Elizabeth Warren Slams Student Loan Servicer as Democrats Call for Debt Cancellation

Chairing her first student debt hearing, Warren told a panelist he should be fired.

Michael Reynolds/Zumapress

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Senate Democrats made the case Tuesday for canceling some student debt, noting that debt forgiveness would stimulate the pandemic-battered economy, help close the racial wealth gap, and aid families who have put off homeownership, child-rearing, or retirement.

But Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the chair of the Senate subcommittee that held the hearing on student debt—Warren’s first as the panel’s head—focused her questioning less on cancellation and more on the corporations who process the loans she’d like to cancel.

Her main target was Navient, one of the nation’s largest servicers of both federal and private student loan debt, processing the loans of more than 12 million borrowers nationwide. The company’s CEO, John Remondi, was on a panel of nearly a dozen speakers, from members of Congress to academics, who gathered virtually to discuss a wide-ranging set of issues related to student debt, including the proposal championed by Warren for President Joe Biden to forgive up to $50,000 of student loan debt via executive action. 

Warren opened her questioning by highlighting the numerous state investigations and lawsuits directed at Navient, as well as the revelation that Navient overcharged the federal government for $22.3 million in student loan subsidies that the company has recently been directed to pay back.

“Mr. Remondi, if a person who worked at the Department of Education stole $22.3 million, they’d be fired,” she said. “Can you explain why your government contracts haven’t been canceled and why Navient has continued to reward you personally with nearly $40 million in compensation since 2014, even as these scandals pile up?” She called for the federal government to end its contracts with Navient—and said Navient should fire its CEO, while he listened. (Remondi said that some of the allegations raised by Warren aren’t true and repeated that his company’s goal is to help all borrowers.)

Later, Warren confronted James Steeley, the CEO of the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), one of the largest servicers for the federal government’s embattled public service loan forgiveness program. She cited several lawsuits and Education Department audits that have accused the company of undercounting borrowers’ payments in assessing their eligibility for public service loan forgiveness—resulting in 98 percent of applicants to the program being denied forgiveness. Steeley claimed that these findings were incorrect but did not elaborate on how. 

Both Navient and PHEAA have faced a number of lawsuits regarding their treatment of student borrowers. Warren noted that six states have filed suit against Navient, as has the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which alleges that Navient deceived borrowers, nudging them towards higher repayment amounts than they otherwise were eligible for. PHEAA recently settled a lawsuit filed by the attorney general of Massachusetts, agreeing to pay relief to borrowers in the state. 

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) also catalogued the lawsuits against Navient, asking Remondi how much he was paid across the three years in which the lawsuits were filed. Remondi’s total compensation during that time amounted to more than $20 million—a number that paled in comparison to the billions that Navient is accused of overcharging borrowers, according to Menendez.

“If I was one of your shareholders, I’d be concerned that you pocketed $20 million in salary and compensation but yet your company might be responsible for a couple of billion dollars to American families,” Menendez said. “If I was one of your customers, I’d be calling [Education] Secretary [Miguel] Cardona to cancel my student debt immediately.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) questioned PHEAA’s Steeley about the process that his company is using to review borrowers’ eligible payments for public service loan forgiveness. Steeley criticized the complexity of the requirements placed on the program by Congress. But Van Hollen responded that the 98 percent denial rate for forgiveness “is not due to complexity alone,” adding that borrowers haven’t gotten the guidance that they should have received from servicers like PHEAA who are administering the loans. PHEAA, he said, “has taken an admittedly complicated process and made it worse.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate