waste the time even thinking about it? Has nothing to do with you, affects you in no way whatsoever, and especially for those whining “people should pay them back because I did, etc”, it’s impossible to not sound petty. Millions of people would suddenly be able to afford more basics and the economy would benefit. Imagine not having kids or buying a house or avoiding marriage (so your spouse isn’t burdened with your debt) just because you went to college! Most of us with crushing student loan debt were berated that if we didn’t go to college we’d never earn a decent income. And those working minimum wage or low wage jobs get harassed that we should get better jobs if we want to be able to afford life basics, but the only way to afford college is with loans. Or take double or triple the time to finish a degree while working.
Yes, I realize there are plenty of people who have been able to pay for college and get a decent job and live a middle class life. That’s great. There’s no reason for those who couldn’t attain that goal to suffer unnecessarily. The ramifications will last a long time, including a shrinking population that won’t be able to support a large elderly generation that will need healthcare workers, SS funding, etc.
That's the problem with the name. It should be student loan interest forgiveness.
For example If a student loan is $72,000 and the former student has paid $116,000, but still owe $56,000 on the principal, then the loan is considered paid by the $100,000 paid in interest. The interest paid is converted to their principal.
My first grad school loan was for $2K, in 1978. Paid it off at $20/mo. My next grad school loan was for $67,000. I pay $350/mo, I’m 72, and I haven’t paid a penny of principal in 10 years. There’s something ridiculously wrong with that contrast. Forgiveness might include your kids or nieces - you can be happy for them, and grateful that our workforce is getting an abundant supply of as many people who want to contribute by advancing their skills as possible.
Sorry, I listen to Main Justice podcast every week, and I totally read this in Andew Weissmann's @weissmann and Mary McCord's voice. Especially when you said wackadoo :)
I'm sharing this around to everyone I know that have or may have student loans!
We paid for my daughter's education by taking loans on our retirement out so she wouldn't be saddled with debt her whole life, and I don't have any issues with others having student debt relief!
lol. I like Andrew a lot. I don’t think he’d remember me but I bumped into him when he was at the FBI. I can think of considerably worse people to be compared to.
FYI… he’s also here on Substack.
I’d be curious as to his take on this honestly. I mean the devil is in the details on all this and yes some of my article is just shaking my fist.. but the Tucker Act is real. The Equal Access to Justice Act is real. The Higher Education Act is real.
What I suspect is going to happen is that the Court (the six imbeciles) are going to say we aren’t letting 40 million people off the hook because the President acted rashly. They may conclude it was an “ultra vires” act and thus the act itself was unlawful and thus not binding upon the government.
The problem with that fuckery is you can’t have it both ways. You can’t constantly defer to executive power but then say discretion is ultra vires.
I’d say my idea is about 70/30 likely to be right. The 30% is the fact that nearly 3 trillion dollars and bankrupting companies like Nelnet and MOHELA are on the line.
Yes I do follow Andrew Weissmann here as well! And I put his user name in the comment in hopes he'll get the tag.
Selfishly, I'm hoping he'll read this and they'll have a discussion about it on Main Justice 😅
I think we're all shaking our fists these days. It's practically like breathing to be honest
And yes, i do wish what you have said would come to pass, but ultimately I believe he can not completely do away with the Dept of Ed. as that is on congress to decide, so the loans will ultimately be able to continue being held there? Even if it is a gutted department
Does one of you have a LinkedIn Account (Premium)? He can be messaged directly that way. I found him there but my account (free) won't let me send a message (and I'm not paying for Premium for a single message because I don't do much on LinkedIn).
Some of us are still waiting on the one time IDR Waiver loan forgiveness bc FSA screwed up our payment counts some us (me) by eight years of payments I made THEY missed. My Aid Data says I was in deferment for EIGHT years- IMPOSSIBLE and absurd. How does one miss that grave error? I have been waiting since Oct 2022 when they had me consolidate my loans into the William T. Ford loan to get the IDR waiver- then they dragged out the consolidation deadline to June 2024. All the hoops I’ve jumped through are ridiculous and DOGE better look into where all the payments ( only interest touched) went to because my loans ballooned three time the original amount and I have been in repayment for 30 years. I am not alone. Those MP notes are legal BS and need to be looked at with a microscope. All these student loans need to be investigated. Biden made those forgiveness programs for a reason. We were never given the option to go on IDR plans and if I had been on IDR my loans would have been forgiven at the 25 year mark. Trump is right in thinking FSA has made a disorganized mess of them. They have.
Then why does it not follow if SCOTUS says his attempted assignment is void, then how is abolishing the dept legal if it's the only one named on the contract? Is it possible they would have to recind the abolishing of DEd? How do you get around the reassignment to administer the loan program, could they not just make new order that says dept Ed is still a thing but now the head of Ed let's SBA originate and svc loans as the administrator? Like dept of Ed becomes a holding company? I almost don't want to air this in public and give them any ideas because they're so incompetent I wouldn't be surprised if they're fishing in everyone's socials for clues.
First - Courts don't jump in and proactively say things... cases have to come before them, then they adjudicate.
Second - I'm not getting around the assignment... I'm pointing out the problems in the policies and how those problems run head strong into violations of the law.
Third - as for saying SBA is now a servicer... it won't surprise me if that's what the Supreme Court concludes... but it's a grossly told lie then about the law and the nature of the contract... but I hold out this possibility.
Sry don't understand #1 + #2, I'm jumping ahead in time to SCOTUS rulings, someone sues over a loan or whether SBA is legally able to collect or legality of disbanding DOEd and then assuming it goes to SCOTUS and they declare the assignment of contracts void would that defacto reconstitute DOEd? If one of the two depts primary functions was to administer contracts for education loans and no other agency is legally able to do so (pretend for a minute that 4 aren't able to work backwards to the conclusion they want and just make something up from whole cloth) is that a path back to reversal of ending DOEd?
