(WASHINGTON) — Under order from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Justice Department on Wednesday released a 2019 memo used by former Attorney General William Barr to justify his decision not to prosecute then-President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice arising from Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
The department initially released a redacted version of the memo in May 2021, stemming from a Freedom of Information Act suit brought by the watchdog group the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). That version fully redacted more than six out of the memo’s 10 pages.
On Friday, however, a panel of judges in the D.C. Circuit ordered the release of the full memo, affirming a district court decision that had found Barr and other DOJ officials were not candid in their statements about the role the memo played in their decision to not charge Trump.
DOJ officials previously told the court that the memo should be kept from the public because it involved internal department deliberations and the advice given to Barr about whether Trump should face prosecution.
But a district judge ruled that Barr was never engaged in such a process and had already made up his mind to not charge Trump.
The full memo released Wednesday outlines the rationale given to Barr from Steven Engel, the former head of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, and Ed O’Callaghan, the then-principal associate deputy attorney general.
Both write that former special counsel Mueller’s report on his investigation of Trump and Russia “identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constituted obstructive acts, done with a nexus to a pending proceeding, with the corrupt intent necessary to warrant prosecution under obstruction-of-justice statutes.”
In the March 2019 memo, they said their determination was reached separate from considering whether Trump was already immune from prosecution because of his status as a sitting president.
“The memorandum advised Attorney General Barr on what, if any, determination he should make regarding whether the facts articulated in Special Counsel Mueller’s report were sufficient under the Principles of Federal Prosecution to establish that the President of the United States had committed obstruction of justice,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday.
“The suit was filed under the Freedom of Information Act seeking public disclosure of this internal memo,” the spokesperson said. “The litigation involved only whether the government had properly withheld from disclosure portions of the memo under FOIA – it did not involve the merits of the advice provided in the memo.”
In the 2019 document, Engel and O’Callaghan detailed multiple justifications for declining a prosecution of Trump for actions stemming from the Mueller report, which laid out 10 possible instances of obstruction of justice investigated by the special counsel’s team.
They wrote that the instances in Mueller’s report were not similar to “any reported case” DOJ had previously charged under obstruction-of-justice statutes and described Mueller’s obstruction theory as “novel” and “unusual” because of the conclusion he reached in the first volume of his report — that evidence developed “was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with representative of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”
“It would be rare for federal prosecutors to bring an obstruction prosecution that did not itself arise out of a proceeding related to a separate crime,” the memo states.
Engel and O’Callaghan wrote that “much of” Trump’s conduct in the report instead “amounted to attempts to modify the process under which the Special Counsel investigation progressed, rather than efforts to impair or intentionally alter evidence… that would negatively impact the special counsel’s ability to obtain and develop evidence.”
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge is expected to rule Wednesday on the Biden administration’s lawsuit against a near-total ban on abortions in Idaho.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued the state over the ban, which goes into effect on Thursday, arguing that it violates a federal law guaranteeing access to emergency medical care.
The Idaho abortion law would make it a felony to perform an abortion in all but extremely narrow circumstances. There are exceptions for cases of rape or incest that have been reported. To avoid criminal liability, a doctor must prove that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman, though there is no defense for an abortion to protect the woman’s health, according to the DOJ.
In its complaint, filed on Aug. 2, the Justice Department claimed that the Idaho law violates the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, which states that hospitals that receive Medicare funds are required to provide necessary treatment to women who arrive at their emergency departments while experiencing a medical emergency. That medical care could include providing an abortion, according to the DOJ.
The Justice Department is seeking a declaratory judgment that the Idaho law is preempted by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act in emergency situations, as well as an order permanently barring the law to the extent that it conflicts with the federal act.
U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in Boise said he plans to issue a decision in the case on Wednesday.
The lawsuit marked the Biden administration’s first legal challenge to a state abortion ban after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in June, ending the constitutional right to an abortion.
Prosecutors argued that the Idaho law would prevent doctors from performing medically necessary abortions, as required by federal law.
Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden called the lawsuit “politically motivated” and charged that the DOJ did not attempt to “engage Idaho in a meaningful dialogue on the issue” prior to filing its complaint.
A case involving the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act as it pertains to abortion care is also ongoing in Texas.
Last month, the state of Texas sued the Biden administration on its guidance to hospitals that doctors should perform an abortion if doing so would protect a woman’s health. The complaint was filed days after Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra instructed hospitals to follow the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act when determining whether to provide an abortion in emergency cases “regardless of the restrictions in the state where you practice.”
