The 45 million Americans with student loans are trying to recover from the whiplash they’ve experienced between White House administrations. President Joe Biden promised them debt relief, and now President Donald Trump says it’s time to pay it back.

In 2020, Biden campaigned on sweeping student debt forgiveness, promising relief for millions burdened by loans. Fast-forward to 2025, and the Trump administration has taken a starkly different stance and is now resuming aggressive collection measures, leaving borrowers in a state of frustration and uncertainty. Biden also pledged to cancel up to $10,000 in student debt per borrower, with some proposals estimating a staggering $400 billion in total relief. The touted goal was to alleviate the financial strain on working- and middle-class families crushed by debt.

By 2024, the Biden administration claimed to have canceled $188.8 billion for 5.3 million borrowers, primarily through reforms to programs like Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) and income-driven repayment plans. However, these initiatives faced significant hurdles. In 2023, the Supreme Court struck down Biden’s $400 billion forgiveness plan, deeming it unconstitutional.

He opted for a workaround.

Federal judges, prompted by lawsuits from Republican-led states, also blocked the SAVE plan, arguing it unfairly burdened taxpayers and those who had already repaid their loans. By late 2024, eight million borrowers enrolled in the SAVE plan were left in limbo, uncertain about their monthly payments. Critics accused Biden of using forgiveness as a “vote-buying scheme” that disregarded legal constraints. Of the 2022 midterms, one X user posted, “This was so predictable. But it served its purposes. Massive numbers of 18–29-year-olds turned out to vote Tuesday, and they voted blue by a 2-1 margin. The dangling carrot of loan forgiveness had a lot to do with it.”

By contrast, in 2025, the Trump administration has shifted gears, adopting a no-nonsense approach to student loans. President Trump has publicly criticized Biden’s forgiveness efforts in the past, referring to them as “vile” and “a total catastrophe.” Now, under Education Secretary Linda McMahon, the administration announced on April 21, 2025, that it would resume involuntary collection measures starting May 5.

An initial step in this direction was made in February 2025, when a court ruling blocked Biden’s SAVE plan and the Education Department subsequently removed applications for income-driven repayment plans, leaving borrowers unable to access these affordable repayment options.

Those who have been pushing for debt relief have used this issue to fuel hate toward Trump and his supporters, insisting that it is our fault they didn’t get the relief that was promised to them, when, in reality, they didn’t get it because it was against the law. The administration’s actions signal a return to fiscal responsibility, but for some borrowers, it feels like a rug pulled out from under them.

According to The Blaze, these repayment measures could include wage garnishment, seizing tax refunds, and even tapping into Social Security benefits for the 5.6 million borrowers in default. McMahon stated, “American taxpayers will no longer be forced to serve as collateral for irresponsible student loan policies.” The administration argues that Biden’s pandemic-era pause on collections and “illegal” forgiveness efforts created chaos, with default rates nearing 25% of the $1.6 trillion loan portfolio.

The policy shift has sparked significant backlash, with borrowers stating that Trump’s changes have caused frustration and confusion about their options and next steps.

The student loan crisis has also exposed a deep divide in public opinion. On one side, conservatives argue that Biden’s forgiveness plans were a bailout for elites that unfairly burdened taxpayers who never attended college or diligently repaid their loans. They applaud Trump’s policies for restoring fairness and accountability. The sentiment is that borrowers must honor the debts they willingly signed for, and taxpayers shouldn’t bear the cost of others’ choices.

On the other side, borrowers and progressive advocates argue that the system is broken, with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant wages making repayment nearly impossible for many. The Biden administration’s repeated promises of relief, followed by legal setbacks, only heightened their expectations and subsequent disappointment. The pause on loan repayments, initially a COVID-19 relief measure, was extended for years, leading some to believe forgiveness was imminent. Now, with Trump’s policies in place, borrowers face the harsh reality of repayment without the safety net they were counting on.

To illustrate the broader debate, consider an analogy drawn from a situation that went viral on TikTok after a mother shared her recent experience at a restaurant. In the video, a mother takes her toddler to a restaurant without a child seat, allowing the child to wander freely. When other patrons and staff ask her to control her child, she feels victimized, believing the responsibility should be shared. Commenters overwhelmingly disagreed, stating, “He’s your child. You are responsible for him.”

In this analogy, the mother represents borrowers, the child is their student debt, and the restaurant patrons are taxpayers. Just as the patrons didn’t sign up to manage someone else’s child, taxpayers argue they shouldn’t be responsible for others’ loans. The analogy underscores a perspective that most people agree on: personal responsibility must prevail, even when the burden is heavy.

The student loan crisis is a mess of broken promises, legal battles, and competing visions of fairness. Biden’s ambitious forgiveness plans energized young voters but crumbled under legal scrutiny, leaving borrowers in limbo. Trump’s aggressive collection measures aim to restore fiscal discipline but could possibly plunge millions into financial distress. Both sides have valid points: borrowers face genuine hardship, but taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill for debts they didn’t incur.

Referring back to the restaurant scenario, the message remains the same: Everyone around you understands the challenge that you are facing and can sympathize with you. But their expectation of you to manage your child (or pay off your own debt) does not make them mean. It makes them reasonable. It’s your debt; you are accountable for it.