Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
The bill adds Section 492A to the Higher Education Act, forbidding the Secretary of Education from issuing draft, proposed, or final regulations or executive actions under Title IV that the Secretary deems "economically significant" and that would increase a "subsidy cost." It requires the Secretary to analyze whether a draft rule would increase subsidy cost and blocks further action if so, and makes these analyses additional to existing regulatory review requirements. "Economically significant" is defined consistent with the $100 million annual threshold or other material effects on the economy or public interests.
Progressives emphasize harm to borrowers and blocked relief options.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear statutory prohibition on the Secretary of Education issuing economically significant regulations or executive actions that would increase a subsidy cost and situates that prohibition within the Higher Education Act.
The bill adds Section 492A to the Higher Education Act, forbidding the Secretary of Education from issuing draft, proposed, or final regulations or executive actions under Title IV that the Secretary deems "economically significant" and that would increase a "subsidy cost." It requires the Secretary to analyze whether a draft rule would increase subsidy cost and blocks further action if so, and makes these analyses additional to existing regulatory review requirements. "Economically significant" is defined consistent with the $100 million annual threshold or other material effects on the economy or public interests.
Narrow, administratively focused but highly ideological and likely to face substantial opposition and procedural barriers in the Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear statutory prohibition on the Secretary of Education issuing economically significant regulations or executive actions that would increase a subsidy cost and situates that prohibition within the Higher Education Act. The core rule and the threshold for economic significance are explicitly stated, but important implementation details are missing.
Progressives emphasize harm to borrowers and blocked relief options.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize harm to borrowers and blocked relief options.
Likely opposed.
Sees this as a legal barrier preventing the Education Department from using regulation or executive action to provide borrower relief or change student-loan programs.
Views the restriction as prioritizing narrow fiscal metrics over borrower hardship and flexibility.
Mixed/guarded.
Appreciates added fiscal scrutiny for major regulatory actions, but worries the hard prohibition could prevent sensible, targeted actions and lacks waiver mechanisms.
Would seek calibrated fixes.
Supportive.
Frames the bill as protecting taxpayers and limiting executive branch overreach, especially preventing costly unilateral student-loan bailouts through regulation or executive action.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administratively focused but highly ideological and likely to face substantial opposition and procedural barriers in the Senate.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize harm to borrowers and blocked relief options.
Narrow, administratively focused but highly ideological and likely to face substantial opposition and procedural barriers in the Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a clear statutory prohibition on the Secretary of Education issuing economically significant regulations or executive actions that would increase a subsid…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.