On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the federal government from enforcing the guidance, saying the federal law is “silent as to abortion.”
Attorneys for the state of Idaho drew attention to that case in a court filing on Wednesday, stating that the state “has not yet had a full opportunity to consider how the Texas court’s decision should be persuasive in aspects of this current lawsuit, or in the pending preliminary injunction motion.”
Idaho’s so-called trigger law would be even more restrictive than an abortion ban that went into effect in the state earlier this month. That law, modeled after a similar “heartbeat law” in Texas, bans abortion at about six weeks and also allows civil lawsuits against medical providers who perform the procedure.
Amid legal challenges from abortion providers, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld both abortion laws in a ruling issued on Aug. 12, allowing them to go into effect.
Another trigger law that would make it a felony for doctors to perform an abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy went into effect on Aug. 19 in the state. That law, which has exceptions for rape, incest and medical emergencies, is also currently being challenged by abortion providers.
ABC News’ Alexander Mallin contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — First lady Jill Biden tested positive for COVID-19 on Wednesday in a “rebound” case, her office said.
The first lady — who first tested positive on Aug. 16 — received her second negative test on Sunday and joined the president in Delaware, coming out of her isolation period spent in South Carolina. She again tested negative on Tuesday, her deputy communications director Kelsey Donohue said.
The president tested negative for COVID-19 on Wednesday, according to the White House.
“The First Lady has experienced no reemergence of symptoms, and will remain in Delaware where she has reinitiated isolation procedures,” Donohue said in a statement on Wednesday. “The White House Medical Unit has conducted contact tracing and close contacts have been notified.”
The president returned to the White House from Delaware on Wednesday morning. The first lady was supposed to accompany her husband to a Democratic National Committee event in Maryland on Thursday but will now remain isolated in Delaware.
The president “will mask for 10 days when indoors and in close proximity to others,” a White House official said. “We will also keep the President’s testing cadence increased and continue to report those results.”
Jill Biden, who is double vaccinated and twice boosted, was prescribed the antiviral treatment Paxlovid, which President Biden also took after testing positive last month. Like his wife, the president also suffered a rebound COVID-19 case.
Paxlovid is authorized under emergency use by the Food and Drug Administration for Americans ages 12 and older who are at high-risk for severe illness from COVID-19. Preliminary estimates suggested that the drug provided an 89% reduction in virus-related hospitalizations and deaths.
However, in recent months, as use of the drug ramped up, there was an increasing number of anecdotal reports of rebound cases, where individuals test positive for COVID-19, after testing negative, following completion of the treatment course. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a COVID-19 rebound has been reported to occur between two and eight days after initial recovery.
Although experts say preliminary estimates of Paxlovid rebounds are likely undercounted, White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Dr. Ashish Jha suggested after President Biden’s Paxlovid rebound that the phenomenon may happen in 5% to 8% of patients.
Federal officials report that a rebound infection can also occur in patients receiving no treatment or in patients receiving other COVID-19 therapeutics.
ABC’s Karen Travers reports:
ABC News’ Molly Nagle, Arielle Mitropoulos and Sarah Kolinovsky contributed to this report.
(LONDON) — Japan is ending its pre-entry COVID-19 test requirement for fully vaccinated travelers with at least one booster dose, making it one of the last countries to do so.
The country, which has enforced some of the strictest border measures since the pandemic began, had required a negative PCR test taken within 72 hours of departure.
Prime Minister Fumio Kishida announced Wednesday the restrictions will end Sept. 7.
“We plan to gradually ease border controls to allow entry procedures to be as smooth as those of other Group of Seven countries,” Kishida said during a virtual press conference from his official residence, where he is isolating after testing positive for COVID Sunday. “We will speed up our efforts while balancing infection measures and social and economic activities going as much as possible.”
This makes Japan one of the last countries to drop pre-departure testing, with just a few left who are keeping the requirement, such as China and South Korea.
Kishida also announced the isolation period for people who test positive for COVID-19 will be shortened but did not provide specifics. Currently, those with symptoms are required to isolate for 10 days and those without symptoms for seven days.
However, other restrictions in the country will continue to remain in place. Japan will continue its cap of 20,000 daily visitors.
Kishida did say the government is considering increasing the daily cap on travelers next month. Local media reports suggest the government will more than double the cap to 50,000 per day.
So far, only 387,000 people have visited Japan between January and May this year, according to the Japan National Tourism Organization. This pales in comparison to the 31.8 million people who visited the nation in 2019.
