Markus Andrews

The Trump administration warned that Social Security benefits could be garnished for defaulted student loans as early as June.
Here’s what borrowers need to know about their rights, and available relief options.
Some recipients can expect their monthly Social Security check on June 3.

T-studios2 | E+ | Getty Images

Some Social Security beneficiaries may find their June check is smaller: Starting this month, a share of people’s benefits can be garnished if they’ve defaulted on their student loans.
The Trump administration announced on April 21 that the U.S. Department of Education would resume collection activity on the country’s $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio. For nearly half a decade, the government did not go after those who’d fallen behind as part of Covid-era policies.

More than 450,000 federal student loan borrowers age 62 and older are in default on their federal student loans and likely to be receiving Social Security benefits, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found.
More from Personal Finance:What the House GOP budget bill means for your money’Maycember’ is over — here’s how to recover financiallyCourt order challenges Trump’s plan to move student loans to SBA
Depending on details like their birth date and when they began receiving benefits, their monthly Social Security check may arrive June 3, 11, 18 or 25, according to the Social Security Administration.
Many Social Security recipients rely on those checks for most, if not all, of their income. So people who are facing a smaller federal benefit as a result of garnishment are likely in a panic, said Nancy Nierman, assistant director of the Education Debt Consumer Assistance Program in New York.
But, Nierman said, “the good news is there are multiple options for borrowers to stop those payment offsets.”

Here’s what you need to know if you’re at risk of a smaller benefit.

How to challenge the garnishment

Federal student borrowers should have received at least a 30-day warning before their Social Security benefit is offset, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.
That notice should include information on whom to contact in order to challenge the collection activity, Kantrowitz said. (The alert was likely sent to your last known address, so borrowers should make sure their loan servicer has their correct contact information.)

You may be able to prevent or stop the offset if you can prove a financial hardship or have a pending student loan discharge, Kantrowitz added.
With that in mind, your next step may be pursuing a discharge with your student loan servicer. That’s more likely in circumstances where you have significant health challenges.
“If they are sick or disabled, they can file for a Total & Permanent Disability discharge,” Nierman added.
Borrowers may qualify for a TPD discharge if they suffer from a mental or physical disability that is severe and permanent and prevents them from working. Proof of the disability can come from a doctor, the Social Security Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Get current on your loans

Another route to stop the offset of Social Security benefits is getting current on the loans, said Betsy Mayotte, president of The Institute of Student Loan Advisors, a nonprofit.
You can contact the government’s Default Resolution Group and pursue several different avenues to get out of default, including enrolling in an income-driven repayment plan.
“If Social Security is their only income, their payment under those plans would likely be zero,” Mayotte said.

Offset is limited to 15%

Social Security recipients can typically see up to 15% of their monthly benefit reduced to pay back their defaulted student debt, but beneficiaries need to be left with at least $750 a month, experts said.
The offset cap is the same “regardless of the type of benefit,” including retirement and disability payments, said Kantrowitz.
The 15% offset is calculated from your total benefit amount before any deductions, such as your Medicare premium, Kantrowitz said.

When Social Security benefit isn’t enough

Many retirees worry about meeting their bills on a fixed income — with or without facing garnishment, experts said.
Utilizing other relief options may help stretch your funds while you work on stopping the offset to your Social Security benefits.
For example, there are a number of charitable organizations that assist seniors with their health-care costs. At Copays.org you can apply for funds to put toward copays, premiums, deductibles and over-the-counter medications.
The National Patient Advocate Foundation has a financial resource directory in which you can search for local aid for everything from dental care to end-of-life services.
Many older people aren’t taking advantage of all the food assistance available to them, experts say. A 2015 study, for instance, found that less than half of eligible seniors participated in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
The extra money can go a long way for retirees on a fixed income, though. The maximum benefit a month for a household of one is $292. Grocery stores, online retailers and farmers markets accept the funds. More

House GOP passed a multi-trillion-dollar tax and spending package that includes many of President Donald Trump’s priorities.
Some provisions, including Medicaid, the “SALT” deduction and child tax credit, among others, could change amid Senate Republican debate.
After the Senate vote, House lawmakers will have to approve changes to the bill, which could be tough, experts say.  

