After Trump's tariff announcement triggered Wall Street's most severe sell-off, US stock market trends show a surprising comeback. What's driving financial markets and what should investors expect from Dow Jones stocks?
In a bombshell announcement at the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, the 94-year-old "Oracle of Omaha" revealed he'll step down as CEO by year-end 2025, with Greg Abel taking the reins of the $1.1 trillion empire.
The White House's 2026 federal budget proposal marks a dramatic shift in government priorities, cutting $163 billion (22.6%) from domestic programs while boosting defense and border security funding. Our analysis explores what these changes mean for agencies, communities, and the economy.
The GOP just voted to dramatically overhaul how Americans pay for college. With a 21-14 party-line vote, Republicans advanced the "Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan" to cut $330B by capping loans, restricting grants, and ending subsidies to fund Trump's tax agenda.
I've covered economic policy for three presidential administrations, and rarely have I seen such a brazen attempt to reshape how Americans pay for higher education. Make no mistake – the landscape of student financial aid is about to be dramatically transformed if Republicans get their way.
On April 29, 2025, in a stark display of party-line politics, the House Education and Workforce Committee Republicans muscled through their massive student loans overhaul with a 21-14 vote. Not a single Democrat supported the plan, which slashes approximately $330 billion from student aid programs over the next decade.
Let's call this what it is: a calculated move to fund President Trump's tax cut priorities on the backs of students and families trying to access higher education.
The "Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan" – a masterclass in misleading legislative naming if I've ever seen one – represents the most aggressive restructuring of federal student aid in more than a decade. I was on Capitol Hill when Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Michigan) unveiled this plan, and the urgency with which Republicans pushed it through committee reveals just how central these cuts are to their broader fiscal agenda.
"For decades Congress has responded to the student loan crisis by throwing more and more taxpayer dollars at the problem — never addressing the root causes of skyrocketing college costs," Walberg declared in justifying the overhaul. His rallying cry? That "colleges have ridden this gravy train of taxpayer dollars without any accountability."
Having analyzed federal education spending for years, I can tell you this bill has less to do with accountability and more to do with cutting federal support for higher education. Critics like Sameer Gadkaree from The Institute for College Access & Success didn't mince words: the proposal "would severely restrict college access by slashing financial aid programs, eliminating basic consumer protections and making it harder to repay student loan debt."
As an observer of both education and fiscal policy, I'm struck by the sweeping nature of these changes. Let's break down exactly what Republicans are proposing and what it means for your ability to afford college in America.
I've studied the fine print of this GOP student loans bill, and the impact on borrowers would be profound. If you're planning to attend college – or have children who will – these changes would fundamentally alter how you finance higher education:
Starting July 1, 2026, Republicans would impose strict lifetime borrowing limits: $50,000 for undergraduates, $100,000 for master's degree students, and $150,000 for professional degrees like medical or law school. These caps might sound reasonable until you consider that many programs, especially at private institutions, can cost well over these amounts.
Note: Currently, undergraduate students can borrow up to $31,000 (dependents) or $57,500 (independents) in Direct loans, plus virtually unlimited amounts through Parent PLUS loans. Graduate students can borrow up to $138,500 in Direct loans (including undergraduate borrowing) plus unlimited Graduate PLUS loans.
As higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz told CNBC, these limits "will shift some borrowing to private student loans." Having covered the private loan market extensively, I can tell you this is concerning. Private loans typically offer none of the protections of federal loans – no income-driven options, no forgiveness programs, and much harsher terms for borrowers who struggle financially.
One of the most punitive changes: the GOP plan would completely eliminate subsidized loans for undergraduates after July 2026. This seemingly technical change carries major financial consequences. Currently, the government covers interest on these loans while students are in school – a benefit that can save lower-income students thousands of dollars.
Under the Republican plan, interest would begin accruing immediately on all student loans. A sophomore with $15,000 in loans could graduate with roughly $3,000 in additional debt just from interest accumulation during their studies.
