What DOGE’s Takeover of the Department of Education May Mean for Student Loan Borrowers

“If DOGE wants to realize major cost savings, they’ll need to figure out first how to get more borrowers to repay their loans, and second, how to stop the government from making bad student loans in the first place.”

Preston Cooper, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

The U.S. Department of Education’s evolving relationship with financial technology and digital assets has brought new considerations for the future of student borrowing. One of the latest developments involves the Digital Operational Government Ecosystem (DOGE), a government initiative aimed at streamlining operations and reducing costs. In addition to gutting nearly US$1bn in education, DOGE’s attempted access to key student loan databases has raised questions about the potential impact on borrowers, lenders, and the broader education finance landscape. Would this integration introduce efficiencies and greater transparency, or does it pose new regulatory and security risks?

This discussion takes place against the backdrop of a major political shift. With the Trump administration taking office, several long-standing student loan policies have been rolled back, including certain forgiveness and income-driven repayment programs. At the same time, DOGE has emerged as a powerful force in federal financial operations, pushing for changes that some see as a move toward accountability, while others worry about overreach.

As DOGE attempts to gain access to the Department of Education’s systems, the implications remain uncertain. What kind of student loan data would be accessible? Could DOGE’s involvement improve loan repayment structures, or would it disrupt borrower protections?

To get a better view of the evolving issue, we spoke with two experts about the potential impact of DOGE’s access to federal students and loan repayment in the United States.

Preston Cooper, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

Preston Cooper is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where his work focuses on higher education ROI, student loans, and higher education reform. Before joining AEI in his current role, Dr. Cooper was a senior fellow in higher education policy at the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity, a research analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, and a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

His work has appeared in the popular press, including in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Forbes, Fortune, RealClearPolicy, and National Review.

Dr. Cooper has a PhD from George Mason University and a bachelor’s degree from Swarthmore College.

Danny Tejada, Lead College Counselor at We Go To College, LLC

Danny Tejada grew up in public housing in East New York, Brooklyn. He is a first-generation high school and college graduate. He attended Skidmore College. He also holds a certificate in College Advising from Teachers College, Columbia University. He co-authored a book with his mentee called Different Families, Still Brothers.

Tejada has been in college counseling for over ten years, working in public, private, charter schools, non-profits, and his own consulting company, We Go To College, LLC. In his consulting, he works with nonprofits and high schools on their college counseling programming, colleges recruiting historically disadvantaged students, and individual families on the college application process. In addition to his consulting work, he works at an independent school in Manhattan and reads applications for the University of California, San Diego.

Tejada sits on the boards of Stony Brook University’s Counselor Advisory, Uprooted Academy, and Puerto Rican Family Institute, Inc. Previously, he was on Common App’s Counselor Advisory Committee and College Access Consortium of New York’s board. Throughout his college counseling career, he has presented at state and national conferences and been featured on NewsNation, in The New York Times, NPR, Forbes, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Education Week, and Money.com, discussing college access issues for historically disadvantaged students.

Tejada’s mission is to expand college access for low-income, Black, and Brown students so they can achieve upward mobility and break their generational curse.

The Digital Operational Government Ecosystem (DOGE) was introduced as part of a broader effort to modernize federal operations, aiming to cut costs and improve efficiency. Its role spans multiple government agencies, including the Department of Education, where it has attempted to access key student loan databases. Proponents argue that DOGE’s involvement could help identify inefficiencies and improve repayment structures, but concerns remain about unintended consequences—particularly regarding data security and borrower protections.

If DOGE were granted access, it could potentially analyze repayment trends and develop cost-saving strategies. However, its broader intentions remain ambiguous. Dr. Preston Cooper, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), suggests that while DOGE might be able to identify patterns in student loan repayment, its true impact would depend on whether it uses this data to create sustainable reforms or simply enforce stricter repayment policies.

The lack of transparency surrounding DOGE’s objectives raises questions about whether its role is to improve financial oversight or to exert greater control over student debt management.

While DOGE’s attempted access to federal student loan data raises concerns, some argue that it could bring greater transparency to government loan management. In theory, an entity like DOGE could analyze repayment behaviors, identify inefficiencies, and create more informed policy recommendations. But in practice, its involvement introduces significant questions about regulatory oversight, security, and accountability.

One of the biggest concerns is data security. DOGE sought access to highly sensitive borrower information, including Social Security numbers, income records, and loan balances. While government audits already exist to oversee student loan programs, DOGE’s entry would introduce an external entity with unclear oversight.

While the full extent of its reach remains unclear, Dr. Cooper explains that the Department of Education’s databases house sensitive information, including Social Security numbers, home addresses, income records, and loan balances.

“It’s unclear exactly what data is being accessed. As of this writing, DOGE’s access to Education Department databases had been blocked,” Dr. Cooper notes. Given the scale of this information, even temporary access could have significant implications for borrowers and lenders alike.

Danny Tejada, Lead College Counselor at We Go To College, also questions whether such an arrangement is appropriate, warning that “government audits should handle this, not private citizens, especially ones who are fresh out of college and have displayed security concerns with previous places of employment.” His remarks highlight fears that DOGE, rather than improving transparency, could compromise data integrity.