Staff members remove a sign following a press conference after the House passage of the tax and spending bill, at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images

House Republicans passed a multi-trillion-dollar tax and spending package after months of debate, which included many of President Donald Trump’s priorities. 
Now, policy experts are bracing for Senate changes as GOP lawmakers aim to finalize the “big bill” by the Fourth of July.

If enacted as currently drafted, the House’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” would make permanent Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, while adding new tax breaks for tip income, overtime pay and older Americans, among other provisions.
More from Personal Finance:What the House GOP budget bill means for your moneyHouse bill calls for bigger ‘pass-through’ business tax breakWhat Medicaid and SNAP cuts in House bill mean for benefits
The House bill also approved historic spending cuts to programs for low-income families, including Medicaid health coverage and SNAP, formerly known as food stamps.
“Overall, the [Senate] bill is not going to be that much different,” said Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
But there will be “a lot of debate” about the Medicaid provision, as well as other changes, he said.

Here are some other issues to watch during negotiations, policy experts say.

Fiscal hawks could ‘stop the process’

With control of Congress, Republicans are using a process called “budget reconciliation,” which bypasses the Senate filibuster and only needs a simple majority vote to clear the upper chamber.
But some GOP senators have cost concerns about the House-approved bill.
“We have enough to stop the process until the president gets serious about spending reduction and reducing the deficit,” Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., said last week on CNN’s ‘State of the Union.’
An earlier version of the House package could raise the deficit by an estimated $3.8 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. However, the agency hasn’t released an updated score to reflect the bill’s last-minute changes.
Other cost estimates for the House-passed reconciliation bill have ranged between $2 to $3 trillion over 10 years.

Under reconciliation, the Senate bill also must follow the “Byrd Rule,” which bans anything unrelated to federal revenue or spending.
After the Senate vote, House lawmakers must approve changes to the bill, which could be tricky with a slim Republican majority.
“That’s where the fight is really going to happen,” Gleckman said.

A lower ‘SALT’ deduction limit

One sticking point during the House debate was the current $10,000 limit on the federal deduction for state and local taxes, known as “SALT,” which is scheduled to sunset after 2025.
Enacted by Trump via the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, or TCJA, of 2017, the $10,000 cap has been a key issue for certain lawmakers in high-tax states like New York, New Jersey and California.
Before TCJA, filers who itemized tax breaks could claim an unlimited deduction on state and local income taxes, along with property taxes. But the so-called alternative minimum tax reduced the benefit for some higher earners.
After lengthy debate, House Republicans approved a $40,000 SALT limit. If enacted, the higher cap would apply to 2025 and phase out for incomes over $500,000.

But the SALT limit is likely to be lower than $40,000 after Senate negotiations, experts say.
Staying closer to the current $10,000 cap “seems like a very natural place to start,” but the final number could be higher, said Alex Muresianu, senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation.

Child tax credit could be more generous

The Senate could also expand the child tax credit further, policy experts say.
If enacted in its current form, the House bill would make permanent the maximum $2,000 credit passed via the TCJA, which will otherwise revert to $1,000 after 2025.
The House measure would also make the highest child tax credit $2,500 from 2025 through 2028. After that, the credit’s top value would revert to $2,000 and be indexed for inflation.
But some senators, including Josh Hawley, R-Mo., have called for a bigger tax break. Vice President JD Vance also floated a higher child tax credit during the campaign in August.
With the House-approved tax breaks favoring higher earners, “there’s some recognition that they need to do a little more” for families, Gleckman said.
“That’s going to be a fun one to watch,” he said of the upcoming Senate debate. More

Confetti falls as Lyft CEO Logan Green (C) and President John Zimmer (LEFT C) ring the Nasdaq opening bell celebrating the company’s initial public offering (IPO) on March 29, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. The ride hailing app company’s shares were initially priced at $72.
Mario Tama / Getty Images

Company: Lyft Inc (LYFT)