Additionally, foreign tourists are only allowed to visit as part of a guided package tour and must apply for a visa. Independent travelers are not yet allowed entry into the country.
Currently, those allowed to enter include Japanese nationals, family members of Japanese residents, international students and certain business travelers.
It is unclear when a full reopening will occur.
The changes come as Japan battles a new wave of COVID-19 infections. According to the World Health Organization, Japan confirmed more than 185,400 cases Tuesday. At the beginning of July, the country was recording just 23,000 new cases.
COVID-19–related deaths have also been increasing. On Tuesday, the country recorded 269 deaths, WHO data shows. Meanwhile, at the beginning of July, Japan was reporting between 10 and 15 deaths per day.
(GAYLORD, Mich.) — A mysterious illness that killed over a dozen dogs in northern Michigan has been identified, officials said.
The Otsego County Animal Shelter said in a statement Aug. 19 that over 20 dogs in the county had died due to a “parvo-like” illness, a disease that’s highly contagious and often deadly in dogs. The shelter’s director, Melissa Fitzgerald, released a statement on Aug. 9 saying that most of the dogs who died were less than 2 years old and died within three days of showing symptoms.
On Wednesday, the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Michigan State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory confirmed that the disease was canine parvovirus.
In their initial tests, Fitzgerald said the tests came back negative for parvovirus, and the “best guess” was that the cause of death was a new strain of the virus.
Officials said the affected dogs did not have a history of complete vaccination.
According to the Otsego County Animal Shelter, the illness is not affecting one breed over another, but appears to be more common in puppies and elderly dogs.
“This situation is complex because although the dogs displayed clinical signs suggestive of parvovirus, they consistently test negative by point-of-care tests performed in clinics and shelters,” MSU Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory Director Kim Dodd said in a statement Wednesday.
“Screening tests for parvo are done to help guide immediate isolation, disinfection, and treatment protocols. While those tests are valuable in the clinical setting, they are not as sensitive as the diagnostic tests we can perform here in the laboratory. We continue to further characterize the virus in hopes of better understanding why those animals were testing negative on screening tests,” she added.
“When MDARD first learned of these cases in northern Michigan, we immediately reached out to the veterinarians and animal shelters involved and began our response efforts,” Wineland said in a statement on Monday. “Protecting animal and public health is one of the department’s key pillars, but it is a team effort. Dog owners need to ensure their pet is up to date on routine vaccinations as it’s the first step in keeping your pet healthy.”
Jennifer Holton, spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, told ABC News that because parvovirus is not a reportable disease, officials are mostly working with anecdotal information.
“Parvo is an incredibly hardy virus,” Holton said. “And by that, I mean it can survive various temperatures and all kinds of things.”
Holton said it’s essential for pet owners to get their dogs vaccinated and alert their veterinarian if they see signs of illness in their dogs.
She added that proper cleanup, to halt the spread of the disease through fecal matter, is also essential, particularly in high capacity areas like shelters, doggy day cares and other animal-friendly places.
While the mystery surrounding the current death rates is concerning, Holton said officials have the investigation under control.
“The word ‘panic’ has been used a lot; that is certainly not what we’re doing here,” Holton said. “Prioritizing animal health is one of the key fundamentals of what our animal industry division in this department does on the daily.”
(NEW YORK) — Democrats are projected to win a special House election in New York on Tuesday in a race seen as a potential bellwether for this year’s midterms, ABC News reports.
The contest between Democrat Pat Ryan and Republican Marc Molinaro in New York’s 19th Congressional District was sparked when Democratic Rep. Antonio Delgado was appointed lieutenant governor.
Ryan and Molinaro, both of whom are local county executives, were running in the 19th as it existed prior to redistricting. But the seat being decided in Tuesday’s special election will cease to exist in January — and both candidates ran in primaries for separate seats on Tuesday as well.
The 19th has been among the swingiest in the country, with President Joe Biden carrying it by fewer than 2 points in 2020 and former President Donald Trump winning it by about 7 points in 2016.
With 99% of the expected vote being reported on Tuesday, Ryan was leading Molinaro 51-49.
The special election was seen as potentially indicative because of the messages tested by the two candidates — each trying to motivate their base and sway independents.
Molinaro focused on inflation, which remains at decades-long highs. Ryan, meanwhile, campaigned heavily on abortion access, saying it was a “freedom” issue after the Supreme Court this summer reversed Roe v. Wade.
Republicans continue to point to polls showing that the economy is among voters’ top concerns and that Biden gets poor approval ratings.
