Sponsors (3)
The bill trades off preventing potentially large, immediate increases in Title IV subsidy spending and providing short-term regulatory stability against restricting the Secretary's rulemaking authority—risking delayed student protections, foregone long-term savings, and increased administrative burdens.
Taxpayers: The bill prevents new Title IV rules that would raise federal subsidy spending by $100M+ annually without Congressional action, reducing potential taxpayer costs.
Students and colleges/universities: The bill blocks economically significant new Title IV regulatory actions, providing short-term regulatory stability and avoiding sudden compliance or subsidy changes for institutions.
Taxpayers: The bill gives clearer public notice and framing that it aims to limit taxpayer‑funded student loan forgiveness, which increases public scrutiny and legislative debate over future relief proposals.
Students and schools/universities: The bill limits the Secretary's ability to update Title IV regulations, potentially delaying rules that would curb fraud or protect student outcomes.
Borrowers, students, and advocates: The bill's partisan or prescriptive title/language could bias public perception, narrow policymaking options on student debt relief, and deter stakeholders from supporting compromise measures.
Federal employees and institutions: The bill imposes additional procedural analysis burdens on the Department of Education, slowing rulemaking and increasing administrative costs.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Prevents the Education Secretary from issuing economically significant Title IV regulations or executive actions that would increase federal 'subsidy costs.'
Introduced February 4, 2025 by Glenn Grothman · Last progress February 4, 2025
Prohibits the Secretary of Education from issuing, proposing, or advancing economically significant Title IV regulations or executive actions that would increase a defined “subsidy cost” to the federal government. For draft regulations, the Secretary must first determine whether the draft would increase subsidy costs and must halt any further action on drafts that would do so; for proposed or final regulations and for executive actions, the Secretary may not issue them if they are economically significant and would increase subsidy costs. The measure defines “economically significant” as having effects of $100 million or more annually or other material adverse economic or public-interest impacts, and requires these subsidy-cost determinations in addition to existing cost analyses.