Lyft (LYFT) is a multimodal transportation network in the United States and Canada. It offers access to a variety of transportation options through its platform and mobile-based applications. The Lyft Platform provides a marketplace where drivers can be matched with riders via the Lyft App, where it operates as a transportation network company. Transportation options through its platform and mobile-based applications are substantially comprised of its ridesharing marketplace that connects drivers and riders in cities across the United States and in certain cities in Canada, Lyft’s network of bikes and scooters, and the Express Drive program, where drivers can enter into short-term rental agreements with its subsidiary, Flexdrive Services, LLC or a third party for vehicles that may be used to provide ridesharing services on the Lyft Platform. It makes the ridesharing marketplace available to organizations through Lyft Business offerings, such as the Concierge and Lyft Pass programs.
Stock Market Value: $6.86 billion ($16.26 per share)

Stock chart icon

Lyft, 1-year

Activist: Engine Capital

Percentage Ownership: 0.81%
Average Cost: N/A
Activist Commentary: Engine Capital is an experienced activist investor led by Managing Partner Arnaud Ajdler, former partner and senior managing director at Crescendo Partners. Engine’s history is to send letters and/or nominate directors but settle rather quickly.

What’s happening:

On March 25, Engine announced a position in Lyft and stated that they are calling for a strategic review, improved capital allocations and the elimination of the company’s dual-class share structure. On April 16, Engine nominated two directors for election to the Board at the 2025 annual meeting, but ultimately withdrew those nominations following productive engagement with the company that led to several capital allocation initiatives, including the company committing to significant share repurchases in the coming quarters.

Behind the scenes:

Since David Risher took control as CEO of Lyft in 2023, Lyft has made some major improvements, streamlining operations, enhancing platform functionality, and expanding market presence. These have led to notable material enhancements in the company’s operational and financial performance. From 2023 to 2024, revenue increased by 31.39%, EBITDA went from a negative$359.1 million to $27.3 million and free cash flow (FCF) increased from negative $248.06 million to $766.27 million, the latter two of which are in the green for the first time since its IPO. Despite these improvements, Lyft’s share price decreased by 30% over the same period.

There are a few factors that may help explain the company’s current undervaluation. First is the industry’s dynamics as Lyft operates in a duopoly with Uber in the rideshare market. In the US, Uber holds approximately 75% percent of the market while Lyft holds 24% with the rest controlled by niche areas (i.e. Curb, Alto, and Waymo). The company is in an inherently difficult strategic position due to Uber’s dominance — while Lyft is only in the US and Canada, Uber is diversified across most global markets and has expanded into other synergetic areas like food and alcohol delivery. This makes Lyft particularly vulnerable to Uber’s decisions regarding pricing and promotions, as management noted during the company’s most recent earnings call. The market has sensed this situation, with Lyft’s shares underperforming compared to Uber by 37%, 287%, and 210% over the past 1-, 3- and 5-year periods, respectively. Second to this is Lyft’s suboptimal capital allocation practices. The company has experienced excessive share dilution. Since 2019, Lyft’s shares outstanding have almost doubled. Currently, dilution is primarily caused by the company’s stock-based compensation (SBC) practices, which are currently around $330 million annually, 4.9% of Lyft’s market cap.
Enter Engine, who is calling for a strategic review, improved capital allocation practices and the elimination of the company’s dual-class share structure. These proposals are all worth evaluating. First, there are a few reasons why a strategic review, specifically a potential strategic acquisition, makes sense. As has been already discussed, one of, if not the largest challenge Lyft faces is their inability to scale and diversify at the pace of Uber. As the rideshare industry continues to grow and evolve, this will only become increasingly important to Lyft’s potential long-term success. It seems like the most effective way to overcome this is to be either sold to or merged with a larger strategic entity that can give Lyft the scale and diversification it needs to compete with Uber.  Large players in the food delivery or automotive industry make sense as potential acquirers. For example, Doordash, with a roughly $80 billion market cap, could easily afford Lyft, has synergies to better optimize both platforms, a global presence, and would create more revenue stream options for drivers. On the other hand, automative companies testing the rideshare autonomous vehicle industry like Google (Waymo) and Amazon (Zoox), which is potentially the next technological evolution in the rideshare space, also make sense as acquirers. Given Lyft’s depressed valuation (EV to 2026 consensus EBITDA multiple of approximately 6.6x), recent growth, and large number of potential synergies, a large takeout premium is certainly possible here.
Secondly, the company clearly needs to improve its capital allocation practices. While Lyft recently announced a $500 million buyback program, this is not even sufficient to counter the dilution over the next two years due to current SBC practices. With $2 billion of cash (approximately $700 million of net cash) and the company dramatically increasing their FCF, it appears that Lyft has the ability to much more aggressively repurchase shares to do more than just counter SBC dilution.
Lastly, as a corporate governance investor, Engine will propose eliminating the dual-class structure. Originally set up to give control to the founders, this structure now seems unnecessary since co-founders John Zimmer and Logan Green are no longer involved in day-to-day operations. These preferred shares carry 20 votes per share, which give them 30.8% of the total voting power while owning only approximately 2.3% of outstanding shares. Eliminating the dual-class share structure makes complete sense, is the right thing to do and would be supported by the vast majority of shareholders. However, there is virtually no way that Zimmer and Green will voluntarily give up this control position. As an experienced activist investor Ajdler knows that, but also as an experienced activist investor, he has to try. But at the very least, the Company can refine the board to reflect the changes over the past six years since its IPO – seven of the ten current directors have no public company experience other than Lyft – the Board has a lean towards directors with experience in startup companies or early-stage investments. While this background may have once been valuable, that is not where Lyft is as a Company anymore. A refreshment of these directors for people with public market, capital allocation and capital markets expertise, would better position the Company for what it is today.
After launching a proxy fight for two board seats, this campaign came to a head when Engine withdrew their director nominations on May 8. This withdrawal came following the company’s public announcement to increase its share repurchase authorization to $750 million and commit to utilize $200 million of such authorization over the next three months and $500 million within the next 12 months.
Ken Squire is the founder and president of 13D Monitor, an institutional research service on shareholder activism, and the founder and portfolio manager of the 13D Activist Fund, a mutual fund that invests in a portfolio of activist 13D investments. More