Does one of you have a LinkedIn Account (Premium)? He can be messaged directly that way. I found him there but my account (free) won't let me send a message (and I'm not paying for Premium for a single message because I don't do much on LinkedIn).
A few clarifying questions, if you wouldn't mind....
You shared:
"The MPN allows your loan to be transferred between servicers—companies like MOHELA, Nelnet, Aidvantage—but those are just contracted agents of the Department of Education, not owners."
What stops the government from naming new servicers (like HHS or SBA) to the contract? Can they be considered servicers?
You shared:
"If you suddenly find your loan managed by an agency not named in your contract, not authorized by Congress, and not subject to the same legal compliance regime, guess what?"
Are there usually provisions (or is there legal precedent) if the agency or party to the contract is "subsumed" (e.g., bought or merged into) by another party? In that case, could the argument be made that the DoEd was "subsumed or merged" for fiscal purposes?
You shared:
"Under the Tucker Act? Yes, I’d argue. If the contract was breached and you suffered financial or procedural harm, I assert that the parties have a viable claim (at least one that survives a motion to dismiss or summary judgment.)"
What would be the argument regarding financial or procedural harm? Could it be argued that a change of address on your payment is not "harm", since they could have assigned you to a different servicer anyways?
1. Can the government name new servicers, like HHS or SBA?
No—not as servicers. Servicers are private or quasi-private entities contracted by the Department of Education to manage repayment logistics (billing, customer service, etc.) under the authority of the Higher Education Act of 1965. This is both in the law and in the contract (MPN) itself. It's spelled out who is a servicer as a term of the agreement. Agencies like SBA or HHS are not private contractors—they are entirely separate federal agencies with no statutory authority under the HEA to hold, manage, or enforce student loans.
In legal terms, the difference is between delegating servicing authority under a statute versus transferring ownership or enforcement power to an entity not named in the statute or contract. The MPN allows the former—not the latter.
2. What if ED is "subsumed" into another agency? Could that justify the transfer?
This would require an act of Congress. Executive action alone cannot "merge" or dissolve a Cabinet-level department and reassign its legal responsibilities without new legislation. The Department of Education is a statutory entity, and its powers are granted by law—not by executive whim.
You could argue this if Congress passed a law abolishing ED and transferring its legal authorities to another agency with statutory parity. But that’s not what’s happening here. This is an administrative fiat that attempts to move legally bound contracts to agencies without statutory authority or contractual language to support the move. That’s a material breach, not a merger.
3. What’s the harm? Isn’t this just a new payment address?
Good question—but no, it’s not just administrative. The harm isn’t the address—it’s the legal standing and enforceability of the contract.
Changing your servicer from Nelnet to MOHELA? That’s anticipated and permitted by the contract and statute. Changing the federal agency responsible for holding, enforcing, and interpreting the loan contract? That’s a structural, legal, and procedural shift that:
a) Violates the terms of the MPN (which specifically names ED)
b) Removes statutory protections and processes guaranteed under the HEA
c) Introduces enforcement risk—since SBA or HHS may apply different rules, repayment policies, dispute processes, or collection actions
Those changes constitute procedural harm (removal of guaranteed administrative and legal protections) and financial harm (e.g., changes to IDR eligibility, forgiveness rules, appeal rights, etc.). Thus, that's why I cited the Tucker Act.
So no—it’s not just a new mailing address. It’s the equivalent of changing your mortgage lender from a bank to the local Department of Transportation and pretending nothing changed. That’s not how contracts—or federal authority—work.
How do we get this fabulous post of yours to the right people? Andrew Weismann, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Chris Cuomo is a lawyer!!! Michael Steele would be all over this!!
LOL. I appreciate your enthusiasm, and I do. It's flattering. I don't think the idea makes for good TV. Plus, you just had the SECDEF, DCI, DNI, SECSTATE, and a bunch of others send to The Atlantic the OPLAN for the Houthi attack...
Which btw... Jeffrey's reporting... lol. Awesome. I had some peeps show me his article and whatnot and the clips this morning going, "You think this is real?" and my reply was "Jeff doesn't lie. Plus, I mean come on... don't you think it's possible it happened?"
That's all anyone is going to talk about for the next cycle...
I think my "Trump blew it on student loans" story might be a bit OBE... if ever there was an "OBE" to be had... revealing a top-secret battle plan would do it.
When letters come out from the SBA... and when the lawsuits start... maybe then it will be back on the burner.
Bannon was right... flooding the zone does overload the media... hence why I write what I do.
It’s a great set of arguments (speaking as a retired English lawyer), but please could you think about refraining from associating Trump with orangutans. Other than being orange, they have nothing in common with the aptly-named “Orange Asshole”. Orangutans are noble, intelligent animals, and an endangered species. Trump, and his millions of MAGA wannabees are, sadly, not.
I immediately went to download my MPN, and found that the only one available is for a loan never disbursed, because I changed my mind (2019). The MPN for my actual loans, from 2002 & 3, aren’t there.
I’ll call Nelnet & DOE on Monday, but am a little concerned.
My MPNs from going to grad school in the 2010s are there but not the MPN from undergrad from the 2000s. I think the loans were structured differently back then and they never had it on the website. I’ll probably contact them and request it in writing.
Why would this not just function as an assignment of debt? I mean, I'd love for this to be a thing because my student debt makes me cry. But also, too good to be true in these trying times, he hates educated people and I wouldn't be surprised if he accelerated the debt and tossed us all into shiny new for-profit debtors jail if we couldn't pay the balance in full. The scary thing is I'm only half joking, please don't post this comment on Twitter so Elon Musk can RT it and say "good idea".
