The PPP Was a COVID-Era Disaster. Trump Wants To Promote the Guy Who Ran It.
After overseeing the pandemic-era Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which was a bloated, wasteful mess, Michael Faulkender is failing up.

The pandemic-era Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was a bloated, wasteful mess—and now the guy responsible for running it is getting a promotion.
President-elect Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he'd nominated Michael Faulkender to be his deputy Treasury Secretary, effectively the second-in-command position at one of the federal government's most vital departments. Faulkender is a professor of finance at the University of Maryland's business school and serves as chief economist for the America First Policy Institute, a pro-Trump think tank founded in 2021.
"Mike is a distinguished economist and policy practitioner who will drive our America-first agenda," Trump posted on Truth Social.
Faulkender was the assistant secretary for economic policy at the Treasury Department during the first Trump administration, and it was in that role that he oversaw the PPP, a stimulus program that ultimately distributed more than $800 billion.
That money was supposed to go to businesses that had been shuttered by the pandemic (or by various governmental edicts), and it was supposed to keep furloughed workers on the payroll until reopening. In fairness, at least some of the PPP's budget was used for that purpose, but we now know that much—maybe even most—of the PPP funds ended up being wasted or stolen.
"Only 23 to 34 percent of the program's funds went directly to workers who would have otherwise lost their jobs," a National Bureau of Economic Research study found. Another study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis found that taxpayers paid roughly $4 for every $1 of wages and benefits to workers.
Some of the PPP's funds likely ended up in the pockets of business owners rather than funding workers' paychecks, a New York Times investigation concluded. A lot of it was simply stolen—so much, in fact, that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) says a full accounting of the losses "will never be known with certainty."
Any massive, rapidly assembled stimulus program that's under orders from Congress to spend money first and ask questions later is going to be ripe for fraud, of course. Still, the overwhelming size of the PPP's losses points to mismanagement as a significant factor.
Both internal and external reviews of the PPP's losses have come to that conclusion. A 2022 audit published by the Small Business Administration's inspector general pointed out that the agency, which handled the PPP applications and distributed the cash, did not have "a centralized entity to design, lead, and manage fraud risk" until February 2022—nearly two years after the PPP loans began being distributed and long after the bulk of them had been forgiven.
Meanwhile, a comprehensive review of the PPP published by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), a nonprofit watchdog group, found that millions of PPP loans were flagged as being suspicious but most were never investigated. That's despite then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin promising in April 2020 that all PPP loans would be subject to a "full review."
Perhaps the most damning detail in the POGO report is the fact that 40 percent of the "flags" attached to suspicious loans were "cleared" in January 2021, as the Trump administration was coming to a close. That includes 99 percent of the flags attached to roughly 28,000 loans that exceeded $2 million. As the group suggests in its report, the "bulk closure" of those flags suggests a last-minute attempt at superficial due diligence.
All of this points directly back to Faulkender. He won't have to endure a Senate confirmation hearing before taking up his deputy secretary post, and that's a shame because he ought to be grilled. Why did the PPP program fail to anticipate or respond to widespread fraud? Did he order the mass clearance of the flagged loans? If he didn't, who was actually running the PPP?
There are no good answers here, as Faulkender was either asleep at his post or actively complicit in what one former U.S. attorney has called it "the biggest fraud in a generation."
In a paper he coauthored earlier this year, Faulkender attempted to defend the PPP's track record. The program saved 13.8 million jobs "at an average cost of approximately $33,200 to $37,600 per job saved," he wrote. (But that math doesn't quite add up: at those figures, the PPP would have cost taxpayers around $500 million rather than the $800 billion that was actually spent.)
This isn't the first Trump pick to have some unseemly COVID-era baggage. Chad Chronister, the Florida sheriff who was Trump's first pick to run the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), withdrew from the position after facing criticism for aggressively enforcing social-distancing rules during the pandemic—including the arrest of a pastor who held a church service in defiance of lockdown rules.
