It is no secret that the Biden administration is steadfast in its determination to forgive as many student loans as possible, no matter what the law says.

This summer, the Supreme Court reminded President Joe Biden that he must follow the law, stating, “The basic and consequential trade-offs' inherent in a mass debt cancellation program ‘are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself.’” The legislative branch has also explicitly rejected forgiveness through bipartisan votes.

But just hours after the court’s ruling, Biden directed his Department of Education to ignore Congress and the Supreme Court and forgive the loans anyway. Now we have learned that he is stacking the relevant negotiating panel with loan forgiveness advocates, even though similar rulemakings under both Democratic and Republican administrations have aimed for a degree of ideological diversity.

Unlike other federal rulemaking processes, the Department of Education’s rulemakings on higher education topics require a process known as “ negotiated rulemaking .” While the department gets to select the members of the negotiating panel, this process has historically involved career civil servants and had an eye toward broad representation to demonstrate that the process is fair and inclusive of groups likely to be affected by the regulation in question.

We will get a better sense of the true ideological makeup of the panel when it convenes this fall. However, an early look at whom the Biden team selected already calls into question whether the administration’s legally mandated “negotiation” is a foregone conclusion.

Not all of the 14 members appear to have made public statements on student loan debt forgiveness, but many already agree fervently and publicly with the Biden position, which raises the question of whether the rulemaking process is being launched by the department in good faith.

The panel also entirely excludes groups that are significantly affected, such as those representing taxpayers. By contrast, negotiations under former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos often included some of her vocal opponents and others who were openly skeptical of her proposals.

The Biden administration is also not being entirely honest about who it has selected. Some negotiators are identified as merely representing constituencies such as students or colleges but appear to have undisclosed affiliations with teachers unions, loan forgiveness advocacy organizations, and other left-wing groups.

At this negotiation, a representative of Missouri’s Office of the Attorney General, which has fought Biden’s plans in court, may be the only obvious skeptic who will participate. But since he was only selected as an “alternate,” rather than a full member of the committee, he will have no power to vote on the agenda or final outcome and may have limited opportunity even to speak.

In contrast, here are where many of the voting members of the committee stand:

Lane Thompson, Oregon DCBS — Division of Financial Regulation

Wisdom Cole, NAACP

Kyra Taylor, National Consumer Law Center

Yael Shavit, Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General

Ashley Pizzuti, San Joaquin Delta College

Richard Haase, State University of New York at Stony Brook

Jada Sanford, Stephen F. Austin University

We should withhold judgment to a degree until the negotiations begin. However, this already seems to be the most politicized education rulemaking we’ve seen. After ignoring the legislative and judicial branches, the Biden administration is now abandoning the executive branch’s long-standing practices that promote genuine public input in the regulatory process, instead appointing ideological warriors rather than those steeped in the department’s programs and regulations.

If the department wants a fair rulemaking process, why is it not only refusing to seat an ideologically diverse panel but instead stacking it with hardcore supporters who seem to be outside the mainstream?

Michael Brickman is an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.