It seems like it could just be an ordinary “assignment of debt,” like what happens with credit cards or mortgages. But here’s the big difference:
Federal student loans aren’t governed solely by contract law—they’re governed by federal statute. And under the Higher Education Act, only the Department of Education has the legal authority to originate, hold, and enforce these loans. Agencies like the SBA or HHS have zero statutory authority to manage student loans. None.
So this isn’t just an assignment—it’s an illegal reassignment to an entity not authorized by law or contract. That’s not an administrative reshuffle; that’s a material breach of contract. If they try to collect on a breached contract without legal standing, borrowers can—and should—fight back in court.
You’re right to be skeptical (and yeah, terrified about the whole “accelerate and imprison” scenario—please let’s not give Elon any more ideas). But ironically, this move might make enforcement harder for the government. Because once you break the contract, you lose the right to enforce it.
So no—this isn’t a clean “assignment.” It’s a legal faceplant. And it might be the first time Trump accidentally forgave student debt… by being Trump.
Federal statute v. contract law is an important difference! Thanks for breaking this down a bit more and giving me a research frame. What a freaking quagmire we're all in right now. I would love to see people fighting back against this. My student loan debt destroyed my credit because, as my servicer told me when I was in default many years ago (after nearly being homeless) and they put me in I9 status to consolidate and do whatever the fuck else they needed to do to roll the interest and penalties into a new loan which doubled my debt but took me out of default because "I should have thought about that before I had kids."
Totally agree—student loan law, especially after Bush’s 2005 bankruptcy reform, was a disaster. It basically turned student debt into a **lifelong financial sentence**, insulated from discharge and wrapped in bureaucracy Congress refuses to touch.
If you’ve read some of my other pieces—especially on taxation and government spending—it gets even more maddening. Student loan payments function like a regressive tax, targeting younger, often lower-income Americans while corporations dodge billions.
I’m truly sorry you’ve been dragged through the muck with this system. And just to be clear—I’m not saying this is some magical *get out of jail free* card. That’s wishful thinking. What I **do** think is more realistic is this:
- Federal courts will likely rule that reassigning loans to SBA or HHS is unlawful.
- Any enforcement actions taken by those agencies—if the loans were reassigned—could be voided due to lack of standing or breach of contract.
- For any contracts deemed void or rescinded, the government would have to start from scratch in federal court to pursue collection. That means new filings, new judgments, and new legal hurdles.
They can't just flip a switch and say, “Oh, you owe SBA now, pay up or we’re garnishing you.” They’d need to sue you—and win. And given the breach? That’s far from guaranteed.
So yeah, this is just Chapter One of the Orangutan Shitshow: Contract Law Edition. We’ll see how the courts respond. But I’d bet real money no federal judge with half a law degree says, “Sure, this is fine.”
Yes, let’s see, because mortgages, including federally guaranteed mortgages, are sold and although the “holder of the note” re mortgages defense in foreclosure cases did work sometimes when first raised-e.g. the case you cited from 13-14 years ago, the lenders/note buyers figured out how to satisfy the courts most of the time or in some cases the pleading and burden of proof were legislatively changed so it didn’t work so well anymore. If you’re relying on the statute, those can be changed-the Higher Education Act has been changed (e.g. eliminating FFEL loans), the Bankruptcy Code treatment of student loans has changed several times, and the statute of limitations on collecting federal student loans was eliminated.
So unless your loan has an anti-assignment provision I wouldn’t run to sue the SBA right away. The US legal system will bend over backwards to enforce property rights and I expect they’ll do it with regard to these
"The US legal system will bend over backwards to enforce property rights and I expect they’ll do it with regard to these"
I do too... for what it's worth. That said, my point is how ridiculously illegal and stupid this all was.
I fully expect the Supremes to wave a magic wand on enforceability. However, it won't be a legal one... just like we all raise an eyebrow when the Supremes said, "Bribery? Yeah of course that shit is legal."
This is the first ear to ear grin I’ve had all day, (and my student loans are already paid off). What a relief to hear some fuckin awesome news for Americans.
As a federal student loan debtor who filed for bankruptcy after a horrific accident left me unable to work for three years, I’m curious if moving federal student loans to the SBA would allow them to be discharged in bankruptcy, since one can have SBA loans discharged in a bankruptcy.
Hi Jen, I dont know you, but I have so much student debt it is embarrassing for me to reveal it here. But I want to give you two tips: 1- My student debt is so much that I don't even think it's real. I look at it every once in a while, and I crack up. Dont let it destroy your mind and ruin your day. Laugh at it. 2- Finnegan's argument is logical, and it's worth serious consideration by all parties trying to solve the student debt crisis. Finnegan's arguments are rational and have solid legal backing. I also looked up some of his legal arguments using AI, and Finnegan is right on target. Have a great Saturday, my dear. Do not panic. The only thing to fear is fear itself. I feel you. They lied to us. They told us that education is key to upward mobility, and it was not the case, not even close. They told us that our student debt won't be an issue with getting a car lease or a mortgage, but that's not true. they do look at the debt and they do raise the rates for us.
Hello! Sheesh, thanks for the words of encouragement. I agree, my number is so big it’s embarrassing and I didn’t even finish my BS which makes it even more offensive. I try not to think about it and all the harm it’s caused me over the years. As with all things…we’ll get through it. I’m glad people like Finnegan are digging into it.
Just another trumpian oooppsie from this fake administration of government efficiency. I worked decades to pay off my loans. I think anyone who paid loans back deserves restitution. Just sayin'.