Holding public officials accountable for their lack of judgment and poor management during the pandemic is essential to restoring trust in government and other institutions. Faulkender's failures may not be as directly egregious as Chronister's, but Trump is making a mistake by allowing him to fail upward at the Treasury Department.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Eh?
$500 BILLION, not million, but even if the true per-job figure were $800 billion / 13.8 million jobs, that's still only $58,000 per job. Tariff costs per job saved are typically 10 times as high. If the figures were true, they'd be remarkably efficient for a government operation.
The real story is that those figures aren't true, and that you should have tried to figure out what tthe true figures are.
EB;too stupid
^ this ^
Reason:
These people previously worked on failed government programs, they are unfit!
Also Reason:
These people have no prior experience in government, they are unqualified!
If only there was one, just one successful .gov program to give people relevent experience. Maybe then Reason would stop its pant shitting.
True criticism. I just think you're leaving out the why. And that start with a "T" and has nonconsecutive terms as president.
Even worse disaster: PPE mandates.
PPP was easily one of the worst things Trump did as president.
It wasn’t his fault, remember? Between the veto-proof majority and Pelosi holding a gun to his head he didn’t have a choice. Besides that he didn’t write it, Democrats did. And Biden’s spending was much worse, so anyone who criticizes Trump without attacking Biden is running cover for Democrats.
At least that’s what I’ve been told.
But you didn’t listen.
Nobody has said that about PPP that I’m aware of (cares act is a different matter).
What I will say in its defense: It wouldn’t have been mentioned, let alone “necessary” if the government hadn’t forced shut downs.
PPP was created by the CARES Act. So it’s the same matter.
Could have sworn it was a separate bill, so my bad.
In that case though, it shows a decent amount of gamesmanship on the part of Pelosi and the DNC and makes even more sense why he would have signed the CARES Act even without it being veto proof.
I mean, can you imagine the beating he would have taken from them and their sycophants in the media? “President Business hates small businesses and hurting families, refuses to sign relief bill!”
So you’re against Trump, but totally support and defend the people who shoved it down his throat at every opportunity.
Does that about cover it?
Kamala herself made the claim during the recent campaign that pretty much all of the "Covid rescue" spending was more or less forced onto trump by the Dems in Congress; at the very least, the only complaint that I remember seeing come from that side of the aisle was that there weren't enough $Trillions of dollars being dumped out into the money supply (as if creating hyperinflation was somehow a "fix" for rising prices that were caused by supply chain issues.
I don't know if the Dems really did it all on their own, but if they're looking to work that hard to "own" such a huge amount of wasted spending which was financed by printing money which exploded inflation, then I see no reason to not give it to them.
It's rare enough to see anyone in DC not run headlong away from responsibility for such a colossal failure; the one time someone's looking to step up and fight to take it up I say encourage it in hopes that it'll become more common in the future.
And yet it was also necessitated by pants shitting morons like the Reason writers that demanded the lockdowns and the evil scum that mandated them.
Suderman was _really_ bad on this. Bailey wasn't any better. Gillespie and Welch were better.
Not firing Fauci was the worst thing he did as president.
>>Faulkender is a professor of finance at the University of Maryland's business school
entirely as immediately qualified as Janet Bowlcut
Her appointment was ‘transitory’.
hopefully so is that look.
Hopefully so is her existence.
Jesus did say beware of Falselenders when he threw them out of the wedding in Cana.
No amnesty for the Branch Covidians!
Eric, when you're the most embarrassing anti-Trumper at Reason, it's probably time to polish up the old resume. Maybe try Mother Jones. Or Pravda.
Don’t forget Jacobin.
Now do Build Back Better.
would consider your point if you weren't ignoring the bigger point
“It is purely a fortuity that this isn’t one of the great mass casualty events in American history,” Ron Klain, who was Biden’s chief of staff at the time, said of H1N1 in 2019. “It had nothing to do with us doing anything right. It just had to do with luck. If anyone thinks that this can’t happen again, they don’t have to go back to 1918, they just have to go back to 2009, 2010 and imagine a virus with a different lethality, and you can just do the math on that.”
Yes, that was BIDEN