Effective today, July 1, 2026, most incoming MSW students face a new and troubling financial reality. They will no longer be eligible for federal Grad PLUS loans, which many graduate students have relied on to cover the difference between ordinary federal aid and the actual cost of earning a degree.
Until today, an eligible student generally could borrow up to the school’s full cost of attendance, minus scholarships, grants, Direct Unsubsidized Loans, and other assistance. Cost of attendance may include tuition, fees, books, supplies, housing, food, transportation, and certain other approved expenses. Although Grad PLUS loans generally carry higher interest rates, they provide federal borrower protections and may qualify for Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
Incoming MSW students will be limited to $20,500 annually and $100,000 in aggregate federal graduate loans, while certain students already enrolled and borrowing before July 1 may qualify for a temporary transition exception. A student could be below the $100,000 graduate limit but still have limited eligibility because the student is approaching the $257,500 lifetime maximum.
A recent federal court ruling created some hope that the new restrictions might be stopped. But that hope was short-lived—at least for now. U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell blocked portions of the Department of Education’s narrow definition of a “professional degree,” but she did not stop the borrowing limits enacted by Congress or restore Grad PLUS loans. Incoming MSW students are still caught in the new system.
Incoming MSW students are strongly encouraged to contact their prospective school’s financial aid office and request a written, individualized financial aid estimate covering the entire degree, not just the first semester. This would include total tuition and mandatory fees; the cost of living, including estimated living expenses; the amount of federal loans available; the amount and renewal terms of scholarships and grants; and whether the university offers emergency assistance, assistantships, stipends, or tuition assistance.
Students should be cautious about private lending. Private loans may fill part of the gap, but they transfer far more risk to students and, when a co-signer is required, to their families. Approval and interest rates depend on credit, income, and sometimes debt-to-income ratios. Some loans carry variable rates that can rise over time. More importantly, private loans do not qualify for Public Service Loan Forgiveness or federal income-driven repayment plans. A student who enters public service with private debt may have few options if earnings fall short of expectations.
The elimination of Grad PLUS and the new borrowing caps were enacted by Congress in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act; the Department of Education’s RISE rule implements those statutory changes. The theory behind the new limits is that restricting federal loans will force universities to lower tuition. Perhaps some will. But universities don’t usually reduce tuition overnight because Congress changes a loan program. In the meantime, students starting this fall must decide whether to borrow privately, work more hours, attend part-time, choose another profession, or abandon graduate education altogether. That is not cost control. It is shifting the risk from the federal government to students and their families.
Several bills have been introduced in Congress as remedies. Even if control of the House or Senate changes after the November elections, the new Congress will not convene until January 3, 2027. The new Congress would need time to organize, finalize committee assignments, reintroduce legislation, and determine its priorities. Corrective legislation could be introduced immediately, but passage would probably take months unless it were attached to a larger bill already moving through Congress. And then there is the President waiting with his veto pen.
Social work researchers, particularly those with training in economics and workforce analysis, should collaborate with economists to estimate the effects of reduced MSW enrollment on behavioral health, child welfare, schools, hospitals, aging services, and other systems that depend on social workers. Congress needs to understand not only how many students may be shut out, but how many people may lose access to essential services as a result.
An analysis by the Urban Institute estimates that 24 percent of students pursuing master’s degrees in social work, roughly 6000 annually, borrowed more than the new annual limit of $20,500 during the year studied. The proportion was higher when the analysis was limited to students who borrowed. These are not abstract percentages. They represent students who must now find thousands of dollars elsewhere—or reconsider whether they can afford to enter the profession at all.
Social work cannot simply issue another statement expressing disappointment. We must join with nurses, physician assistants, educators, mental health professionals, universities, students, and service providers to make this a congressional priority. We need evidence, compelling stories, local media attention, and lawmakers who understand what these limits will mean in their districts. Public opinion does not automatically move Congress. It must be organized, focused, and directed toward the lawmakers with the power to act. That is the work before us.