New update for those interested:
https://www.thelongmemo.com/p/is-every-student-loan-about-to-be
As I started to read I was suspicious but then I smirked. I like this. Made my day!
Yeah... I do that... :) A real bait and switch. :) SURPRISE! LEARNING! :D
Finnegan ( and I'll call you that unless you give me a name you prefer), that is an absolutely brilliant piece! I don't have student loans because I never went to college, but if I did I'd be jumping for joy. I think you are 100% correct on contract law based on all the real estate I've bought and sold over the years. The terms of the contract are spelled out and if it's not in the contract it doesn't exist. My only worry is the republican unsupreme court and what they would rule, since they clearly don't base their rulings on established law. Thank you for this. It again proves why my subscription money is well spent.
As I said... if Alito dusts off some porn mag from 1294 BC and it says, "TRUMP CAN REWRITE CONTRACTS!" (because apparently, in the PornHub case, people visit for the articles?) ... well… that’s it. The rule of law has officially flatlined.
I said this in the piece already, but let me make it plain:
This. Cannot. Work.
It’s black letter law.
No, it’s not a valid assignment.
No, it’s not legal.
No, the government can’t just alter contract terms.
No, the Executive Branch doesn’t have some magic authority to reassign debts to other federal agencies like they're trading baseball cards.
Maybe—maybe—in a properly legislated scenario, you could construct a legal framework to allow something like this. But that’s not what’s happening. The reality is that HHS, SBA, and every other agency this is being dumped on have no statutory right to issue student loan debt.
That’s the core issue here: capacity. Legal capacity. These agencies weren’t granted it by Congress. No law was passed. No regulation changed. There’s no authority.
Even if, arguendo, we assumed the MPNs were “assignable,” the government still failed to go through any of the required processes to change the terms of entitlements or issue new regulations.
No Congressional authorization.
No public comment period.
No borrower notice.
Nothing.
And just to be clear: before the Federal Government began holding the principal on student loans, it used private banks to originate them. The interest was guaranteed by the Feds under the Higher Education Act. That’s how the old FFEL program worked.
Later, Congress passed legislation during the 2008–2009 financial crisis (e.g. the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act), which explicitly allowed the Department of Education to purchase those loans from private lenders to provide liquidity.
That authority was baked into the law and reflected in the Master Promissory Note. The banks were originators—not owners. They were issuing loans on behalf of the federal government, and the MPN clearly allowed for sale or transfer to ED so long as the terms didn’t change.
When the mortgage-backed securities crisis hit, those loans became toxic liabilities on bank balance sheets. The Feds stepped in—lawfully—and bought them. Then ED phased out the banks entirely. From that point forward, ED originated the loans directly via FAFSA and schools, and just outsourced servicing to loan sharks like MOHELA and Nelnet.
Again: that change was legal. It was done through Congress, via legislation. The MPN allowed for it.
But what Trump is doing now? That’s straight-up unlawful. I looked at the MPNs again tonight. All this crap—ending IDR, jacking up payments, reassigning agencies, changing terms retroactively—it’s just not in the contract.
The MPN explicitly caps repayment amounts under IDR. Some say 15%, some say 20%—but nowhere does it say, "Well, your payment is now nine thousand dollars. Screw you."
That’s a material breach. A complete disregard for contract law. It’s the legal equivalent of Trump walking into your grandma’s house and saying, “Yeah, Social Security’s done. You’ve lived long enough, Nana.”
That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.
And I'm glad you're happy with your subscription. :D
Hey, I'm new here because this article caught my eye. I have to say I am blown away. Thank you for the time and effort this article took. You will have a new paid subscription shortly.
However, I had a few questions, such as what if they somehow just named SBA as a loan servicer? Is that something they could attempt to do?
If that was successful would you be able to file bankruptcy on student loans then?
And lastly is he really this dumb? I mean like, seriously, or is this a calculated ploy to be able to justify more cuts? See, we don't have this money, so we have to cut more programs that people rely on.
I thought the rule of law already flatlined the moment King Krasnov was permitted to throw his hat/crown in the ring. Something about a section 3 in the fourteenth amendment.
Nothing like slamming closed the back door to defending yourself with sharp practice...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/preventing-abuses-of-the-legal-system-and-the-federal-court/
The post appearing on my feed and then seeing this comment got me to subscribe 😆
This is (one of) the Supreme Court decision that blew my mind as 4 (4!) judges thought the federal government should not be forced to pay for services in accordance with the contract terms. Compared to the 6-3 decision on presidential immunity then it seems like it's not guaranteed to go the way this author explained.
Thank you for your “colourful,” “descriptive” language. I'm a Canadian 🇨🇦 with a few grievances against the orange-hued buffoon. One includes the breaching of a wee trade contract known as the USMCA. May this little man's hubris bite him really hard. May American student loan holders be smiling big. 🙂 And may the American people do the world a favour and unite sufficiently to get rid of him and his cohorts.
Your cogent layout of the applicability of contract law in regards to the current Trumpian 'initiative' to just wave his orange wand and *voila* all fixed, was a fascinating read. Im a huge health and social policy wonk, but your post makes me wish I'd chosen a career in law over health systems, research and policy ...the gal who wanted once to be a lawyer is salivating to get in this fight. Of course, being both Canadian and retired from academia, it's not my fight and that ship has sailed. I hope it's a challenge taken up by some erstwhile lawyers in the US should Trump blindly continue down this road.
