A new study suggests that Americans burdened by student loan debt are not retreating from the political process. In fact, they may be more likely to engage. The research, published in American Politics, finds that individuals with student loan debt are more likely to vote, donate to candidates, and participate in other forms of political action than their counterparts without student loan debt.
This finding may seem surprising at first glance. Student loan debt is often discussed in the context of financial stress, economic immobility, and long-term hardship. In the United States, more than 40 million adults collectively owe about $1.8 trillion in student loan debt, a sum that exceeds the nation’s total credit card debt. The rising cost of higher education, paired with stagnant wages and limited avenues for debt relief, has turned the issue into a political flashpoint—particularly for younger Americans and progressive policymakers. But until now, little research had explored how this financial burden shapes political behavior.
The study was conducted by David Macdonald, a political scientist at the University of Florida, who sought to better understand how personal financial circumstances influence civic engagement. Drawing on survey responses from the Cooperative Election Study—a large, nationally representative dataset—Macdonald examined whether having student loan debt predicted participation in national elections, even after accounting for factors like age, education, income, race, political interest, and contact by campaigns.
Americans with student loan debt were more likely to vote in presidential elections than those without it. They were also more likely to take part in other electoral behaviors, such as displaying political yard signs, working for a campaign, or donating money to political causes. These results were consistent across two election cycles, across swing states and non-competitive states, and across levels of educational attainment.
This pattern runs counter to the commonly held belief that economic hardship leads people to disengage from politics. Prior research has shown that unemployment, financial insecurity, and stress can lower rates of political participation. Under this logic, student debt might be expected to sap time, energy, and motivation—making it harder for people to stay politically active. But Macdonald offers a different explanation.
Unlike credit card or medical debt, student loan debt is directly tied to the federal government. Over 90% of student loans are federally held, and the government plays a central role in setting repayment terms, offering deferments, and shaping loan forgiveness programs. Because of this direct connection, individuals may see electoral participation as a pathway to economic relief. In other words, voting or engaging politically could be seen as a practical way to address their financial concerns.
This reasoning aligns with what scholars call “policy feedback” theory—the idea that people are more likely to become politically active when they are affected by government programs, especially those that are visible and easily attributed to public policy. Just as recipients of Social Security often recognize the government’s role in providing benefits and are motivated to defend them, student loan borrowers may view their debt as a government-controlled burden that can be changed through political action.
Supporting this idea, public opinion surveys show that most Americans with student debt are well aware that their loans are federal. A 2023 USA Today/Ipsos poll found that more than 70% of borrowers correctly identified their loans as federal. Borrowers were also significantly more familiar than the general public with government policies like the COVID-era pause on loan payments and proposals to cancel up to $20,000 in debt. This level of awareness suggests that borrowers see the government not just as the lender, but as a potential agent of change.
Macdonald also explored whether these findings held across different subgroups. For instance, he found that borrowers with a four-year degree or a graduate degree were more likely to vote than those who took out loans but did not complete college. While the positive relationship between student loan debt and turnout was consistent, it was strongest among those with higher levels of education—possibly reflecting a mix of civic knowledge, political efficacy, and economic self-interest. Even so, the data showed that student debt was linked to higher participation regardless of educational attainment.
The relationship between debt and political engagement was also present in both swing states and non-swing states. This suggests that the mobilizing effect of student loan debt is not limited to high-stakes battlegrounds, but may reflect a broader shift in how Americans understand the political relevance of their financial obligations.
To test whether these behavioral differences had the potential to influence policy outcomes, Macdonald looked at public opinion data from the 2019 American National Election Study Pilot. He found that borrowers were significantly more likely than non-borrowers to support student loan forgiveness and free public college tuition.
For example, 66% of borrowers supported canceling existing student loan debt, compared to just 31% of those without debt. These differences indicate that higher turnout among borrowers could have a tangible effect on electoral outcomes and policymaking—especially as student loan debt becomes an increasingly prominent issue in national debates.
The study has some limitations. It focuses on presidential election years, when participation tends to be higher and more broadly representative. It’s unclear whether the same patterns would emerge during lower-salience midterm elections or in local races. Additionally, the study relied on self-reported debt status, which may not capture differences in loan amounts, repayment status, or the emotional burden of debt. Future research could explore whether borrowers who are struggling more intensely are more or less politically active, or how engagement varies by political ideology.
Another open question is how policy changes—such as the Biden administration’s efforts to forgive some student debt—might influence participation over time. If government action succeeds in reducing borrowers’ financial burdens, it may strengthen the perceived connection between civic engagement and personal well-being. On the other hand, if promised reforms stall or are blocked, borrowers might become more disillusioned or politically polarized.
The study, “Student Loan Debt and Participation in American National Elections,” was published March 28, 2025.