If you're a parent planning to help your child through PLUS loans, prepare for new hurdles. The plan maintains Parent PLUS loans but adds restrictions that would make them less accessible. Parents could only borrow after their children max out their own loans first, and then would face a strict $50,000 lifetime cap – far below what many families need for a four-year degree.
Instead of the current suite of repayment options, the GOP would slash options to just two plans:
Note: Examples assume fixed interest rate of 5.5%. Actual rates may vary. Total repaid includes principal and interest.
Perhaps most worrying, the bill strips away crucial protections. Economic hardship and unemployment deferments – safety valves that have helped millions avoid default during tough times – would be eliminated for new borrowers after July 2025.
The Pell Grant program – a cornerstone of college affordability for low-income students since 1965 – would face drastic restrictions under the GOP plan. Having reported on education policy for years, I've never seen changes that would exclude so many vulnerable students from this critical aid program.
Currently, full-time status requires 12 credit hours per semester. The Republican plan would redefine this to require 30 credit hours per academic year – making it substantially harder for working students to qualify.
Even more concerning, any student taking fewer than six credit hours would be completely cut off from Pell Grants under this plan. This is a direct hit to working adults, parents, and non-traditional students who often need to take just one or two classes per term.
"This could reduce the number of people who enroll," warned Jessica Thompson from the Institute for College Access & Success, and in my analysis, she's absolutely right. These changes would disproportionately impact community college students – often working adults and first-generation college students trying to improve their economic prospects.
Consider a single parent working full-time who can only manage one evening class per semester – under current rules, they might receive a partial Pell Grant to help cover costs. Under the GOP plan? They'd receive nothing.
Or take a student in their final semester who needs just one class to graduate. Currently, they can use Pell funds for that class. Under these new rules, they'd lose all Pell eligibility, potentially delaying graduation if they can't afford to pay out of pocket.
To be fair, there are a couple of positive elements in this section of the bill:
The maximum Pell Grant award would remain at $7,395 for the 2025-26 award year, but fewer students would be eligible to receive it. While the current program helps over 6 million students annually, experts estimate these changes could exclude hundreds of thousands from receiving this crucial financial support.
One of the more revolutionary aspects of the GOP student loans plan – and one that would dramatically alter how colleges operate – is the controversial "risk-sharing" model that's been brewing in conservative policy circles for years.
Beginning in the 2028-29 award cycle, the legislation would require colleges participating in the federal loan program to make payments to the Department of Education for student loans not repaid in full. In plain English: if your students default on their loans, your institution pays a penalty.
Student borrows federal money to attend college
Student unable to repay federal student loans
Institution must pay portion of defaulted loan amount
Note: This represents a significant shift in who bears responsibility for student loan defaults. Currently, taxpayers absorb these losses through federal loan guarantees.
The payment formula would be based on two factors:
This approach represents a significant philosophical shift in who bears responsibility for student loan defaults. Currently, taxpayers absorb these losses. Under the Republican plan, colleges would share the financial pain when former students can't repay.
"This plan brings accountability and holds schools financially responsible for loading students up with debt," Rep. Walberg declared when unveiling the proposal. Having observed this debate evolve over years, I'll note that there's genuine appeal in making colleges think twice before raising tuition or encouraging excessive borrowing.
To balance this punitive approach, the legislation offers a potential reward: colleges could receive up to $5,000 per federal student-aid recipient if they:
In my conversations with college administrators and policy experts, a troubling pattern emerges: these measures could inadvertently harm the very institutions serving the most vulnerable students.
Community colleges and minority-serving institutions often educate students with the greatest financial need and most significant barriers to completion. They could face disproportionate penalties under this model, while elite institutions with wealthier student bodies and massive endowments would face minimal risk.
The even more concerning possibility: colleges might simply become more selective in who they admit, screening out "risky" applicants who might be less likely to graduate or repay loans. This would effectively close doors for disadvantaged students rather than improving educational outcomes.