Hey it's never too late to pivot! People who know *things* are helpful in law! If you understand policy and subject matter you'd be a valuable paralegal for a nonprofit in your area of expertise. The legal stuff is a learning curve, but very doable and you've got all the transferable skills. Just throwing it out there as something to think about without knowing you. Nonprofits can use a hand however you show up ❤️
Jen, thanks for that wee prod and vote of confidence. I actually already pivoted 180 degrees in retirement to being a working artist, and do a fair amount of volunteer work in my mum's long-term care home with her and other Alzheimer's residents. But this world won't let my mind relax and your suggestions really just made me recognize that I have the itch to get back into it. Cheers
If ur student loans are forgiven go back to school! I have been educating myself, found free resources of the constitution and Basic civics. Things make a bit more sense.
Wow! I have no student loans, paid mine off by 1980, and I am not sure that I agree with forgiving all student loans, but I applaud this post with everything I have. Just too delicious to have Trump screw himself. Major thanks for your post.
❤️❤️❤️👍👍👍👍👍🤗🤗🤗🤗🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
Yeah it really is so good it must be fattening. The Orangutan really outdid himself on this one.
There's precedent too. All his "BLOW UP USAID!" Failed. All his "BLOW UP DEI!" Failed. "FIRE EVERY INSPECTOR'S GENERAL!" Failed.
I mean... it's a shitshow with this clown.
As soon as the first assignment goes out... they will be sued. I believe the federal government will LOSE.
I also believe Congress will attempt a fix... unless there's something in the budget bill I missed (but I checked before writing this piece in case Congress did sneak something in on the 11th Hour in the conference. I didn't see anything obvious.) But you can't fix or amend the contracts period... not by even Congressional Action. You can fix the ones going forward... but you can't fix the MPNs already executed.
I mean...aside from the Grinch publicans trying to bleed the poor, there is no way these thieves would get to tell me I'm now paying X amount of $ I couldn't afford. I'd tell them to get bent. This is gross incompetence. These clowns are such cartoon villains nothing surprises me anymore...
You paid off your loans when things were affordable and salary matched the cost of living. We’re now forced to pay the minimum because salaries don’t match living costs. Because of that, we’ll almost never get out of that debt with interest so honestly you’re not agreeing with forgiveness is bs. Your circumstance doesn’t come close to the current situation.
Right you are, my student loan debt was miniscule both in terms of amount and afordability. On top of that my little family and I were largely supported by an NIH training grant. My mixed feelings about loan forgiveness come from the observation that students willingly took on the debt and benefitted from it and should expect to repay that debt. On the other hand, the cost of a University education is so great today that only a tiny minority of students can afford to avoid accumulating huge debt. That is why I said I am not sure how I feel about loan forgiveness. On balance I think I favor loan forgiveness.
One reason I am unsure is that I do not know who loses when the loan is forgiven. If it is the Federal government then I am fine with forgiveness because loans then become just an awkward and inefficient way of the Federal government, i.e. all of us, supporting students being educated. A really stupid way to support education, and one that generates incredible angst, stress, and economic warfare against former students. But if those loans effectively came from individual investors, then those individuals are getting screwed.
So my being unsure is not bs after all. It is not without sympathy for former students burdened by loans. Your reply was spot on and entirely reasonable, right up to the "bs" business, which was both unnecessary and detrimental to your point.
Keep writing. You are pretty good.
This is generally directed at all who are either vehemently against loan forgiveness or on the fence- why waste the time even thinking about it? Has nothing to do with you, affects you in no way whatsoever, and especially for those whining “people should pay them back because I did, etc”, it’s impossible to not sound petty. Millions of people would suddenly be able to afford more basics and the economy would benefit. Imagine not having kids or buying a house or avoiding marriage (so your spouse isn’t burdened with your debt) just because you went to college! Most of us with crushing student loan debt were berated that if we didn’t go to college we’d never earn a decent income. And those working minimum wage or low wage jobs get harassed that we should get better jobs if we want to be able to afford life basics, but the only way to afford college is with loans. Or take double or triple the time to finish a degree while working.
Yes, I realize there are plenty of people who have been able to pay for college and get a decent job and live a middle class life. That’s great. There’s no reason for those who couldn’t attain that goal to suffer unnecessarily. The ramifications will last a long time, including a shrinking population that won’t be able to support a large elderly generation that will need healthcare workers, SS funding, etc.
Student Loan Forgiveness is converting the loans to zero percentage interest. The students still pay the principal of the loan.
Oh, hell yes. I fully support that!
And if the student has paid the equivalent of the principal, then the remaining (essentially, interest) would be forgiven
I did not know that . I assumed that forgiveness applied to both principal and interest.
That's the problem with the name. It should be student loan interest forgiveness.
For example If a student loan is $72,000 and the former student has paid $116,000, but still owe $56,000 on the principal, then the loan is considered paid by the $100,000 paid in interest. The interest paid is converted to their principal.
My first grad school loan was for $2K, in 1978. Paid it off at $20/mo. My next grad school loan was for $67,000. I pay $350/mo, I’m 72, and I haven’t paid a penny of principal in 10 years. There’s something ridiculously wrong with that contrast. Forgiveness might include your kids or nieces - you can be happy for them, and grateful that our workforce is getting an abundant supply of as many people who want to contribute by advancing their skills as possible.
Oh, Jesus! I am so sorry about your situation. See my response to Krissy above.
Maybe it’s “fake news”!
Sorry, I listen to Main Justice podcast every week, and I totally read this in Andew Weissmann's @weissmann and Mary McCord's voice. Especially when you said wackadoo :)
I'm sharing this around to everyone I know that have or may have student loans!
We paid for my daughter's education by taking loans on our retirement out so she wouldn't be saddled with debt her whole life, and I don't have any issues with others having student debt relief!
lol. I like Andrew a lot. I don’t think he’d remember me but I bumped into him when he was at the FBI. I can think of considerably worse people to be compared to.