About 53% of respondents plan to take leisure vacations this summer, up from 48% in 2024, according to a new report by Deloitte.
But over two rounds of the survey, many Americans changed their minds about how much they’re willing to spend on summer travel.
“We still see a strong summer travel season, but perhaps with a more frugal approach,” one expert said.

Klaus Vedfelt | Digitalvision | Getty Images

Earlier this spring, consumers were feeling good about their summer vacation prospects. More people were planning to take a trip compared to last year, and summer travel budgets were up, too, according to a new report from Deloitte.
But just a few weeks later — after President Donald Trump announced widescale tariffs and the stock market dropped precipitously, bubbling up recession fears — some would-be vacationers abruptly scaled back their spending plans, a second round of the survey found.

About 53% of respondents plan to take leisure vacations this summer, up from 48% in 2024, according to a new report by Deloitte. 

We still see a strong summer travel season, but perhaps with a more frugal approach.

Kate Ferrara
the transportation, hospitality and services sector leader at Deloitte

The report is based on two surveys: one was conducted between March 26 and April 1, 2025, and another between April 7 and April 9. The first survey reached 1,794 travelers and 2,132 non-travelers while the second reached 1,064 travelers and 880 non-travelers.
Initially, Deloitte found, the average summer travel budget was set to grow 21% year over year, to $4,967. In the second round of the survey, travelers expected to spend just 13% more than last year, or about $4,606.
When looking at budgets for their longest trip of the season, respondents initially planned to spend an average $3,987, 13% more than 2024. That anticipated budget declined to $3,471 in the second poll, an increase of less than 1% from a year ago. 
More from Personal Finance:Trade tensions drive consumers to cut backStudent loan borrowers brace for wage garnishmentHouse Republican tax bill favors the rich — how much they stand to gain, and why

Deloitte conducted a second poll because the firm noticed “softness” in consumer spending across other areas of their research, said Kate Ferrara, the transportation, hospitality and services sector leader at Deloitte.
“We still see a strong summer travel season, but perhaps with a more frugal approach,” said Ferrara.

