The administration has abandoned appeals defending its public-service loan-forgiveness restrictions. Conservatives can question the program’s cost without endorsing open-ended agency power.
Conservatives do not have to become enthusiasts for student-debt cancellation to recognize a basic rule of government: an agency needs lawful authority for the conditions it imposes. That principle should survive a change in the party occupying the White House.
The Trump administration has abandoned appeals defending restrictions on Public Service Loan Forgiveness after courts struck down the rule. The challenged policy would have allowed employer disqualification based on a determination that their activities had a substantial illegal purpose. Public Citizen and the National Council of Nonprofits, which participated in the litigation, announced the withdrawals this week.
That development does not settle every argument about student loans. It does bring an important question back into focus: should workers’ access to an established benefit depend on broad judgments made by political appointees about the organizations employing them?
The case for protecting taxpayers is serious. Federal programs should not reward fraud, and nonprofit status should never serve as immunity from enforcement. If an employer breaks the law, authorities should investigate the conduct and use the powers the law actually gives them.
The distinction is between enforcing defined rules and granting administrators a loosely bounded power to decide which employers deserve disqualification. A reassuring promise from today’s officials offers little protection against how tomorrow’s officials might use the same authority.
Imagine a future administration applying an expansive interpretation to a religious charity, a conservative legal organization or an advocacy group whose work it considers harmful. Supporters would presumably describe that decision as accountability too. Conservatives should assess the machinery of government before deciding whether they like the people operating it.
The workers matter as well. An employee is not automatically responsible for every disputed decision made by an employer. Any system that attaches consequences to employment should provide clear notice, fair procedures and a way to challenge mistakes. Uncertainty can be costly even before a benefit is formally denied.
None of this prevents Congress from debating whether public-service loan forgiveness is well designed, fairly funded or worth maintaining. Those are legitimate policy questions. Lawmakers should confront them directly, with transparent eligibility standards and an honest account of costs, instead of leaving agencies to improvise a substitute debate through employer exclusions.
Nor should the retreat be presented as universal debt cancellation or a promise that every applicant qualifies. This dispute concerned a particular employer-disqualification rule. Individual eligibility still depends on the applicable program requirements.
The durable conservative position is straightforward: scrutinize spending, punish proven wrongdoing through lawful processes and insist that administrators remain within their authority. It becomes less convincing when the final requirement disappears whenever an agency targets an unpopular organization.
Limited government is most useful when it limits officials we happen to agree with. Otherwise, it is merely a complaint about who currently holds the pen.
Naomi Carter is a conservative columnist whose work focuses on women, identity politics, gender, race, media, and the cultural institutions influencing younger Americans. Carter became increasingly skeptical of progressive politics after seeing complex questions of identity reduced to rigid ideological categories. Her writing challenges political orthodoxies on both race and gender while emphasizing individual agency, personal responsibility, free expression, and equal treatment under the law. At The Dispatch Room, Carter frequently examines how political narratives are created, amplified by media and institutions, and ultimately experienced by ordinary people.
Discussion
Loading discussion…