FYI… he’s also here on Substack.
I’d be curious as to his take on this honestly. I mean the devil is in the details on all this and yes some of my article is just shaking my fist.. but the Tucker Act is real. The Equal Access to Justice Act is real. The Higher Education Act is real.
What I suspect is going to happen is that the Court (the six imbeciles) are going to say we aren’t letting 40 million people off the hook because the President acted rashly. They may conclude it was an “ultra vires” act and thus the act itself was unlawful and thus not binding upon the government.
The problem with that fuckery is you can’t have it both ways. You can’t constantly defer to executive power but then say discretion is ultra vires.
I’d say my idea is about 70/30 likely to be right. The 30% is the fact that nearly 3 trillion dollars and bankrupting companies like Nelnet and MOHELA are on the line.
Yes I do follow Andrew Weissmann here as well! And I put his user name in the comment in hopes he'll get the tag.
Selfishly, I'm hoping he'll read this and they'll have a discussion about it on Main Justice 😅
I think we're all shaking our fists these days. It's practically like breathing to be honest
And yes, i do wish what you have said would come to pass, but ultimately I believe he can not completely do away with the Dept of Ed. as that is on congress to decide, so the loans will ultimately be able to continue being held there? Even if it is a gutted department
Does one of you have a LinkedIn Account (Premium)? He can be messaged directly that way. I found him there but my account (free) won't let me send a message (and I'm not paying for Premium for a single message because I don't do much on LinkedIn).
Some of us are still waiting on the one time IDR Waiver loan forgiveness bc FSA screwed up our payment counts some us (me) by eight years of payments I made THEY missed. My Aid Data says I was in deferment for EIGHT years- IMPOSSIBLE and absurd. How does one miss that grave error? I have been waiting since Oct 2022 when they had me consolidate my loans into the William T. Ford loan to get the IDR waiver- then they dragged out the consolidation deadline to June 2024. All the hoops I’ve jumped through are ridiculous and DOGE better look into where all the payments ( only interest touched) went to because my loans ballooned three time the original amount and I have been in repayment for 30 years. I am not alone. Those MP notes are legal BS and need to be looked at with a microscope. All these student loans need to be investigated. Biden made those forgiveness programs for a reason. We were never given the option to go on IDR plans and if I had been on IDR my loans would have been forgiven at the 25 year mark. Trump is right in thinking FSA has made a disorganized mess of them. They have.
Then why does it not follow if SCOTUS says his attempted assignment is void, then how is abolishing the dept legal if it's the only one named on the contract? Is it possible they would have to recind the abolishing of DEd? How do you get around the reassignment to administer the loan program, could they not just make new order that says dept Ed is still a thing but now the head of Ed let's SBA originate and svc loans as the administrator? Like dept of Ed becomes a holding company? I almost don't want to air this in public and give them any ideas because they're so incompetent I wouldn't be surprised if they're fishing in everyone's socials for clues.
Three things...
First - Courts don't jump in and proactively say things... cases have to come before them, then they adjudicate.
Second - I'm not getting around the assignment... I'm pointing out the problems in the policies and how those problems run head strong into violations of the law.
Third - as for saying SBA is now a servicer... it won't surprise me if that's what the Supreme Court concludes... but it's a grossly told lie then about the law and the nature of the contract... but I hold out this possibility.
Sry don't understand #1 + #2, I'm jumping ahead in time to SCOTUS rulings, someone sues over a loan or whether SBA is legally able to collect or legality of disbanding DOEd and then assuming it goes to SCOTUS and they declare the assignment of contracts void would that defacto reconstitute DOEd? If one of the two depts primary functions was to administer contracts for education loans and no other agency is legally able to do so (pretend for a minute that 4 aren't able to work backwards to the conclusion they want and just make something up from whole cloth) is that a path back to reversal of ending DOEd?
Does one of you have a LinkedIn Account (Premium)? He can be messaged directly that way. I found him there but my account (free) won't let me send a message (and I'm not paying for Premium for a single message because I don't do much on LinkedIn).
Interesting eye opening piece.
Just want to say, Orangutans are considered playful, gentle, and peaceful animals. Can we give him another moniker?
I'm somewhat partial to the "Tangerine Tyrant"... but to me... he's the Orangutan from "Any Which Way but Loose."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DS3nd8Nrcw
Mango Mussolini?
LOL! I've heard that one... it's not bad...
Shitler.
That's the closest one to reality.
Tangeranus.
I just use orange turd, everyone knows what I'm referring to.
my personal favorite way to refer to him is as "the orange hemorrhoid festering on the asshole of this country" but it's quite a mouthful
LOL! Wow. Yeah...
Well... I'll find another equally colorful moniker... although I've been thinking maybe I shouldn't...
He (Trump) likes to do that... maybe it's not such a good idea to also have the ad hominem back... although I do believe he so richly deserves it.
I personally call him Agent Orange.
If you are too young to know what Agent Orange is, google it; you'll get it then.
Yes, indeed. 😄
I call him felon47
I just simply call him the
ORANGE LUNATIC
Felon 47 has a nice ring to it. That’s my preferred moniker.
I started using screaming yam when I saw it here on Substack from another user. 😆
Damn fine piece of writing on a zillion levels!
A few clarifying questions, if you wouldn't mind....
You shared:
"The MPN allows your loan to be transferred between servicers—companies like MOHELA, Nelnet, Aidvantage—but those are just contracted agents of the Department of Education, not owners."
What stops the government from naming new servicers (like HHS or SBA) to the contract? Can they be considered servicers?
You shared:
"If you suddenly find your loan managed by an agency not named in your contract, not authorized by Congress, and not subject to the same legal compliance regime, guess what?"