Travel costs are down

Broadly, travel costs have declined, which may help travelers looking to stretch their budget. Hotel room rates are down 2.4% from a year ago, according to a recent report by NerdWallet. Rental car costs are also down 2.1% in that same timeframe, while airfares are down 7.9%.
Round-trip domestic airfare for this summer is averaging $265 per ticket, according to the 2025 summer outlook by Hopper, a travel site. That’s down 3% from $274 in 2024 and down 8% since 2019, the lowest level in three years.
Travel costs for international travel are generally down, said Hayley Berg, the lead economist at Hopper. The average round-trip airfare between the U.S. and Europe, the most popular international destination, costs $850 per ticket this summer, down 8% from 2024, Hopper found.

In spite of slightly lower prices for travel, people are generally spending more due to inflation, and might have less leftover money to spend on non-essential items like travel, said Deloitte’s Ferrara.

‘The root of all of our hacks’

Of those who reduced their summer travel budgets, 34% of respondents plan to cut back on their in-destination spending activity, such as food or paid guided excursions, Deloitte found. About 30% plan to stay with family and friends instead of paying for lodging, and 21% chose to drive instead of flying to their destination.
You can also save money this summer if you can be flexible with things like when you take the time off, your destination, what you do while you’re there and your mode of transportation, experts say.
“The root of all of our hacks for saving this summer is flexibility,” said Berg.
Airfare tends to spike or be higher during federal holiday weekends like the Fourth of July and Labor Day, Hopper found. This year, prices on these weekends will be about 34% higher compared to other weekends.

Instead of flying in the middle of the summer, consider delaying trips toward the end of the season, in late August or even early September, Berg said. Both price and travel demand will typically drop off by then as the new school year starts and employees go back to regular work schedules, she said.
What’s more, flying in the middle of the week can help save as much as 20% on airfare, per the site’s report.
Traveling on a Tuesday or Wednesday can also help vacationers save about $67 on a round trip domestic flight this summer, Hopper found. That flexibility can help travelers save over $100 on international trips to Europe or Asia.  More

Denmark is increasing its retirement age to 70, a move that will require younger individuals to work longer.
Some proposals have called for the U.S. to raise the age threshold for Social Security.
Such an across-the-board change could be “immensely harmful” for some beneficiaries, one expert warns.

Aleksandarnakic | E+ | Getty Images

Denmark has moved to increase its retirement age to 70 — making it the highest retirement age in Europe.
Yet it may be difficult for the U.S. to follow its lead.

The new change in Denmark will apply to public pension retirements starting in 2040. Since 2006, the country has been adjusting its retirement age to reflect changes in life expectancy.
The U.S. does not technically have an official retirement age. At age 65, individuals become eligible for Medicare coverage. At age 66 to 67, depending on date of birth, an individual becomes eligible for full Social Security benefits based on their earnings record.
More from Personal Finance:House Republican tax bill favors the richSome lawmakers want to defer capital gains taxes for mutual fundsWhat the House GOP budget bill means for your money
However, those individuals who wait until age 70 to claim Social Security retirement benefits stand to get the biggest payout — an increase of 8% for each year beyond full retirement age. (The full retirement age is when beneficiaries are eligible for 100% of the benefits they’ve earned based on their work records.)
Yet few people wait until age 70 to claim benefits. While more than 90% of individuals would benefit from delaying Social Security until that age, only about 10% actually do, according to a 2023 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

While age 70 is not the official U.S. retirement age, it is the threshold based on economists’ definition — the age at which you can’t accrue any more benefits, according to Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist and professor at The New School for Social Research.
“In the United States, it’s been 70 for decades, and we had the highest retirement age than any other country for years,” Ghilarducci said.

Retirement age in the U.S. up for debate

Yet there are efforts to officially bump up the U.S. retirement age higher.
In 1983, Congress passed legislation to gradually raise the full retirement age for Social Security from 65 to 67. That change is still getting phased in today, with people born in 1960 and later subject to the higher 67 retirement age.
In December, an amendment to raise the full retirement age to 70 was introduced by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., during last-minute efforts to advance legislation that increased Social Security benefits for certain public pensioners.

