‘The Washington Post’ Admits Biden’s Student Loan Forgiveness Breaks the Law

The Washington Post’s editorial board has concluded that, while President Biden’s student-loan-forgiveness order is flatly illegal, the Supreme Court should let it go into effect anyway, because the plaintiffs in the two cases that the Court has considered lack standing. “Biden overreached on student loans,” the piece’s headline reads. “But the court shouldn’t stop him.”

I am a “standing dove,” and, as such, I disagree with the Post’s conclusion here. Both generally, and specifically, I consider the case for standing in this area to be strong, and I concur with our editorial, which asked, “If the Court cannot stop the president from raiding the Treasury to buy votes and reward friends on the most implausible of legal pretexts, what is it for?” Nevertheless, while I am unimpressed by — and suspicious of — the Post’s standing argument, that is not my most vehement objection to its editorial’s broader reasoning. My most vehement objection is to where the Post’s editors place their emphasis — which seems to me, as a long-time reader of the paper, to be at odds with the high stakes of this case; to be inconsistent with the approach that the same editors habitually took during the last presidency; and to call into serious question whether the piece’s drafters actually believe the argument that they have elected to advance.

About the Author

Charles C. W. Cooke

Charles C. W. Cooke is a senior editor at National Review and the host of The Charles C. W. Cooke Podcast.

Featured Tags

The Washington Post’s editorial board has concluded that, while President Biden’s student-loan-forgiveness order is flatly illegal, the Supreme Court should let it go into effect anyway, because the plaintiffs in the two cases that the Court has considered lack standing. “Biden overreached on student loans,” the piece’s headline reads. “But the court shouldn’t stop him.”

I am a “standing dove,” and, as such, I disagree with the Post’s conclusion here. Both generally, and specifically, I consider the case for standing in this area to be strong, and I concur with our editorial, which asked, “If the Court cannot stop the president from raiding the Treasury to buy votes and reward friends on the most implausible of legal pretexts, what is it for?” Nevertheless, while I am unimpressed by — and suspicious of — the Post’s standing argument, that is not my most vehement objection to its editorial’s broader reasoning. My most vehement objection is to where the Post’s editors place their emphasis — which seems to me, as a long-time reader of the paper, to be at odds with the high stakes of this case; to be inconsistent with the approach that the same editors habitually took during the last presidency; and to call into serious question whether the piece’s drafters actually believe the argument that they have elected to advance.