Are there usually provisions (or is there legal precedent) if the agency or party to the contract is "subsumed" (e.g., bought or merged into) by another party? In that case, could the argument be made that the DoEd was "subsumed or merged" for fiscal purposes?
You shared:
"Under the Tucker Act? Yes, I’d argue. If the contract was breached and you suffered financial or procedural harm, I assert that the parties have a viable claim (at least one that survives a motion to dismiss or summary judgment.)"
What would be the argument regarding financial or procedural harm? Could it be argued that a change of address on your payment is not "harm", since they could have assigned you to a different servicer anyways?
Thanks for this fascinating post.
Great questions—happy to clarify.
1. Can the government name new servicers, like HHS or SBA?
No—not as servicers. Servicers are private or quasi-private entities contracted by the Department of Education to manage repayment logistics (billing, customer service, etc.) under the authority of the Higher Education Act of 1965. This is both in the law and in the contract (MPN) itself. It's spelled out who is a servicer as a term of the agreement. Agencies like SBA or HHS are not private contractors—they are entirely separate federal agencies with no statutory authority under the HEA to hold, manage, or enforce student loans.
In legal terms, the difference is between delegating servicing authority under a statute versus transferring ownership or enforcement power to an entity not named in the statute or contract. The MPN allows the former—not the latter.
2. What if ED is "subsumed" into another agency? Could that justify the transfer?
This would require an act of Congress. Executive action alone cannot "merge" or dissolve a Cabinet-level department and reassign its legal responsibilities without new legislation. The Department of Education is a statutory entity, and its powers are granted by law—not by executive whim.
You could argue this if Congress passed a law abolishing ED and transferring its legal authorities to another agency with statutory parity. But that’s not what’s happening here. This is an administrative fiat that attempts to move legally bound contracts to agencies without statutory authority or contractual language to support the move. That’s a material breach, not a merger.
3. What’s the harm? Isn’t this just a new payment address?
Good question—but no, it’s not just administrative. The harm isn’t the address—it’s the legal standing and enforceability of the contract.
Changing your servicer from Nelnet to MOHELA? That’s anticipated and permitted by the contract and statute. Changing the federal agency responsible for holding, enforcing, and interpreting the loan contract? That’s a structural, legal, and procedural shift that:
a) Violates the terms of the MPN (which specifically names ED)
b) Removes statutory protections and processes guaranteed under the HEA
c) Introduces enforcement risk—since SBA or HHS may apply different rules, repayment policies, dispute processes, or collection actions
Those changes constitute procedural harm (removal of guaranteed administrative and legal protections) and financial harm (e.g., changes to IDR eligibility, forgiveness rules, appeal rights, etc.). Thus, that's why I cited the Tucker Act.
So no—it’s not just a new mailing address. It’s the equivalent of changing your mortgage lender from a bank to the local Department of Transportation and pretending nothing changed. That’s not how contracts—or federal authority—work.
Thanks. Very helpful!!
How do we get this fabulous post of yours to the right people? Andrew Weismann, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Chris Cuomo is a lawyer!!! Michael Steele would be all over this!!
LOL. I appreciate your enthusiasm, and I do. It's flattering. I don't think the idea makes for good TV. Plus, you just had the SECDEF, DCI, DNI, SECSTATE, and a bunch of others send to The Atlantic the OPLAN for the Houthi attack...
Which btw... Jeffrey's reporting... lol. Awesome. I had some peeps show me his article and whatnot and the clips this morning going, "You think this is real?" and my reply was "Jeff doesn't lie. Plus, I mean come on... don't you think it's possible it happened?"
That's all anyone is going to talk about for the next cycle...
I think my "Trump blew it on student loans" story might be a bit OBE... if ever there was an "OBE" to be had... revealing a top-secret battle plan would do it.
When letters come out from the SBA... and when the lawsuits start... maybe then it will be back on the burner.
Bannon was right... flooding the zone does overload the media... hence why I write what I do.
Excellent explanation.
We can only hope it all happens. Pass the popcorn.
I am going to take your advice and consult an attorney on this.
If this is what it sounds to be; Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!
Share with us what happens. :) (within reason)
I did. He found my missing eight years of payments. Stanley Tate.
It’s a great set of arguments (speaking as a retired English lawyer), but please could you think about refraining from associating Trump with orangutans. Other than being orange, they have nothing in common with the aptly-named “Orange Asshole”. Orangutans are noble, intelligent animals, and an endangered species. Trump, and his millions of MAGA wannabees are, sadly, not.
I am giddy after reading this!
I immediately went to download my MPN, and found that the only one available is for a loan never disbursed, because I changed my mind (2019). The MPN for my actual loans, from 2002 & 3, aren’t there.
I’ll call Nelnet & DOE on Monday, but am a little concerned.
THANK YOU for the mood lift I got from the read.
My notes are also missing. I made requests for them in writing. (I have mine… but it’s not about if I have the paperwork… the govt has to have it.)
CFPB has it all too.
Interesting if true… not statutorily require
My MPNs from going to grad school in the 2010s are there but not the MPN from undergrad from the 2000s. I think the loans were structured differently back then and they never had it on the website. I’ll probably contact them and request it in writing.
Why would this not just function as an assignment of debt? I mean, I'd love for this to be a thing because my student debt makes me cry. But also, too good to be true in these trying times, he hates educated people and I wouldn't be surprised if he accelerated the debt and tossed us all into shiny new for-profit debtors jail if we couldn't pay the balance in full. The scary thing is I'm only half joking, please don't post this comment on Twitter so Elon Musk can RT it and say "good idea".