The bill, the Social Security Fairness Act, was voted into law. However, the proposal to raise the retirement age was struck down.
Paul called for raising the retirement age by three months per year until it reached age 70, to reflect current life expectancies. The change would have created nearly $400 billion in savings for the program, while the Social Security Fairness Act added $200 billion in costs to the program over 10 years.
Other Republican proposals have likewise called for raising the retirement age.
The Social Security Administration faces looming depletion dates for the trust funds it relies on to help pay benefits. To help resolve that issue, lawmakers may consider raising taxes, cutting benefits or a combination of both. Raising the retirement age is effectively a benefit cut.
Like the changes enacted in 1983, raising the retirement age could be on the menu.

Denmark’s move ‘sends a signal’ to work longer

Urbazon | E+ | Getty Images

Denmark’s move to raise the retirement age to 70 is not a surprise, experts say.
In 2023, research published by the Danish Center for Social Science Research found increasing good health and educational resources for 60- to 70-year-olds, along with higher demand for older workers, could point to retirement age increases in the future.
In 2025, Denmark residents can retire with public pensions when they are 67. That will gradually increase to age 70 as of 2040.
“That means simply that younger people today will have to work longer before they can go on retirement,” said Jesper Rangvid, professor of finance at the Copenhagen Business School and co-director of its Pension Research Centre.
That retirement age affects everybody entitled to basic public pension income, according to Rangvid. However, those with private pension savings may retire earlier.
“There’s nothing that prevents you from retiring earlier if you have the funds and the means to do so,” Rangvid said.
Denmark does offer options for early retirement, including an early pension. However, raising the retirement age conveys a message, Rangvid said.
“It sends a signal that this is what the positions would like, that you should work longer,” Rangvid said.

Retirement age increases in U.S. may be problematic

Anchiy | Istock | Getty Images

Retirement experts say raising the U.S. retirement age may not present the same solution for the population that it does in Denmark.
Denmark has a much more “equal society” when it comes to income, wealth, education and life expectancy compared to the United States, said Alicia Munnell, senior advisor at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
In the U.S., government data shows a stark difference between the life expectancy for those at the bottom and top income quartiles, Munnell said.
“When you have such a big, big difference, any across-the-board increase in the retirement age would be foolish,” Munnell said. “It’d be immensely harmful to those at the bottom who already receive benefits for a shorter period of time.”

A policy to raise the retirement age may also be problematic for another reason — it would take time to phase the change in, according to Andrew Biggs, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
For example, Congress may enact a higher retirement age that starts to go into effect in 10 years, and then it would take 30 years for people with the higher retirement age to go through the system.
While moving the age from say 67 to 69 would produce savings for the program in the long run, “they’re going to need the money right now,” Biggs said.

Retirement age and the economy

The welfare reform that began in Denmark in 2006 — whereby the retirement age increased with life expectancy — has been “extremely important” for the country’s economy, according to Rangvid.
“We have basically no public debt at all,” Rangvid said.
In contrast, the U.S. faces high national debt that requires the country to spend more on interest payments than on the military.
Budget legislation that is currently under consideration in Congress could add an estimated $3.3 trillion to the debt including interest, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
That package would not touch Social Security or its retirement age. However, other proposals have suggested that change, a benefit cut that would be a “pretty powerful lever” toward helping to resolve the program’s funding issues, according to Munnell.
One proposal scored by the Social Security Administration’s actuaries found raising the full retirement age to 70 would eliminate 26% of the program’s 75-year shortfall. More

The U.S. fertility rate has fallen to 1.6 births per woman, below the 2.1 needed to sustain the population.
Despite bipartisan proposals like baby bonuses and expanded child tax credits, experts say the problem runs deeper than economics.
Cultural shifts, high costs of living, lack of paid leave and delayed adulthood are all contributing to a national baby bust that may reshape the future of the U.S. economy.

America’s fertility rate is hovering around historic lows, with approximately 1.6 births per woman over her lifetime. This is below the level needed to sustain the population, which is 2.1 births per woman.
“Our population will, in the not too distant future, start to decline,” said Melissa Kearney, a professor of economics at the University of Maryland. “That’s why this is an issue for governments and for the economy, and politicians are starting to pay attention.”

