A Watchdog Asks Why the Trump Administration Removed a Key Requirement for Pandemic Loans

Stefani Reynolds/CNP/Zuma

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

A congressional oversight panel wants to know why the Trump administration and the Federal Reserve are no longer requiring businesses seeking coronavirus relief loans to attest that the pandemic was the source of their financial woes.

The CARES Act, passed in early April, created the Main Street Lending Program, which was designed to make it easier for small- and medium-sized businesses that lost money because of the public health emergency to acquire loans. But on April 30, the Treasury Department and the Fed revised the program’s term sheets to remove a requirement that companies attest that they need the financing “due to the exigent circumstances presented by the coronavirus disease.”

The Congressional Oversight Commission, the watchdog group created to oversee the Fed’s and the Treasury’s management of CARES Act funds, asked in a report Monday why the clause was removed. “Without this requirement,” the authors added, “how will the agencies ensure they are providing liquidity ‘to eligible businesses, [s]tates, and municipalities related to losses incurred as a result of coronavirus’?” The bipartisan commission, which consists of Rep. French Hill (R-Ark.), Rep. Donna Shalala (D-Fla.), Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), and former Elizabeth Warren staffer Bharat Ramamurti, is vowing to find out.

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate