Gov. Landry should give as much attention to Louisiana’s pension crisis as he does to college football

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry’s Christmas Eve op-ed at RealClearPolicy calling for “common-sense” reform of college football raises valid concerns about runaway spending by public institutions, weak governmental oversight, and the potential for taxpayer exposure.

“College athletics is losing many billions each year, and when the big bill finally comes due, it lands on taxpayers,” according to Gov. Landry.

But while the governor trains his fire on what he sees as the excesses of college athletics, Louisiana’s most serious and persistent financial risk continues to create runaway spending and fester under weak oversight largely outside the spotlight: Louisiana’s public pension debt.

Gov. Landry is right that taxpayers should not be left holding the bag for poorly structured coaching contracts or opaque financial arrangements with university boosters. WDSU reported “that private donors were paying the [buyout of former LSU Head Coach Brian Kelly’s] contract, with one donor in particular paying the lion’s share of the $54 million buyout.”

But holding to Landry’s principle of protecting taxpayers, the governor’s greatest test of fiscal leadership is not found on the football field—it is found in the balance sheet of the state’s multi-billion dollar public pension systems, including the Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System (LASERS) and the Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL), which cover over 365,000 Louisianians.

Unlike Louisiana State University (LSU) athletics, which operates as a self-funded enterprise supported by donors, ticket sales, and media revenue, the Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana and the Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System are taxpayer-backed obligations that have real costs today.

Take TRSL, the state’s largest system. According to its latest actuarial valuation, TRSL itself holds roughly $28 billion in assets but faces $8.6 billion more in long-term liabilities. Its unfunded debt alone—the amount taxpayers are ultimately responsible for—exceeds the total budgets of many state agencies combined. The obligation already requires over 15% of an educator’s salary to service just pension debt. In other words, with TRSL covering $5.37 billion in payroll, over $800 million annually goes from taxpayers to service TRSL pension debt. That liability dwarfs any coaching buyout and poses a far greater long-term risk to the state’s budget.

Things would be worse for TRSL had policymakers not instituted some limited pension reforms to the system’s design and funding policies over a decade ago. Still, there is a significant risk that things could get worse before they get better. If TRSL investments had a bad year and returned a negative 10% next year, similar to what the system experienced in 2008, it would add over $4 billion in new unfunded liabilities that taxpayers would need to cover.

The governor’s concerns about fiscal responsibility are especially timely given that another constitutional amendment will go before voters in April 2026. If approved, the amendment would repurpose nearly $2 billion stored in education trust funds to boost TRSL’s assets. Supporters framed the amendment as a safeguard for classrooms and teachers, saying it would free up funds for public school systems to raise teacher pay. But what the public was not told is that pay increases also increase public pension liabilities. 

Landry does not control TRSL or LASERS’ day-to-day management or investment decisions, nor can he unilaterally rewrite pension benefit statutes for future public employees. But, unlike his lack of influence on the national college football landscape, he is far from powerless when it comes to the state’s pension systems and debt. As governor, Landry sets the tone for fiscal policy, proposes the executive budget, appoints key members of the retirement system’s board, and shapes the legislative agenda that determines whether meaningful reform is even considered.

So the next logical step for Landry is to elevate pension sustainability to the same level of urgency he’s talking about with college sports. That means using the upcoming legislative session to push for more transparent disclosure of investment risks, stronger oversight of fees and performance, and reforms that align pension benefit promises with both the needs of public employees and realistic funding assumptions. It also means acknowledging that Amendment 2, while well-intentioned, makes disciplined pension benefit design and governance even more critical, not less.

If Landry wants to demonstrate seriousness about protecting taxpayers and securing Louisiana’s financial future, he should demand accountability in public pension funding.