The economic implications of a shrinking population are broad. For example, fewer births mean fewer future workers to support programs like Social Security and Medicare, which rely on a healthy worker-to-retiree ratio.
“The concern here in the U.S. is that if we see kind of dramatic declines in fertility, we will eventually see also kind of a drag on our economy and our capacity to cover all sorts of government programs like Medicare and Social Security,” said Brad Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia and director of the Get Married Initiative at the Institute For Family Studies.
More from Personal Finance:House GOP bill calls for bigger ‘pass-through’ business tax breakTrump administration axes Biden-era barrier for crypto in 401(k) plansFewer international tourists may lead to ‘staggering’ economic losses
Lawmakers from both parties have proposed various financial incentives to address declining fertility.
The White House is considering lump-sum payments of $5,000 for each newborn, according to The New York Times. Last week, the House passed a massive tax and spending package that includes among other provisions, a bigger child tax credit and new “Trump Accounts” with $1,000 in seed money for newborns.

However, Kearney said such policy measures are unlikely to meaningfully affect long-term fertility trends.
“I think the kinds of financial incentives or benefits that we’re providing just really aren’t enough to really change the calculus of, a trade off of … bringing a child into one’s household or family,” Kearney said. “That’s an 18-year commitment. It’s not just a one-year cost.”

Beyond money

The issue may go beyond money. It’s common for fertility to decline during economic uncertainty, but it usually rebounds once the shock ends, experts say. Surprisingly, birth rates did not recover after the Great Recession.
“That kind of caught a lot of demographers around the world flat-footed, because it also didn’t happen in other countries,” said Karen Guzzo, director of Carolina Population Center and a sociology professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “So this goes against a lot of this demographic history that we have, which led people to start thinking, okay, what exactly might be happening?”

Even with stronger economic support, experts say America faces a deeper, more complex problem: a cultural shift in how people view parenthood itself.
“More and more young adults are kind of assuming that what matters for them is their education, their money, and especially their careers,” Wilcox said.
Watch the video above to learn more about why government efforts to raise America’s birthrate have struggled to address the deeper economic and cultural challenges. More

Under House Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” student loan repayment timelines could stretch on for up to 30 years.
Longer repayment terms will only exacerbate the problem of more Americans carrying student loans into their old age, consumer advocates say.

Alexander Spatari | Moment | Getty Images

Federal student loan borrowers could be in repayment for up to 30 years under proposed changes in the House Republicans’ massive spending and tax package, dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”
Currently, most student loan repayment plans range from 10 years to 25 years — which already generate concerns about people bringing their education debt into middle-age and beyond, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.

“A 30-year repayment term means indentured servitude,” Kantrowitz said.
The House passed the bill last week. With control of Congress, Republicans can use “budget reconciliation” to pass their legislation, which only needs a simple majority in the Senate. The House bill’s student loan provisions are unlikely to significantly change in the upper chamber before Trump signs it into law, Kantrowitz said.

‘Another decade of repayment’

Under the House GOP’s bill, there would be just two repayment options for those with federal student loans. (Currently, borrowers have about a dozen ways to repay their student debt, according to Kantrowitz.)
If the legislation is enacted as currently drafted, borrowers would be able to pay back their debt through a plan with fixed payments over 10 years to 25 years, or via an income-driven repayment plan, called the “Repayment Assistance Plan,” which would conclude in loan forgiveness after three decades.
Monthly bills for borrowers on RAP would be set as a share of their income. Payments would typically range from 1% to 10% of a borrowers’ income; the more they earn, the bigger their required payment.

The new plans would potentially make student loan repayment terms much longer for some borrowers.
The U.S. Department of Education now offers a 10-year fixed repayment program, known as the standard plan, and its IDR plans typically conclude in debt cancellation after 20 years or 25 years.
“Simplifying the program with fewer repayment plans is a good idea, but not at the cost of another decade of repayment,” said James Kvaal, who served as U.S. undersecretary of education for former President Joe Biden.
More from Personal Finance:What the House GOP budget bill means for your money’Maycember’ is almost over — here’s how to recover financiallyCourt order challenges Trump’s plan to move student loans to SBA
Longer repayment terms will only exacerbate the problem of more Americans carrying student loans into their old age, consumer advocates say.
There are some 2.9 million people aged 62 and older with federal student loans, as of the first quarter of 2025, according to Education Department data. That is a 71% increase from 2017, when there were 1.7 million such borrowers. More