However, Democrats say that voters will be motivated by the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion and argue that the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, among other major legislative priorities, could blunt the electoral impact from headwinds like inflation.
(NEW YORK) — Come January, 25-year-old Maxwell Frost will likely be the first member of Generation Z elected to Congress.
Frost is projected to win Florida’s 10th Congressional District Democratic primary, held Tuesday, ABC News reports. Frost defeated Randolph Bracy, whom much of the party establishment backed.
Following his projected win, Frost thanked his community for supporting his campaign.
“I love this community and my decade-long fight for everything and everyone in it is just getting started,” he said in a press release.
Frost, who just turned 25 this year, was a national organizer for the ACLU and then became the national organizing director of March for Our Lives, a youth-led organization dedicated to ending gun violence.
If he wins in November — when he’ll face military veteran Calvin Wimbish — he will fill the reliably blue seat of Rep. Val Demings, who on Tuesday won the Democratic nomination for Florida’s Senate race.
Frost has the backing of leading progressives like Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey and Bernie Sanders.
He spoke with ABC News in March about his run for Congress, saying then that he believes it’s time to elect younger leaders who better represent the values and ideas that the younger voters care about and want to see.
Some of the major issues Frost ran on include gun control, “Medicare for All” and addressing climate change.
The 2022 election cycle marks the first-time members of Generation Z — those born after 1996 — are eligible to run for seats in the House of Representatives, where legislators must be 25 years old by the time they’re sworn in.
Another Gen-Zer may join Frost in Congress in the new year: Karoline Leavitt, a former congressional and Trump White House aide who is running in New Hampshire’s 1st Congressional District Republican primary, will be on the ballot in September, when she will learn if she continues to the general election in November.
(NEW YORK) — New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler is projected to defeat Rep. Carolyn Maloney, ABC News reports, after a bitter incumbent-on-incumbent primary on Tuesday that forced Manhattan Democratic voters to pick between two senior House lawmakers.
With about 81% of the expected vote reported, Nadler won with 56% over Maloney, who trailed with 25%. Suraj Patel, a 38-year-old attorney and former Obama staffer who ran on a generational argument against the two septuagenarians, came in third place with 18% of the vote so far.
Nadler will be the heavy favorite in the general election in the deep-blue district.
He and Maloney, erstwhile legislative allies both elected in 1992, helm the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees, respectively. They were forced into the same district after a heavily gerrymandered map drawn by Democrats during redistricting was thrown out in court, leading an outside third-party mapmaker to redo the decennial lines.
Nadler played a prominent role in former President Donald Trump’s first impeachment and touted the need for New York City to have at least one Jewish lawmaker in its House delegation. Maloney, meanwhile, boasted that Democrats should prioritize keeping a woman in Congress,
The primary became increasingly nasty as Election Day neared.
Nadler highlighted Maloney’s votes on high-profile issues, including her past support for the Iraq War and Bush-era Patriot Act and opposition to the Iran nuclear deal during the Obama administration.
Maloney, meanwhile, appeared to knock Nadler over his stamina, even though he, at 75 years old, is just one year her junior.
She seemingly seized on his age after he sat at a primary debate while Maloney and Patel stood. She also expressed worries about “if for some reason someone will not serve their term,” citing “tons of rumors out there.” She later reportedly said she thinks Nadler would finish another term.
Patel, who came within 4% of unseating Maloney in a 2020 primary, sought to cast himself as a fresh face against the two longtime lawmakers, boasting in a press conference on Monday that “this is not 1992 anymore.”
(NEW YORK) — Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney is projected to win his Democratic primary on Tuesday, ABC News reports, after he moved seats in New York’s redistricting shuffle and faced progressive backlash in the process.
As the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Maloney is entrusted with protecting the party’s House majority in November. On Tuesday, though, he had to fight for his own spot in Congress.
He went up against New York state Sen. Alessandra Biaggi. With more than 82% percent of the expected vote reported, Maloney was leading Biaggi 66-33. Their race, one of the last notable Democratic House primaries of the midterm season, highlighted party splinters ahead of what’s expected to be a tight November fight to retain control of Congress.
Five-term incumbent Maloney — New York’s first openly gay House member — saw his own political career come under attack by some other Democrats early in the cycle, when he upended progressive hopes for the 17th District by choosing to run there instead of his previous seat.
His decision to run where he lives, rather than staying in New York’s 18th where most of his current constituents are, pushed freshman Rep. Mondaire Jones — the progressive who currently represents most of the new district — to vie for New York’s 10th, which was possible because Rep. Jerrold Nadler left the 10th for the 12th (completing the redistricting shuffle).
