Republican-led states filed a lawsuit against President Biden and the Department of Education to block his latest student loan repayment plan.
The Save program provides lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers and is designed to provide faster debt relief than previous plans.
On March 29, 2024, a group of Republican-led states filed a lawsuit against President Biden and the Department of Education to block his latest student loan repayment plan. The Save program provides lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers and is designed to provide faster debt relief than previous plans. However, the attorneys general from 11 states argue that the shortened timeline for debt relief through this plan is unconstitutional and violates Supreme Court decisions on student loan forgiveness.
, Photo: Emily Curiel/Kansas City Star/Tribune News Service via Getty Images Eleven Republican-led states are suing the Biden administration over its latest efforts to provide student debt relief for millions of borrowers. Why it matters:
The attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska,, South Carolina,, Texas and Utah joined the suit.
, an Education Department spokesperson said in a statement to media.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that the lawsuit aims to block Biden's student loan repayment plan entirely when it only seeks to halt the SAVE plan specifically. Secondly, Falconer quotes Kris Kobach as saying that Biden's loan forgiveness plan is unlawful for multiple reasons without providing any evidence or citation of these supposed laws. This statement is misleading and potentially false since there are no specific laws mentioned in the article. Lastly, the article presents a one-sided view by only including quotes from Republicans who oppose Biden's student loan repayment plan while ignoring quotes from Democrats or other experts who may have different opinions.
Falconer quotes Kris Kobach as saying that Biden's loan forgiveness plan is unlawful for multiple reasons without providing any evidence or citation of these supposed laws.
The title implies that the lawsuit aims to block Biden's student loan repayment plan entirely when it only seeks to halt the SAVE plan specifically.
The article presents a one-sided view by only including quotes from Republicans who oppose Biden's student loan repayment plan while ignoring quotes from Democrats or other experts who may have different opinions.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing the U.S. Supreme Court ruling as a reason for the lawsuit against President Biden's student loan relief plan. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing some Republicans characterizing Biden's effort as a 'bailout for the wealthy'. Additionally, there is an example of a dichotomous depiction in the statement 'The big picture: The Biden administration has pledged to lower student debt burdens and give borrowers breathing room with student loan repayment programs such as the income-driven SAVE plan. However, some Republicans have characterized Biden's effort as a 'bailout for the wealthy.'
The U.S. Supreme Court blocked President Biden’s signature student loan forgiveness program last June in a majority ruling that said the plan exceeded the federal government’s authority.
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach (R) said in a Facebook post:
Bias
(85%)
The author Rebecca Falconer is biased towards the Republican-led states' lawsuit against President Biden's student loan repayment plan. The article uses language that dehumanizes borrowers by implying they are wealthy and do not need relief. Additionally, the article quotes a Republican official who characterizes Biden's effort as a 'bailout for the wealthy.' This is an example of monetary bias.
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach (R) said in a Facebook post:
The big picture: The Biden administration has pledged to lower student debt burdens and give borrowers breathing room with student loan repayment programs such as the income-driven SAVE plan. However, some Republicans have characterized Biden's effort as a 'bailout for the wealthy.'
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest in this article. The author has a personal relationship with Kris Kobach and the SAVE plan is an initiative that was supported by his campaign for governor.
The author Rebecca Falconer mentions her own support for the SAVE (Student Accountability, Verification, and Enforcement) plan in her article. She writes:
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author Rebecca Falconer has a conflict of interest on the topics of student debt relief and the Biden administration. The article discusses a lawsuit filed by Republican-led states to block President Biden's student loan repayment plan, which is known as the SAVE (Student Aid for Every American) plan. Additionally, Kris Kobach, who has been critical of President Biden in other contexts and may have financial ties with companies that benefit from a lack of student debt relief or increased interest rates on loans, is also mentioned in the article.
The lawsuit filed by Republican-led states to block President Biden's student loan repayment plan, which is known as the SAVE (Student Aid for Every American) plan.
Biden announced his new $138 billion student loan plan in February
Kobach says this latest program flies in the face of the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling and breaks many of the same rules.
The coalition of States sues Defendant Biden, as well as co-defendants the Department of Education and Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, to stop a second attempt to avoid Congress and pass an illegal student debt forgiveness.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(90%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that President Biden's latest student loan forgiveness plan flies in the face of the Supreme Court's ruling and breaks many of the same rules as his original program. However, this statement is false as there was no Supreme Court ruling on a student loan forgiveness plan until after Biden announced his new $138 billion SAVE (Student Aid for Forgiven Education) plan in February 2023. The lawsuit filed by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach and other states against President Biden's latest attempt at student loan forgiveness is a clear violation of the Supreme Court's ruling on his original program, which was struck down with a 6-3 vote in June 2021.
The author claims that President Biden is trying to twist federal law once again with his latest student loan forgiveness program. However, this statement is false as the Supreme Court has already struck down two of President Biden's attempts at student loan forgiveness and there was no ruling on a third attempt until after he announced his new $138 billion SAVE plan in February 2023.
