Student loan forgiveness in the United States has always been more than a matter of economics. It is a mirror of national politics, reflecting who we believe deserves relief, what we define as public service, and how far presidential power should reach. Over the past three years, the politics of forgiveness have become a new proxy war between ideological camps, reshaping not only who gets their loans forgiven but also how the federal government defines service itself.

The Supreme Court Draws a Line

When President Biden announced his sweeping plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for millions of Americans, it looked like the largest act of educational relief in modern history, a promise to an indebted generation that their government finally saw them. But in Biden v. Nebraska (2023), the Supreme Court struck it down, ruling that the administration had exceeded its authority under the HEROES Act.

The Court’s majority invoked what’s known as the “major questions doctrine,” a judicial principle stating that executive agencies cannot make decisions of vast economic and political significance without clear authorization from Congress. I know what you might be thinking. Trump has never heard of the major questions doctrine. That doctrine only seems to exist during Democratic administrations, and then, like magic, it disappears. Poof.

The decision not only blocked Biden’s plan; it redefined the limits of presidential authority at the time. The message was clear: presidents can nudge, not transform. They can pause repayment in a pandemic, but they cannot erase debt on a national scale. Forgiveness could continue, but only through tightly controlled, legally narrow channels.

And laugh — really laugh — because the Supreme Court’s selective restraint exposes its own hypocrisy. The same Court that limits Biden’s authority to help borrowers has no trouble expanding presidential power when it fits its politics. Judicial consistency has become as flexible as campaign rhetoric.

From Blanket Forgiveness to Bureaucratic Gatekeeping

With the broad plan blocked, the Department of Education pivoted. If it could not deliver mass relief, it would refine the rules of the game. The administration turned to the one program it could still shape: Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF). Created in 2007 with bipartisan support, PSLF allows teachers, nurses, first responders, and nonprofit employees to have their remaining federal loans forgiven after ten years of qualifying payments. For over a million Americans, it has been a lifeline, a small but powerful recognition that service to the public should not mean a lifetime of debt.

But now even PSLF is being politicized. A new rule announced by the Department of Education and scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026, gives the Secretary of Education sweeping power to exclude certain nonprofit and government employers from the program if they “engage in specific enumerated illegal activities” or fail to align with the “priorities of the administration.”

On paper, the rule targets organizations that violate federal law. In practice, critics say it opens the door to ideological exclusion, potentially disqualifying workers for sanctuary jurisdictions, nonprofits supporting immigrant families, gender-affirming care providers, or even organizations that defend protesters exercising First Amendment rights.

Advocacy groups like Democracy Forward and Protect Borrowers immediately vowed to challenge the rule in court, calling it “a direct and unlawful attack on nurses, teachers, and public servants across the country.” Policy analysts warn that it risks turning PSLF, once a bipartisan educational promise, into a political weapon.

Partisan Politics in the Fine Print

What’s emerging is a form of bureaucratic partisanship: ideology enforced not through legislation but through administrative discretion. Democrats tend to view forgiveness as economic justice, an investment in opportunity and an attempt to correct decades of rising tuition, stagnant wages, and predatory lending. Republicans increasingly frame it as moral hazard, arguing that forgiving debt rewards irresponsibility and burdens taxpayers who “played by the rules.”

The Supreme Court’s intervention didn’t end the debate; it merely shifted the battlefield. Unable to act broadly, each side now redefines the boundaries of eligibility. Who counts as “public service”? What qualifies as “illegal activity”? And perhaps most importantly — who gets to decide? The result is a patchwork of policies where politics determines outcomes. A federal officer working for ICE might qualify for forgiveness, while a social worker offering legal aid to migrant families might not. A police officer in a conservative county could see their debt wiped clean, while a firefighter in a sanctuary city might be disqualified. Loan forgiveness has quietly become a reflection of political identity, not just professional service.

Power, Ideology, and the New Definition of Service

Public Service Loan Forgiveness was built on a simple moral equation: if you dedicate a decade of your career to helping others, your country will relieve your debt. It was a rare example of bipartisan decency, a bridge between fiscal prudence and moral fairness. But the new rule from the Department of Education changes that equation. It implies that service itself is conditional, that the worth of your contribution depends on whether it aligns with the administration’s moral code. A teacher in a rural district might be “public service,” but a community health worker at a gender-affirming clinic might not.

That shift isn’t just administrative. It’s existential. It replaces the old question— Did you serve the public?— with a new one: Did you serve our version of the public? Policy experts warn this could worsen already severe shortages in education, public health, and nonprofit leadership. Many young professionals entered these fields believing forgiveness was guaranteed after ten years of sacrifice. If eligibility now fluctuates with the political winds, fewer will choose public service at all. And when fewer talented people serve, entire communities lose.

Conclusion: Who Deserves Relief?

Every debate over debt forgiveness now circles a deeper moral question: Whose labor do we honor, and whose do we dismiss? The new political PSLF rule effectively divides public service into “approved” and “unapproved” categories. It rewards those seen as upholding one political vision of America while punishing others. The principle of forgiveness, once rooted in shared sacrifice, becomes a test of ideological loyalty.

When a police officer or ICE agent qualifies for forgiveness but a public defender or immigrant-rights advocate does not, the system ceases to be neutral. It becomes a reflection of whichever political administration happens to be in power. The Supreme Court may have curtailed Biden’s authority to cancel loans, but partisan politics has found other avenues to shape the outcome. Forgiveness is no longer determined solely by financial need or years of public service— it now depends on who you work for, what your employer represents, and which ideology governs Washington.

For millions of borrowers, that means the promise of relief has become a moving target based on elections. It’s no longer a moral contract; it’s a policy gamble. And as long as the judiciary plays referee by one set of rules for one party and another for the other, the credibility of the system will continue to erode. What began as a policy of hope for educational opportunity has become a performance of partisanship. The dream of forgiveness, once about restoring fairness, now exposes just how politicized fairness itself has become. In the end, this debate isn’t really about loans at all. It’s about the deeper question that defines every democracy: who gets grace, and who gets denied it based on their political beliefs.

---

Julian Vasquez Heilig is a nationally recognized policy scholar, public intellectual, and civil rights advocate. A trusted voice in public policy, he has testified for state legislatures, the U.S. Congress, the United Nations, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, while also advising presidential and gubernatorial campaigns. His work has been cited by major outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, and he has appeared on networks from MSNBC and PBS to NPR and DemocracyNow!. He is a recipient of more than 30 honors, including the 2025 NAACP Keeper of the Flame Award, Vasquez Heilig brings both scholarly rigor and grassroots commitment to the fight for equity and justice.