Maloney apologized for the scuffle, acknowledging he could have handled the process better.
He has largely campaigned on what he’s encouraged other frontline candidates to focus on this election cycle: a slate of Democratic legislative victories despite other political headwinds — like President Joe Biden’s unpopularity — ahead of what is expected to be a difficult midterm. He’s also come after Biaggi for attempting to campaign on the liberal wins, claiming her progressive streak of “tearing down our President and other Democrats” had “nothing to do” with their success.
“Look, you’re seeing us come back in the polls. Our frontliners are battle tested and strong. They have a huge advantage, by the way, over their Republican opponents in terms of their campaigns, their cash on hand. They’re getting their votes right. They have historic deliverables that they’ve brought home to their districts,” Maloney said on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, days before his own primary.
Biaggi, a leader in the state legislature’s progressive movement who rose to prominence when she defeated a notable incumbent in 2018, was long seen as something of an underdog to Maloney, who also handily outraised her, $4 million to $807,000.
Still, the race attracted a cast of high-profile Democrats backing both candidates. Maloney had the endorsements of former President Bill Clinton — for whom he served as senior adviser while Clinton was in the White House — as well as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and The New York Times’ editorial board.
Biaggi, meanwhile, had the support of New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and The Working Families Party. (Hillary Clinton, who was involved in Biaggi’s wedding ceremony, stayed out of the race.)
In a related dynamic, Maloney’s decision-making as head of the DCCC drew fire from some in his party after news that the organization spent almost half a million dollars on a primary advertisement that spotlighted Donald Trump-endorsed John Gibbs over incumbent Michigan Republican Rep. Peter Meijer, one of the few pro-impeachment Republicans in the House. (Meijer later lost his race, though observers noted the DCCC’s involvement was relatively marginal.)
On Meet the Press, Maloney defended Democrats’ decision to boost pro-Trump candidates over more moderate Republicans.
“Absolutely not did we put party over country,” Maloney said. “The moral imperative right now … is to keep the dangerous MAGA Republicans who voted to overturn our election out of power.”
He added, “This danger didn’t start with Mr. Gibbs. By every measure, he’s the weaker candidate. Don’t take my word for it: The Cook Political Report says it’s far more likely the Democrats are going to win that seat now. That’s doing our job.”
In November, Maloney will face Republican state Assemblyman Mike Lawler in a district that has a slight Democratic lean, making it more of a tossup.
(WASHINGTON) — Ahead of another deadline on the restart of payments for America’s $1.7 trillion in federal student loans, President Joe Biden on Wednesday announced a plan to cancel debt for a subset of Americans and continue to keep a pandemic-era pause on the repayments — a sweeping move he has openly weighed in some form or another since his time as a candidate.
“In keeping with my campaign promise, my Administration is announcing a plan to give working and middle class families breathing room as they prepare to resume federal student loan payments in January 2023,” Biden wrote in a Twitter post.
Pell Grant recipients can qualify for up to $20,000 in debt forgiveness as part of Wednesday’s broader announcement on student loan forgiveness. Other student loan borrowers who don’t have Pell Grants will still have loans forgiven up to $10,000, as has been previously reported.
Both forgiveness options are for people who earn less than $125,000 per year, or $250,000 as a household.
According to the White House, Biden will give remarks Wednesday at 2:15 p.m. in the Roosevelt Room.
Biden’s social media post also announced an extension of the pause on student loan payments through Dec. 31, 2022 — the final extension — a move that’s intended to give time for the transition back to repayment. Multiple people familiar with White House policy discussions previously told ABC News that the loan pause, first put in place under President Donald Trump during the disruptions of COVID-19’s onset, was expected to be extended. Millions of borrowers were due to restart payments on Sept. 1.
In an interview on Tuesday afternoon, U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona told ABC News that the much-anticipated decision on loan forgiveness would come “soon” but was vague on details.
“We recognize it’s an important issue for many families. And we want to make sure that they get the information directly from the president,” Cardona said.
One-third of federal loan borrowers have less than $10,000, meaning they could see their debts completely wiped out should this policy come to fruition. Another 20% of borrowers, around nine million people, would have their debt at least slashed in half.
Including a broader debt forgiveness plan for Pell Grant recipients would wipe out the debt for up to 20 million borrowers, the White House estimated, and reach 43 million people in total.