The author claims that President Biden's new $138 billion SAVE plan flies in the face of the Supreme Court's ruling and breaks many of the same rules as his original program. However, this statement is false as there was no Supreme Court ruling on a student loan forgiveness plan until after Biden announced his new $138 billion SAVE plan in February 2023.
The author claims that President Biden's latest student loan forgiveness program seeks to reduce monthly loan payments to near zero by adjusting the terms of loan repayment, rather than forgiving the loans outright. However, this statement is false as reducing monthly payments does not change the total amount owed and transfers mountains of debt onto American taxpayers.
Fallacies
(85%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author is biased against the student loan forgiveness plan and uses inflammatory language to portray it as illegal. The author also argues that the program violates a Supreme Court ruling, which is not accurate. Additionally, the author makes personal attacks on President Biden's character.
Kris Kobach says this latest program flies in the face of the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling and breaks many of the same rules.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with Kris Kobach and Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey as they are both mentioned in the same sentence. The author also mentions President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan which could be seen as an endorsement or support for it.
The author mentions Kansas AG Eric Schmidt, who is a Republican and has been critical of Democratic policies such as gun control and immigration reform.
,The shortened timeline for debt relief through the plan is unconstitutional.
Kris Kobach led the coalition of Republican attorneys general who filed the lawsuit.
Thanks for signing up! Access your favorite topics in a personalized feed while you're on the go.
Accuracy
The shortened timeline for debt relief through the plan is unconstitutional.
Thanks for signing up! Access your favorite topics in a personalized feed while you're on the go. The lawsuits to block President Joe Biden's student-debt relief efforts are back.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that the shortened timeline for debt relief through the SAVE plan is unconstitutional. However, an Education Department official stated that Congress allows the authority to set terms for income-driven repayment plans and cited a 1993 law as evidence of this authority.
The author claims that the shortened timeline for debt relief through the SAVE plan is unconstitutional. However, an Education Department official stated that Congress allows the authority to set terms for income-driven repayment plans and cited a 1993 law as evidence of this authority.
The article states that borrowers who received relief through SAVE are not impacted by the lawsuit. However, it is unclear if this statement is accurate or up-to-date.
Fallacies
(70%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Ayelet Sheffey and she has a history of being biased against student loan forgiveness. The article presents information that supports this bias by stating that the shortened timeline for debt relief through the SAVE plan is unconstitutional and ignores Supreme Court decisions.
Kris Kobach stated that 'He is forcing people who did not go to college or who worked their way through college to pay for the loans of those who ran up exorbitant student debt'
The article mentions a lawsuit filed by 11 state attorneys general, led by Kris Kobach, to block Biden's SAVE income-driven repayment plan
The author states that 'the shortened timeline for debt relief through the SAVE plan is unconstitutional'
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of student-loan forgiveness as they are reporting on President Joe Biden's efforts to provide relief for borrowers. The article also mentions Miguel Cardona who is the Secretary of Education and may have an affiliation with these efforts.
Miguel Cardona is mentioned in the article as being involved with these efforts.
The author reports that President Joe Biden has announced plans to forgive up to $1.2 billion in student debt for 153,000 borrowers who originally borrowed $12,000 or less and made as few as 10 years of qualifying payments.
The Biden administration has estimated the Save plan will cost $156 billion over the next decade. However, the Congressional Budget Office says this figure is closer to $230 billion.
Accuracy
Biden announced his new $138 billion student loan plan in February, somewhat smaller than the $430 billion program from 2023.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that President Biden's new student loan repayment plan was a scheme to provide widespread debt relief when it was actually created using authority from the Higher Education Act of 1993 which only allows for debt relief for people who are permanently disabled, defrauded by their college or working in public service. Secondly, the author claims that broad debt relief is patently unfair to American taxpayers who did not go to college or saved to pay for school when it actually forces them to pay more taxes due to increased government spending on student loan programs. Lastly, the article uses sensationalism by stating that President Biden's plan was rejected by the Supreme Court last year and implies that this is a recent development when in fact it was struck down over a year ago.
The author claims that broad debt relief is patently unfair to American taxpayers who did not go to college or saved to pay for school when it actually forces them to pay more taxes due to increased government spending on student loan programs.
The author claims that President Biden's new student loan repayment plan is a scheme to provide widespread debt relief, but it was actually created using authority from the Higher Education Act of 1993 which only allows for debt relief for people who are permanently disabled, defrauded by their college or working in public service.
Fallacies
(75%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the Republican states that sued to overturn President Biden's student loan repayment plan. The author uses language such as 'overstepped his authority', 'scheme to provide widespread debt relief', and 'completely brazen fashion' which are all loaded terms that suggest a negative view of the president and his actions. Additionally, the article quotes several Republican attorneys general who have filed lawsuits against Biden's plan, further emphasizing their opposition to it.
The federal lawsuit, led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach,
