Rep. Glenn Grothman’s (R-Wis.) “Student Loan Marriage Penalty Elimination Act” would remove one of the many anti-marriage provisions of current federal law and regulation by amending the tax code to ensure student loan interest is tax-deductible for both husbands and wives.

Joining Grothman as co-sponsors are Representatives Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), John Larson (D-Conn.), Rich McCormick (R-Ga), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.), David Rouzer (R-N.C.), and Michael Rulli (R-Ohio).

The proposal has been endorsed by Family Research Council, National Taxpayers Union (NTU), and Third Way. The latter group is centrist oriented think tank that focuses on advocacy of moderate policies, particularly for Democrats in Congress.

“The federal government has a troubling record of polices that discourage marriage, and the student loan interest deduction is no exception,” said Grothman. “This is why I’m reintroducing the Student Loan Marriage Penalty Elimination Act to end the unnecessary marriage penalty on student loans that punish marriage and undermine the nuclear family,” Grothman said in a May 9 statement.

“This is an initial dent on the war the federal government has waged on marriage,” the Wisconsin Republican cautioned.

Under federal law, a married couple is limited to claiming deductibility on no more than $2,500 in student loan interest payments even if both spouses can qualify for the deduction if they were unmarried.

“Separately applying the $2,500 deductible for each spouse in a marriage is a common-sense approach that reduces financial stress for young couples and removes yet another government-imposed barrier to marriage. Our policies should support, not penalize, American families. While this is only an initial dent in the federal government’s war on marriage, it’s a meaningful step toward protecting the institution of marriage from unfair discrimination,” Grothman said.

Washington Democrat DelBene said in the statement that she believes “student loan debt should not prevent couples from getting married. Yet, for many Americans, the cost of the marriage penalty outweighs the benefit of marriage. While making college more affordable remains a top priority, the Student Loan Marriage Penalty Elimination Act is a practical solution that would ease financial pressure on couples by ending the marriage penalty for student loan borrowers and remove an unnecessary barrier to building a future together.”

FRC said in a statement that the proposal should become law because “family is the foundation of society and family starts with a husband and wife joining in marriage. Marriage should be supported in federal legislation, not penalized.”

Marriage penalties have for the most part been eliminated in the federal tax code for affluent families, according to the Institute for Family Studies (IFS), but many such penalties are still on the books in law and regulation when families with less than high incomes are involved.

“The federal government has largely eliminated marriage penalties in the tax code that affected affluent families but has yet to address marriage penalties in safety net programs that affect working-class Americans. Couples with annual incomes between about $28,000 and $55,000 are hardest hit by these penalties, which can amount to between 10% and 30% of household income for affected families,” the IFS’s Amber Lapp said in a May 2024 analysis.

Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow Robert Rector told Congress earlier this year during testimony before the House’s Health Care and Financial Services Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that multiple marriage penalties in social welfare policies and administration also contribute to related problems such as the absence of fathers in lower-income homes.

Grothman is chairman of the Health Care and Financial Services panel.

“In effect, the welfare state has made marriage economically irrational for most low- and moderate-income families. Over time, welfare’s perverse incentives have altered social norms and expectations, pushing fathers out of the home,” Rector told the committee during a February 2025 hearing.

“Caught in a trap of dysfunctional anti-marriage penalties, millions of mothers have ended up marrying the welfare state rather than the fathers of their children. Welfare has led to a sharp decline in marriage in the U.S. When Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty, seven percent of American children were born outside marriage. Today the number is over 40 percent,” Rector said.

The Heritage scholar noted that bipartisan welfare reforms enacted during the Clinton administration and under a Republican-controlled Congress “mitigated some of the anti-marriage effects of welfare. Following reform, decline in marriage among families with children halted. Non-marital pregnancy, birth and abortion rates fell, particularly among teens. The poverty rate of single parent families has fallen substantially. Finally, the changes initiated and promoted by welfare reform have led to 9.8 million fewer non-marital abortions.”