Beyond security, the political implications of DOGE’s involvement cannot be ignored. The entity’s activities within the Department of Education so far have included canceling contracts and pressuring administrative staff to resign—moves that some see as prioritizing restructuring over policy-driven solutions. Dr. Cooper notes that while DOGE could, in theory, analyze repayment patterns to drive reforms, its broader intentions remain unclear. Without a defined plan to improve student loan outcomes, its role raises more questions than answers.

With DOGE’s access currently blocked, the debate continues over whether this initiative represents an opportunity for innovation in student loan administration or an overreach into sensitive financial data.

For student borrowers and lenders alike, DOGE’s potential role in student loan management raises important questions. While some argue that its involvement could lead to more efficient repayment processes, others worry about disruptions to financial aid programs and forgiveness initiatives.

A key issue is whether DOGE’s role would bring meaningful improvements to federal student loan management. Dr. Cooper points out that while administrative inefficiencies do exist, they are not the primary cost drivers of the student loan system.

“Administration really isn’t the biggest cost driver of the federal student loan system. Instead, it’s the fact that many students pay back far less than they borrowed from the government, meaning the student loan program suffers losses,” he explains.

For borrowers in public service careers, these shifts are particularly concerning. Tejada warns that recent policy rollbacks, including the restriction of loan forgiveness programs, could discourage students from entering fields such as teaching, social work, and healthcare.

“The block on loan forgiveness and affordable payment plans will be harmful to our society because it would make young folks less inclined to do public service,” he notes.

The potential impact on underrepresented and low-income communities adds another layer of complexity. Some students, particularly those from mixed-status families, may hesitate to apply for financial aid due to concerns over government oversight. “For example, mix-status families choosing not to fill out the FAFSA for fear of immigration services,” Tejada explains. These unintended consequences illustrate how shifts in policy can create broader, long-term effects on access to higher education.

DOGE’s attempted involvement in federal student loan management is just one piece of a larger shift in education policy under the Trump administration. Since taking office, the administration has reversed several student loan forgiveness programs and limited income-driven repayment options, signaling a broader shift in how federal student debt is handled. These policy changes have sparked debate over their long-term effects on borrowers, particularly those relying on financial aid and loan relief measures.

One of the most immediate consequences of these policy shifts is their effect on student loan borrowers, particularly those in public service fields.

Tejada warns that restricting access to forgiveness programs could lead to long-term labor shortages in critical professions. “The block on loan forgiveness and affordable payment plans will be harmful to our society because it would make young folks less inclined to do public service,” he explains.

The impact could be particularly severe for teachers, social workers, and medical professionals—careers that typically require advanced education but offer lower salaries than private-sector roles.

Beyond direct policy rollbacks, DOGE’s influence within the Department of Education has largely focused on administrative restructuring rather than direct intervention in loan repayment policies. Dr. Cooper notes that so far, DOGE’s actions have been more about internal shake-ups than substantive policy reform.

“I haven’t seen too many efforts from DOGE to tackle policies around the provision and repayment of loans—most of their actions at the Education Department have involved canceling contracts and nudging administrative staff to resign,” he observes. While some view these moves as necessary cost-cutting measures, others worry they signal a lack of focus on student borrower protections.

The uncertainty extends to underrepresented and low-income communities, where shifting federal policies have already caused disruptions. Tejada highlights a growing fear among students from mixed-status families who are reluctant to apply for financial aid due to concerns over government scrutiny.

He also points to potential funding shortfalls in programs designed to support low-income students, adding, “Last year, I thought the FAFSA tech issues would create a lost generation. But I think the uncertainty this year will create another lost generation—a generation of students who never escape poverty because they get caught up in providing for their families since they don’t get the funding they need for college.”

If DOGE is to have a lasting impact on student loan policies, it will need to move beyond administrative restructuring and address fundamental issues in repayment and affordability.

Dr. Cooper underscores this point, explaining that “if DOGE wants to realize major cost savings, they’ll need to figure out first how to get more borrowers to repay their loans, and second, how to stop the government from making bad student loans in the first place.” Without clear policy solutions, the current uncertainty is likely to persist, leaving borrowers to navigate an increasingly unpredictable financial landscape.

As DOGE’s access to federal student loan systems remains blocked, its future in education finance remains uncertain. While its proponents argue that it could introduce efficiencies and cost-saving measures, critics point to security risks, political motivations, and the potential for greater instability in an already complex student loan system.

The broader policy shifts under the Trump administration, including the rollback of loan forgiveness and income-driven repayment programs, have already reshaped the landscape for student borrowers. These changes may discourage students from pursuing public service careers, exacerbating financial strain on borrowers while creating potential labor shortages in essential fields. At the same time, DOGE’s involvement has so far been more about administrative restructuring than substantive policy reform, leaving open questions about its long-term role.

Whether DOGE becomes a lasting force in student loan policy or fades into the background as a temporary experiment in government oversight will depend on future political and regulatory decisions. For now, student borrowers and lenders alike must navigate an unpredictable landscape, where shifting policies and administrative changes continue to shape the future of federal financial aid.