Let's cut through the rhetoric and examine what's really driving this GOP student loans overhaul. This isn't primarily about improving higher education – it's about finding budget savings to pay for tax cuts.
Having covered Congress for years, I've seen this playbook before. Republicans, holding both chambers with razor-thin margins, are using the budget reconciliation process – a parliamentary maneuver that allows them to pass fiscal legislation with a simple majority, avoiding the Senate's 60-vote threshold that would require Democratic support.
The $330 billion in proposed cuts from student aid programs represents a significant chunk of the $1.5 trillion in total cuts Republicans need to fund President Trump's tax priorities. This isn't speculation – it's explicitly acknowledged in the bill's framing as the "Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan."
When you look at the Republican budget resolution adopted earlier this month, the directive is clear: the House Education and Workforce Committee must find $330 billion in cuts. Other committees have similar marching orders, all in service of that larger $1.5 trillion target.
Here's where it gets interesting: the Senate's reconciliation instructions tell a completely different story. While the House education committee was directed to slash $330 billion, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee was instructed to find just $1 billion in cuts – a staggering 330-fold difference.
This massive discrepancy all but guarantees major changes before anything becomes law. As one education lobbyist told Inside Higher Ed, "There's still a lot of political gamesmanship going on" between the chambers.
While budget considerations are driving the timing and scale of these changes, many provisions align with long-standing conservative priorities for higher education:
The bill largely mirrors the College Cost Reduction Act, a framework Republicans have been developing since regaining control of Congress. What's different now is the budget reconciliation process provides a vehicle to implement these changes without Democratic support.
The political calculation is simple: cuts to student aid programs are less visible and affect a smaller constituency than other potential targets, making them politically attractive as a funding source for tax priorities.
Having analyzed the impact of dozens of higher education policy shifts over my career, I can tell you that this Republican student loans overhaul would create clear winners and losers. Let's break down who stands to gain and who would bear the brunt of these changes.
The most immediate losers would be non-traditional students. Single parents taking one class at a time? Cut off from Pell Grants. Working adults trying to finish degrees part-time? Facing steeper hurdles to financial aid.
"Across the board, they are making repayment significantly more expensive and more difficult," warned Jessica Thompson from the Institute for College Access & Success. Her assessment is spot-on – without subsidized loans and with fewer repayment protections, students from lower-income backgrounds would face substantially higher costs.
Let me put this in concrete terms: A part-time student working full-time to support a family, taking two classes per semester, could lose thousands in Pell Grant support annually under these changes. That's the difference between continuing education and dropping out for many Americans.
Graduate education would be fundamentally altered under this plan. The elimination of Grad PLUS loans and new borrowing caps would make certain career paths inaccessible to those without personal wealth.
Medical school, which can cost upwards of $250,000, would suddenly be capped at $150,000 in federal loans. The gap? Students would either need to find private loans at higher interest rates or simply abandon their career aspirations.
The risk-sharing provisions create a perverse incentive structure that could devastate institutions serving vulnerable populations. Community colleges and regional public universities – which typically enroll more first-generation, low-income, and minority students – would face disproportionate financial penalties when students struggle to repay loans.
These institutions, already operating on thin margins, could be forced to:
While much of this legislation would restrict college access, certain provisions could benefit specific groups:
The fundamental shift here isn't just about numbers – it's about changing who can afford higher education in America and what types of institutions will survive to serve them.
Don't start adjusting your college plans just yet. This GOP student loans bill still faces a winding path before potentially becoming law. Having covered legislative processes for decades, I can tell you this committee vote is merely the opening salvo in what will be a drawn-out negotiation.
Republicans pass the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan through committee along strict party lines.
Bill likely to be included in larger budget reconciliation package.
Elimination of unemployment and economic hardship deferments for new loans.
Borrowing caps implemented, subsidized loans eliminated, and new repayment plans take effect.
Colleges become financially liable for portion of student loan defaults.
The legislation now heads to the full House of Representatives, where it will likely be folded into a much larger budget reconciliation package – a massive bill containing tax cuts, spending reductions, and other Republican priorities. While House passage seems likely given Republican control, the Senate is where things get interesting.
The Senate HELP Committee, chaired by Louisiana Republican Bill Cassidy, hasn't released its version yet, but all signs point to a dramatically different approach. For starters, the Senate was only instructed to find $1 billion in cuts (compared to the House's $330 billion).
Sen. Cassidy's previous proposals focus more on outcomes-based accountability – judging college programs by graduate employment rates and income levels – rather than the House's risk-sharing model. His approach to student loans has historically been less restrictive than the House version.
Eventually, the two chambers will need to resolve these enormous differences. The reconciliation process allows for swift passage with simple majorities, but it doesn't eliminate the need for identical legislation to pass both chambers.
This creates leverage for both Senate and House negotiators, potentially resulting in a final version that looks quite different from what passed the House committee. The extremely different reconciliation targets ($330B vs. $1B) almost guarantee significant modifications.
Republican leadership has set an ambitious goal of finalizing the entire reconciliation package by Memorial Day, but many Capitol Hill veterans I've spoken with view this timeline as unrealistic given the scope of differences to resolve.
Even if this legislation passes, implementation questions loom large. The Department of Education, under Secretary Linda McMahon, would need to craft regulations to enact these changes – a process that historically takes 12-18 months and involves public comment periods.
The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA) has already advised colleges not to make any changes to aid offers for 2025-26 until and unless the proposed legislation actually becomes law.
What seems clear is that the future of how Americans pay for college hangs in the balance as these negotiations unfold over the coming months. The outcome will shape access to higher education for millions of current and future students.
The implementation timeline is staggered:
Most provisions target new borrowers or new loans. Your existing loans would generally maintain their current terms. However, if you take out new loans after the implementation dates, those would fall under the new rules. The consolidation of income-driven repayment plans could potentially affect some current borrowers' options, depending on final implementation details.
This is one of the most dramatic shifts in the Republican plan. With Graduate PLUS loans eliminated and federal borrowing capped at $100,000 for master's programs and $150,000 for professional degrees, students would be forced to:
Programs like medical school routinely cost $250,000-$300,000, creating a substantial gap that would need to be filled through private financing.
Community colleges and other institutions serving vulnerable populations would likely be hardest hit by the risk-sharing provisions. These schools typically enroll more first-generation, low-income, and working students – precisely the groups with historically higher default rates. The penalties could force these institutions to:
Not easily. Unlike recent changes to repayment plans, which were done through executive action, these changes would be enacted through legislation. That means a future administration would need Congressional approval to reverse them. Some implementation details could be shaped through regulatory processes, but the core structure – loan limits, program eliminations, and the basic risk-sharing framework – would require new legislation to undo.
For most students, especially those from lower-income backgrounds, college would become significantly less affordable under this plan. The elimination of subsidized loans means interest would accrue while in school, increasing total debt. Stricter Pell Grant requirements would reduce grant aid for part-time students. And the changes to repayment options would make it harder to manage debt after graduation. While supporters argue the plan would pressure institutions to lower costs, the immediate impact would be to shift more of the financial burden directly to students and families.
The White House's 2026 federal budget proposal marks a dramatic shift in government priorities, cutting $163 billion (22.6%) from domestic programs while boosting defense and border security funding. Our analysis explores what these changes mean for agencies, communities, and the economy.
When Amazon considered showing consumers exactly how much Trump's tariffs added to their bills, the White House erupted in fury, calling it "hostile" and triggering a presidential phone call that changed everything in hours.
Mark Carney's Liberals secured a minority government in Canada's 2025 election. Our analysis shows how Trump's tariffs overshadowed domestic issues like housing affordability, reshaping voter priorities and delivering a stunning political reversal.
As markets plunged over $6 trillion on tariff fears, Dave Ramsey offered blunt advice: stay invested. But can your stomach handle the ride? Here's what the roller coaster analogy means for your money.