Such a major cancelation may seem like a big step for Biden to take without Congress, but legal and policy experts say it’s clearer: The move would be well within the president’s authority — it just hasn’t been wielded before because of the political implications.
“The president has some pretty broad authority under the Higher Education Act,” said John Brooks, a law professor at Fordham University who focuses on federal fiscal policy.
“A lot depends on the size of the cancellation. The smaller the amount of cancellation, the easier the question is,” Brooks said. “Wiping out all student debt with a single stroke might be tougher, but the president through the secretary of education does have the power to adjust the amount of loan principle that any borrower has.”
Still, Biden could get taken to court — possibly by loan servicing agencies who would lose revenue or by members of Congress who may believe Biden is spending money in a way that hasn’t been appropriated by legislators.
Outside experts also wonder how long the processes would take to cancel student loans once a policy is announced — and how complicated it would be for borrowers to work their way through it, which are details that have yet to be released.
Some fear that people might fall through the cracks if applications to cancel debt become too labor-intensive because of the prospective income cap.
“The White House is about to ask the Education Department to do something that is extraordinarily difficult, and that is going to have the effect of denying debt relief to low-income folks, economically vulnerable folks, who have the hardest time navigating these complicated paperwork processes,” Mike Pierce, executive director and co-founder of the Student Borrower Protection Center, a think-tank that advocates for universal debt cancellation, told ABC News in an interview.
Pierce and other supporters for more progressive debt cancellation, including the NAACP, said the smoothest path would include full and universal cancellation for everyone.
“If the rumors are true, we’ve got a problem. And tragically, we’ve experienced this so many times before,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in a statement Tuesday, reacting to the details of the potential policy announcement.
“President Biden’s decision on student debt cannot become the latest example of a policy that has left Black people – especially Black women – behind. This is not how you treat Black voters who turned out in record numbers and provided 90% of their vote to once again save democracy in 2020,” Johnson said.
But for many borrowers and advocates for canceling student debt — particularly the nearly half of people with federal student loans who would see their debt extinguished or cut significantly — Biden’s policy would still be cause for major celebration and be seen as a start to reforming the college and university system, where rising costs have become a major area of focus.
For Michigan teacher Nick Fuller, a possible Biden announcement on student loans could come just before the financial crunch of winter, when his heating bills skyrocket.
Though Fuller worked hard his first few years out of school to pay down his school debt, and then had his loan frozen for much of the pandemic, he’s concerned that restarting payments on top of monthly living costs could put him over the edge.
“I think things will get really tight in the winter because my utility bills are higher,” Fuller told ABC News. “I mean for January and February — the highs are zero and the lows are -20 [degrees] for almost two months.”
The frozen temperatures might sting a little bit less if Biden forgives $10,000 of Fuller’s remaining student loan bills, he said.
“It’s about two-thirds of the debt that I have left,” he said.
That would make payments “a lot more affordable and a lot more manageable in my situation,” he said.
Easing the student debt crisis — which is also how Trump Education Secretary Betsy DeVos described the issue in 2018 — could also aid a crippling teacher shortage that has caused thousands of staff vacancies at the start of the latest school year, something Fuller has seen himself.
Pinched salaries and rising inflation have had many teachers on edge with the loan forgiveness deadline approaching.
And because Black students are among the fastest growing group of people taking on debt, advocates argue that canceling some student loans could also begin to address racial inequities.
Shareefah Mason, the dean of Educator Certification at Dallas College, feels this impact firsthand as a Black woman with student debt. She leads the apprenticeship component of a program that pairs students with residency partners to ensure they earn while they learn, effectively reducing education debt for aspiring teachers.
“I bear the weight of $70,000 in student loans,” Mason told ABC News. “The data shows that student loan debt exponentially impacts and disproportionately impacts Black women.”
The average amount of student debt accrued by Black women is more than any other group at $38,800, according to Education Trust, a nonprofit focused on education reform.
But Mason’s program, the very first full-time paid teacher apprenticeship in the state of Texas, allows students to earn one of the cheapest bachelor’s degrees in the state, Mason said.
The goal, she said, is to aid future educators in breaking the generational barriers that she has faced as a Black woman.
Mason said “they will not have to worry about student loan debt,” which could open more doors for minority communities that have historically lacked the means to access higher education.
“My students will be able to earn, as a first year teacher in the city of Dallas, upwards of $60,000,” Mason said.
For the nation’s most impacted borrowers, Mason said, “there needs to be a space created for them to make enough money to pay their student loans without having to sacrifice their ability to create generational wealth for their families.”
