Court filing: 327,955 IDR requests denied under Trump administration

A recent court filing says that 327,955 applications for income-driven repayment (IDR) plans were denied during the Trump administration, a development that could affect thousands of borrowers relying on reduced monthly payments and progress toward loan forgiveness. The filing, submitted in litigation over student loan policies, attributes the mass denials to changes in review standards, documentation shortfalls and administrative adjustments implemented by Education Department officials at the time.

Income-driven repayment plans cap monthly federal student loan payments based on a borrower's income and family size, and they track qualifying payments for eventual forgiveness after a set period. Denials of IDR applications can leave borrowers with higher monthly bills, interrupted payment credit toward forgiveness, and increased financial stress. According to the filing, many denials stemmed from stricter eligibility determinations and technical or paperwork errors that left borrowers unable to meet newly enforced criteria.

The filing does not single out individual borrowers but underscores a broader administrative shift that advocates and some lawmakers say reduced access to relief. Borrowers denied enrollment in IDR plans may seek to appeal decisions with their loan servicers, request administrative reviews, or pursue remedies through the courts. Consumer advocates warn that denials at this scale could disproportionately affect low-income borrowers and those with complex repayment histories.

This disclosure comes amid continuing legal and policy debates over how federal student loan programs should be administered and who should qualify for relief. Education Department officials under the Trump administration implemented procedural and interpretive changes that, according to the filing, contributed to the high denial rate. Opponents of those changes argue they curtailed access to long-standing repayment options; supporters said the reforms improved program integrity and reduced improper enrollments.

For borrowers, the immediate implications include checking account statements and servicer communications, verifying whether denied applications can be appealed, and consulting nonprofit counseling services or legal aid if they believe an application was improperly handled. As litigation proceeds, the court filing could prompt renewed scrutiny of past administrative practices and influence how future repayment policies are crafted and enforced.