How far into the NYT article "Biden to Cancel $10,000 in Student Debt" must we read before we see anything about the President's power to do such a thing?

Here's the article, "Biden to Cancel $10,000 in Student Debt; Low-Income Students Are Eligible for More/The debt forgiveness comes after months of deliberations in the White House over fairness and fears that the plan could make inflation worse ahead of the midterm elections."

I suspect that less than 1% of Americans, if surveyed now, could correctly answer the question: What legal basis did President Biden cite for his power to cancel student debt? I don't know the answer, and I'm not even sure he did cite any basis for this giant arrogation of power. I don't think he said: The President has the power to do anything he can get away with. Or: We'll find out when the people go to the polls in November. Or: The joke's on you because no one has standing to challenge it.

I just want to see how far I need to go into this NYT article before I find anything in the general area of an answer to my question.

Paragraphs 1-3: Nothing. There is this interesting quote from Biden: "All of this means people can start finally to climb out from under that mountain of debt." If you're under a mountain of debt, does $10,000 change your life? He didn't say it would, only that you could "start" getting out from under it. 

Paragraphs 4-9: Nothing. But we do get some info on how much it might cost. They don't really know, but they've thrown out the number "$300 billion or more." And we're told they were concerned about the perception that the plan is "unfair" or will worsen inflation.

Paragraphs 10-15: Nothing. But we are told about one young woman who declared that, for her, "This is life changing." 

Paragraph 16: Finally an acknowledgment that the question of the President's power exists: 

Because Mr. Biden used executive action, rather than legislation, to forgive the loans, legal challenges are expected. It is unclear, however, who would have the standing to press their case in court. A recent Virginia Law Review article argued that the answer might be no one: States, for example, have little say in the operation of a federal loan system.

That's a law student note on the subject of standing. Maybe no court will be able to reach the merits of the question of the President's power.  I'm just noticing that the word "power" doesn't appear anywhere in this article. We're told "Biden used executive action." Did he do it yet? I thought he just announced a plan.

Anyway, writing "Biden used executive action" rather than "Biden used executive power" suggests doubt about whether the President indeed has the power. Or maybe it's simply an unwillingness to address the question of executive power. That's why the question of standing seems so appealing: The courts can't talk about it either. But the President still needs a legal basis for his power, and he ought to be able to articulate it to the public. But — shhh! — maybe people won't notice. 

Paragraphs 17-26: We move on, away from law. We're given some policy points: It's a good idea to cancel the small debts that are in default. Maybe eliminate interest.

Paragraph 27: Law makes a flitting appearance:

But inside the White House, Mr. Biden’s top aides were debating the political and economic ramifications of the decision. According to people familiar with his thinking, the president was concerned that loan cancellation would be seen as a giveaway that would be an affront to those who had paid their or their relative’s tuition. Some top aides also argued that Mr. Biden lacked the legal authority to move forward with the sweeping loan forgiveness and that he should work with Congress instead of using executive action.

So some people noticed there's a question of legal authority. Did they not sketch out the legal argument? Did they not think the people would want to know? Or was the idea to get a big proposal out there for political impact now and push the legal question years into the future and possibly — with the help of standing doctrine — into oblivion?

Paragraphs 28-37 (the end): Nope. Nothing. 

The answer to the question in the post title is Paragraph 16. The answer to the question in boldface at the beginning of the post — What legal basis did President Biden cite for his power to cancel student debt? — is that this article never says whether he said anything at all about the need for power. 

I suspect the answer to that question is "none," so I'm going to let go of my suspicion that "less than 1% of Americans, if surveyed now, could correctly answer the question." I think a good chunk of Americans are savvy — or cynical — enough to say: NONE! 

But is that the correct answer? Must I comb through the President's speech? 

ADDED: No, "none" is not correct. Here's an AP stating clearly what Biden is relying on:

[I]n a legal opinion released Wednesday, the Justice Department said that the HEROES Act of 2003 gives the administration “sweeping authority” to reduce or eliminate student debt during a national emergency, "when significant actions with potentially far-reaching consequences are often required.”

The law was adopted with overwhelming bipartisan support at a time when U.S. forces were fighting two wars, in Afghanistan and Iraq. It gives the Education secretary authority to waive rules relating to student financial aid programs in times or war or national emergency.

Former President Donald Trump declared a national emergency in 2020 because of the pandemic, and it remains in effect. But neither Trump nor Biden, until the president’s announcement on Wednesday, had tried to wipe out so much student debt at one time.

The Justice Department’s legal justification seemed to be anticipating criticism that the broad-based debt cancellation might run afoul of Supreme Court rulings, including a June decision limiting the administration’s ability to combat climate change. In that case, the court declared that when dealing with such “major questions,” the administration must point to clear congressional authorization when it asserts new power over an important part of the economy.

The justification for the debt cancellation “seems to tee up nicely -- perhaps inadvertently — a major-questions doctrine challenge as the opinion seems to suggest the agency could forgive all student loans for everyone due to pandemic” if the agency head deemed it necessary, Chris Walker, a University of Michigan law professor wrote on Twitter....

AND: Here's Politico outlining "The Legal Authority" (quoting the WSJ, WaPo, with the same NYT paragraph 16 that I quoted above):

WSJ: “Mr. Biden’s plan will test the legal limits of the federal government’s authority to cancel student debt. Its success could depend on how courts would interpret the education secretary’s powers under the 1965 Higher Education Act, which allows the secretary to ‘consent to modification’ of loans, and ‘compromise, waive, or release’ unspecified amounts of student debt.

“Advocates for broad cancellation say the lack of explicit constraints in the law is deliberate, giving the executive branch flexibility with its ‘compromise authority’ to manage its relationship with borrowers. They note that presidents of both parties have used the law to forgive debt on a more-limited scale.”

— Flashback #1: “I don’t think I have the authority to do it by signing the pen,” – Biden, Feb. 16, 2021

NYT: “Because Mr. Biden used executive action, rather than legislation, to forgive the loans, legal challenges are expected. It is unclear, however, who would have the standing to press their case in court. A recent Virginia Law Review article argued that the answer might be no one: States, for example, have little say in the operation of a federal loan system.”

— Flashback #2: “People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not. He can postpone, he can delay, but he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.” – Speaker NANCY PELOSI, July 28, 2021

WaPo: “The executive order will probably face legal opposition, said LANAE ERICKSON, who heads social policy at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank. She suspects the policy could be challenged on the same grounds as the West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency case, in which the Supreme Court ruled the federal government can’t act on policy with broad economic significance without clear congressional authorization. …

“‘Advocates and policymakers who pushed to take this unprecedented step are responsible for also communicating to borrowers that there is a strong chance it will never come to fruition,’ Erickson said. ‘Given that the application may not be available until the end of the year, the strong likelihood is that courts will enjoin this action before it gets started — leaving borrowers in limbo.’”

— Flashback #3: “If the issue is litigated, the more persuasive analyses tend to support the conclusion that the Executive Branch likely does not have the unilateral authority to engage in mass student debt cancellation.” – Former Obama Education Department legal counsel CHARLIE ROSE in a private memo obtained by the WSJ earlier this year.

The Biden administration released two memos making their legal case, one from the Department of Education and one from the Department of Justice.

Both of those memos rely on the HEROES Act of 2003.