Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in debt per borrower sparked a political firestorm when it was announced last August, with Republicans saying it would help affluent college graduates who don't need the assistance. Democratic lawmakers have defended it as essential for people saddled with large amounts of student debt — and also argued that it is important for bringing young voters to the polls to support Biden in the 2024 presidential election.
But legal challenges to the policy have now put it in jeopardy. Lower courts have put Biden's program on hold, and the Supreme Court does not appear likely to side with the administration. On top of that, the new law to suspend the debt ceiling prevents Biden from extending an existing moratorium on student loan payments. Although the administration had said it was going to restart payments anyway, that provision appears to mean officials must start collecting federal student loan payments and interest from millions of Americans even if the Supreme Court tosses out the broader forgiveness plan.
Khanna is leading an effort among lawmakers to tell the administration it must avoid restarting payments this year, either by finding another way to move forward with the student debt plan or by finding another way to extend the moratorium despite the debt ceiling agreement. Khanna raised the matter in a private meeting with Cardona at a recent meeting of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, along with other liberal lawmakers.
"It would be political malpractice to have students repay student loans under Biden when Trump provided the relief. This is not rocket science," Khanna said. "The White House must figure out how to make sure there is an extension on the moratorium."
Student debt activists have focused on a 1965 law as the basis for canceling the debt, rather than the 2003 law that the administration cited when he announced the program last year.
"There are members of Congress who are pressuring them behind closed doors on this," Gokey said. "People realize the Supreme Court does not have the final word here — Biden has additional legal authority, and members of Congress are telling them he needs to have a plan to win."
Such efforts are viewed as a long shot within the administration. White House officials chose the 2003 law instead of the 1965 law as the legal foundation for the program because they believed it gave them better chances in front of the Supreme Court.
Opponents of canceling student debt say that if the court rules against the program, the White House should not try again to implement a policy that they believe largely benefits upper-income Americans who do not need the assistance. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated Biden's plan would cost roughly $400 billion.
"The left's push for blanket student debt cancellation has always been legally and economically dubious," said Ben Ritz, director of the Center for Funding America's Future at the Progressive Policy Institute. "Instead of doubling down on this misguided policy, the administration should pivot to pursuing real cost controls and expanding access to good jobs that don't require pricey degrees."
Spokespeople for Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — two outspoken advocates for student debt relief — declined to comment on if they are urging the White House to prepare a backup plan. Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley also declined to comment.
The White House said in a statement that it still expects to prevail in court and pointed to the president's recent veto of House Republicans' attempt to overturn Biden's student debt cancellation program.
"We remain confident in our legal authority to provide relief under the HEROES Act," said Abdullah Hasan, a White House spokesman. "No president has fought harder for student debt relief than President Biden."
Borrowers who hope to see their debts canceled are also eager for the White House to look for a backup plan.