Trump’s Expansion of Loan Forgiveness: An Originalist and Principled Critique
The Trump administration’s October 2025 decision to process $400 billion in student debt cancellation for 30 million borrowers under the Higher Education Act (HEA) represents a significant act of executive overreach. By accelerating forgiveness through adjustments to income-driven repayment (IDR) plans-reducing timelines to as little as 10 years for many-the Department of Education has revived and broadened a framework originally developed under prior administrations. This move comes despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Biden v. Nebraska, which invalidated a comparable $430 billion plan for lacking explicit congressional authorization. As an originalist, I supported the Court’s 6-3 decision, rooted in the major questions doctrine and the Constitution’s separation of powers. Yet reports from within the administration suggest plans to further expand this program, potentially by extending relief to vocational and trade borrowers or linking it to “America First” workforce initiatives. Such an approach not only contravenes the Framers’ constitutional design but also undermines core policy principles of fiscal restraint and individual accountability.
An originalist interpretation holds that the Constitution’s meaning is anchored in its original public understanding at ratification in 1788, enforcing a rigorous separation of powers to guard against executive expansion. In Biden v. Nebraska, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, rejected the earlier plan’s reliance on the HEROES Act, emphasizing its vast economic footprint-equivalent to 0.5% of GDP-and the absence of clear legislative intent. The Framers, shaped by grievances against monarchical overreach such as King George III’s unauthorized taxation, placed the power of the purse squarely in Congress through Article I, Section 9. James Madison, in Federalist No. 51, underscored the necessity of institutional checks to balance ambition and safeguard liberty. The HEA of 1965, in its historical context, was crafted to promote federal loans and grants for higher education access, not to enable wholesale debt forgiveness via regulatory revision. Its IDR mechanisms were intended as limited tools for payment affordability among low-income borrowers, not as vehicles for mass cancellations that circumvent congressional appropriations.
“It is highly unlikely that Congress authorized this kind of agency action-comprehensive debt cancellation affecting nearly all borrowers-through such a subtle device as permission to ‘modify.’”
Biden v. Nebraska (2023)
The current administration’s expansion-building on the same HEA provisions to amplify relief-perpetuates this overreach. Originalism insists on construing statutes by their textual and contextual origins, without imputing unarticulated powers to agencies. The HEA’s plain language and legislative history do not authorize forgiving hundreds of billions through unilateral executive action. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, leading originalists, have repeatedly cautioned against administrative “discoveries” of expansive authority in legacy laws, as Gorsuch articulated in his Nebraska concurrence. This practice erodes the non-delegation doctrine, which ensures Congress retains primacy in shaping major policies. Expanding the program would directly contravene the Appropriations Clause, reviving Madison’s apprehensions about unchecked executive authority. Should a legal challenge arise-as similar suits from Republican-led states did in prior cases-the Nebraska majority would almost certainly scrutinize it as an evasion of Article I, insisting on congressional legislation that includes bicameral approval and presentment. The Constitution mandates deliberate legislative processes for transformative fiscal decisions, not ad hoc regulatory maneuvers justified by electoral mandates.
This concern draws stark parallels to actions during the administration’s first term, such as the 2019 diversion of military construction funds to the border wall under the National Emergencies Act. Originalist scholars like Philip Hamburger faulted that effort for exceeding the statute’s original scope, effectively delegating undue discretion to the executive and sidestepping Congress’s budgetary role. While the Supreme Court permitted it in the per curiam decision of Trump v. Sierra Club (2019), dissenting voices-including from Gorsuch and Thomas in related contexts-highlighted the risks to constitutional equilibrium. The analogy is precise: Both instances involve repurposing statutory authorities to fund large-scale initiatives without fresh legislative consent, diluting the Framers’ vision of a balanced government. An originalist commitment requires equal opposition to such tactics, regardless of policy aims. Debt forgiveness, if pursued, demands congressional action to align with the republic’s foundational structure.
From a policy standpoint, the expansion is no less problematic, as it deviates from principles of economic prudence and personal responsibility. The administration’s initial tenure advanced a disciplined approach to federal student aid. Under Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, reforms strengthened oversight of Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), elevating denial rates to 99% to address widespread abuse, and curtailed borrower-defense claims against exploitative for-profit institutions. Proposed 2019 regulations sought to impose stricter IDR payment thresholds, safeguarding public funds. Subsequent reversals lowered those rates to 5% for undergraduate loans and nullified prior PSLF rejections, a trajectory now set to accelerate under the current framework. Further broadening-such as incorporating trade-specific exemptions-would solidify incentives for excessive borrowing, with borrowers anticipating relief after minimal effective contributions.
The ramifications extend to broader economic stability. Large-scale forgiveness perpetuates moral hazard, prompting students to incur debt with diminished regard for repayment prospects, while institutions raise tuition in anticipation of federal backstops. This dynamic has already swollen the $1.7 trillion student debt market, distorting labor markets and delaying milestones like homeownership for younger generations. The relief disproportionately benefits higher earners-doctors and lawyers among past borrowers-while imposing costs on non-college-educated taxpayers through heightened inflation and future tax liabilities. For the administration’s core supporters, including working-class communities often excluded from higher education, this amounts to an inequitable burden, transferred via indirect fiscal mechanisms. Far from constituting genuine stimulus, it fosters dependency, eroding the conservative ethos of merit-based advancement.
To genuinely support American workers, the administration should advocate for precise, legislatively vetted alternatives: targeted tax incentives for apprenticeship programs or streamlined regulations to bolster vocational pathways. Yet amplifying the existing IDR apparatus risks entrenching an expansive entitlement system, at odds with earlier critiques of government overextension. With a $400 billion commitment layered atop prior cancellations, the long-term fiscal strain could undermine macroeconomic resilience, echoing warnings from economists about crowding out productive investments.
President Trump, consider the originalist foundation of the judiciary you influenced profoundly. The Nebraska decision reinforced constitutional boundaries against precisely this form of executive initiative. Furthering loan forgiveness expansion disrespects that legacy and contravenes enduring policy wisdom. Direct this matter to Congress for rigorous examination and approval. Failure to do so imperils not only the rule of law but the fiscal integrity essential to a thriving republic.
