i want to focus on the political stuff with you and the real world implications here. jonathan was talking about how a lot of students may feel hard done by coming out of this decision, rightly so. the president promised them thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars in loans would be relieved. that is not true and not happening. strikes me one thing that they could maybe console themselves with is that this might actually encourage somebody in the university system to fix the somebody in government to fix the underlying problem here, that universities continue to charge outlandish, outrageous amounts of money to receive basic education. very true. the student loan forgiveness and program what fueled a lot of cost inflation of college tuition to begin with. look, i think actually secretly the biden administration should be happy with this decision and here is why. he can say that he tried.
but it would be a worse world if the government can require people to speak in ways they find morally wrong. gillian: thank you so much for weighing in with your expertise. we appreciate it and learn from you always. thank you very much. gillian: the white house says we ll hear from president biden today and he is going to present next steps after the court strikes down his massive student loan forgiveness plan. congressional budget office estimates the plan would cost, if implemented, almost half a trillion dollars paid for by taxpayers. let s bring in william la jeunesse to break down the numbers for us. hi, william. for the last three years, 42 million americans have not had to pay a penny on their student loans. now that ends at the end of august. they will have to come up with $18 billion a month that will go back to lenders and not into retail, restaurants and cars. president biden, of course, wanted to wipe out those loans. court says no.
underlying commission and law said that the whole purpose here is the elimination of ideas. the court ruled for the commission in doing that. what gorsuch said is well, the first amendment is a different purpose. it is meant to guarantee citizens that they can speak about their own values and to prevent them from being having to speak when coerced to do so by the government. it is an enormously important decision. beautifully written by gorsuch. i don t think anyone could have written this opinion as well as gorsuch. and what it says is that yes, you are still required under public accommodation laws not to discriminate. but when it comes to products that are creative or expressive, the first amendment does protect you. it protects everyone. all the members of every community including those cited by the dissent. it is a roaring defense of free speech and for those of us in the free speech community, it is