It seems like it could just be an ordinary “assignment of debt,” like what happens with credit cards or mortgages. But here’s the big difference:
Federal student loans aren’t governed solely by contract law—they’re governed by federal statute. And under the Higher Education Act, only the Department of Education has the legal authority to originate, hold, and enforce these loans. Agencies like the SBA or HHS have zero statutory authority to manage student loans. None.
So this isn’t just an assignment—it’s an illegal reassignment to an entity not authorized by law or contract. That’s not an administrative reshuffle; that’s a material breach of contract. If they try to collect on a breached contract without legal standing, borrowers can—and should—fight back in court.
You’re right to be skeptical (and yeah, terrified about the whole “accelerate and imprison” scenario—please let’s not give Elon any more ideas). But ironically, this move might make enforcement harder for the government. Because once you break the contract, you lose the right to enforce it.
So no—this isn’t a clean “assignment.” It’s a legal faceplant. And it might be the first time Trump accidentally forgave student debt… by being Trump.
Federal statute v. contract law is an important difference! Thanks for breaking this down a bit more and giving me a research frame. What a freaking quagmire we're all in right now. I would love to see people fighting back against this. My student loan debt destroyed my credit because, as my servicer told me when I was in default many years ago (after nearly being homeless) and they put me in I9 status to consolidate and do whatever the fuck else they needed to do to roll the interest and penalties into a new loan which doubled my debt but took me out of default because "I should have thought about that before I had kids."
Totally agree—student loan law, especially after Bush’s 2005 bankruptcy reform, was a disaster. It basically turned student debt into a **lifelong financial sentence**, insulated from discharge and wrapped in bureaucracy Congress refuses to touch.
If you’ve read some of my other pieces—especially on taxation and government spending—it gets even more maddening. Student loan payments function like a regressive tax, targeting younger, often lower-income Americans while corporations dodge billions.
I’m truly sorry you’ve been dragged through the muck with this system. And just to be clear—I’m not saying this is some magical *get out of jail free* card. That’s wishful thinking. What I **do** think is more realistic is this:
- Federal courts will likely rule that reassigning loans to SBA or HHS is unlawful.
- Any enforcement actions taken by those agencies—if the loans were reassigned—could be voided due to lack of standing or breach of contract.
- For any contracts deemed void or rescinded, the government would have to start from scratch in federal court to pursue collection. That means new filings, new judgments, and new legal hurdles.
They can't just flip a switch and say, “Oh, you owe SBA now, pay up or we’re garnishing you.” They’d need to sue you—and win. And given the breach? That’s far from guaranteed.
So yeah, this is just Chapter One of the Orangutan Shitshow: Contract Law Edition. We’ll see how the courts respond. But I’d bet real money no federal judge with half a law degree says, “Sure, this is fine.”
Let’s see how deep the mess gets.
Yes, let’s see, because mortgages, including federally guaranteed mortgages, are sold and although the “holder of the note” re mortgages defense in foreclosure cases did work sometimes when first raised-e.g. the case you cited from 13-14 years ago, the lenders/note buyers figured out how to satisfy the courts most of the time or in some cases the pleading and burden of proof were legislatively changed so it didn’t work so well anymore. If you’re relying on the statute, those can be changed-the Higher Education Act has been changed (e.g. eliminating FFEL loans), the Bankruptcy Code treatment of student loans has changed several times, and the statute of limitations on collecting federal student loans was eliminated.
So unless your loan has an anti-assignment provision I wouldn’t run to sue the SBA right away. The US legal system will bend over backwards to enforce property rights and I expect they’ll do it with regard to these
"The US legal system will bend over backwards to enforce property rights and I expect they’ll do it with regard to these"
I do too... for what it's worth. That said, my point is how ridiculously illegal and stupid this all was.
I fully expect the Supremes to wave a magic wand on enforceability. However, it won't be a legal one... just like we all raise an eyebrow when the Supremes said, "Bribery? Yeah of course that shit is legal."
This is the first ear to ear grin I’ve had all day, (and my student loans are already paid off). What a relief to hear some fuckin awesome news for Americans.
Pure gold, literally and figuratively. 😎😎
As a federal student loan debtor who filed for bankruptcy after a horrific accident left me unable to work for three years, I’m curious if moving federal student loans to the SBA would allow them to be discharged in bankruptcy, since one can have SBA loans discharged in a bankruptcy.
Thoughts?
Hi Jen, I dont know you, but I have so much student debt it is embarrassing for me to reveal it here. But I want to give you two tips: 1- My student debt is so much that I don't even think it's real. I look at it every once in a while, and I crack up. Dont let it destroy your mind and ruin your day. Laugh at it. 2- Finnegan's argument is logical, and it's worth serious consideration by all parties trying to solve the student debt crisis. Finnegan's arguments are rational and have solid legal backing. I also looked up some of his legal arguments using AI, and Finnegan is right on target. Have a great Saturday, my dear. Do not panic. The only thing to fear is fear itself. I feel you. They lied to us. They told us that education is key to upward mobility, and it was not the case, not even close. They told us that our student debt won't be an issue with getting a car lease or a mortgage, but that's not true. they do look at the debt and they do raise the rates for us.
Hello! Sheesh, thanks for the words of encouragement. I agree, my number is so big it’s embarrassing and I didn’t even finish my BS which makes it even more offensive. I try not to think about it and all the harm it’s caused me over the years. As with all things…we’ll get through it. I’m glad people like Finnegan are digging into it.
Fuck student debt!
Yes. Don't let your student debt define you or laugh at you. Laugh at that debt, make fun of it, and see how you'll feel better already.
Just another trumpian oooppsie from this fake administration of government efficiency. I worked decades to pay off my loans. I think anyone who paid loans back deserves restitution. Just sayin'.
Absolutely! Tax relief as payback.