The short version

The RISE regulations contain language referencing REPAYE during the transition period. But borrowers should not assume REPAYE or SAVE will actually be available as a repayment option. The Missouri SAVE settlement says ED will not enroll new borrowers in SAVE, will deny pending SAVE applications, will continue moving current SAVE borrowers out of SAVE, and will not enforce the original REPAYE rule or enroll borrowers into original REPAYE. That makes REPAYE/SAVE too uncertain to treat as a reliable planning option.

Why this matters

Borrowers and advisors have been trying to understand the transition from the old income-driven repayment system to the new system. The RISE regulations phase out the old income-contingent repayment plan structure, including PAYE and ICR, and create a transition period through the June 30, 2028 / July 1, 2028 boundary. The regulations also reference REPAYE, which creates confusion because SAVE was built by modifying REPAYE.

REPAYE appears in the regulations, but the settlement points the other way

On the face of the RISE text, REPAYE is referenced as a possible transition plan for certain borrowers who have not received a Direct Loan on or after July 1, 2026. However, the settlement language is very direct about SAVE and original REPAYE. ED agreed not to implement SAVE, not to enroll new borrowers in SAVE, to deny pending SAVE applications, and to continue moving borrowers out of SAVE. ED also agreed not to enforce the original REPAYE rule or enroll borrowers into original REPAYE. Because of that, borrowers should not treat REPAYE/SAVE as an option they can count on unless ED later provides clear implementation guidance.

The practical planning focus should shift

For most borrowers, the practical transition analysis should focus on the plans that are more likely to matter: PAYE for borrowers who already have PAYE legacy status, ICR for certain legacy ICR and Parent PLUS consolidation situations, IBR as the long-term statutory income-driven fallback, RAP as the new forward-looking income-driven plan, and fixed repayment options where appropriate.

PAYE remains a fragile legacy benefit

PAYE is not simply open to everyone. During the transition, PAYE is limited to a narrow group of borrowers who meet the legacy requirements, including having been repaying under PAYE on July 1, 2024 and not receiving a Direct Loan on or after July 1, 2026. Borrowers who have PAYE should be careful before leaving it because re-entry may not be available.

ICR still matters for Parent PLUS planning

ICR may not be the lowest-payment plan for many borrowers, but it remains important for Parent PLUS-related planning. Certain Direct Consolidation Loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2006 that repaid parent PLUS debt may have an ICR pathway during the transition, assuming the borrower does not receive a Direct Loan on or after July 1, 2026. For Parent PLUS borrowers pursuing PSLF, timing and consolidation history can be critical.

PSLF borrowers need a transition plan

PSLF does not end because PAYE, ICR, or SAVE/REPAYE change. But the repayment plans that count toward PSLF are changing. Borrowers pursuing PSLF should confirm whether their current plan will count during the transition period and what plan they will use after the legacy-plan window closes. A borrower close to 120 qualifying payments may have a very different strategy than a borrower just beginning public service repayment.

Bottom line

Borrowers should not assume REPAYE/SAVE will return. The RISE regulations mention REPAYE, but the Missouri settlement creates serious operational doubt. Until ED clearly says otherwise, borrowers should plan around PAYE if they have legacy PAYE status, ICR if they have an ICR or Parent PLUS consolidation pathway, IBR where eligible, RAP as the new income-driven option, and fixed plans when appropriate. REPAYE/SAVE should be treated as an unresolved footnote, not the foundation of a repayment plan.

Source Notes

• RISE final regulations, 34 CFR 685.209 and related preamble discussion, including transition eligibility for PAYE, ICR, REPAYE references, IBR, RAP, Parent PLUS consolidation, and PSLF transition rules.
• Missouri SAVE settlement agreement, State of Missouri et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., Case No. 4:24-cv-520-JAR, executed December 9, 2025, including provisions stating that ED will not enroll new borrowers in SAVE, will deny pending SAVE applications, will continue moving SAVE borrowers out of SAVE, and will not enforce the original REPAYE rule or enroll borrowers into original REPAYE.
• U.S. Department of Education press releases announcing the Missouri SAVE settlement and subsequent next steps for borrowers enrolled in SAVE.