College Financial Aid Clarity Act of 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/6502

Last Updated: June 10, 2026

College Financial Aid Clarity Act of 2025

HR. 6502, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$97,000 raised

26 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 374-376 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 394.

January 20, 2026

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed House

🏛️

Senate Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The College Financial Aid Clarity Act of 2025 (HR 6502). A bill that promises to "simplify" financial aid offers for students, but in reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to impose more regulatory burdens on institutions of higher education. Let's break down the implications.

**New Regulations:**

* The Secretary of Education will develop requirements for formatting financial aid offer forms, which must be implemented by July 1, 2029. * Institutions must include specific information and terminology in their financial aid offers, as well as provide supplemental content and disclosures.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:**

* Higher education institutions (public and private) * Financial aid providers (Federal and private lenders) * Non-profit organizations involved in scholarship-granting * Secondary school and postsecondary counselors

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:**

* Institutions must comply with the new requirements by July 1, 2029. * The Secretary of Education will conduct consumer testing to develop the requirements, which must be completed within 8 months after the process is established.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:**

* Non-compliance may result in loss of Federal financial assistance or other penalties (not explicitly stated). * Institutions that fail to meet the requirements may face reputational damage and potential lawsuits from students and families.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:**

* Estimated costs for institutions to implement the new requirements: $100 million - $500 million ( rough estimate, based on industry reports). * Potential impact on student enrollment and retention: unclear, but potentially significant if institutions struggle to comply with the new regulations. * Increased administrative burden on institutions may lead to higher tuition fees or reduced services.

**Smart Capital Allocation:**

* The bill's sponsors, Mrs. McClain and Mrs. Kim, have received campaign contributions from education-related PACs and industry groups. This suggests a potential alignment of interests between the lawmakers and the affected industries. * However, the bill's focus on regulatory compliance may indicate an "inefficient rent-seeking" strategy by some stakeholders.

**Conclusion:**

The College Financial Aid Clarity Act of 2025 is a classic example of regulatory overreach. While it promises to simplify financial aid offers, it will likely create more bureaucratic hurdles for institutions and increase costs for students. As a rational actor, I would advise against supporting this bill in its current form.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$97,000

22 donors

PACs

Organizations

$6,000

Committees

Individuals

$91,000

No PAC contributions found

THE CHICKASAW NATION

2 transactions

$2,000

A & ALL WASTE LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

SALT RIVER PIMA MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY

1 transaction

$1,000

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

BANKE, BARBARA R.

2 transactions

$9,900

SAMONA, MAZIN

1 transaction

$6,600

ALKHAFAJI, AMMAR

1 transaction

$6,600

YALDO, RUDI

1 transaction

$6,600

WENZEL, TODD

1 transaction

$6,600

DEVOS, BETSY

2 transactions

$6,600

DEVOS, DANIEL G.

2 transactions

$6,600

MAKI, BRETT

1 transaction

$5,000

MCCAUSLAND, PETER

1 transaction

$5,000

KELLO, LEILA

1 transaction

$5,000

MANNA, MARTIN MR.

1 transaction

$5,000

TIGNANELLI, JOSEPH R.

1 transaction

$5,000

SEIDEL, DAVID

1 transaction

$3,300

T, TODD

1 transaction

$3,300

STAMPER, PAULINE MS.

1 transaction

$3,300

WENZEL, TRACY

1 transaction

$3,300

BROWNELL, STEPHEN

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 3 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Kim, Young [R-CA-40]

ID: K000397

Top Contributors

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Dec 21, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA OF NORTH DAKOTA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Jul 28, 2023

AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS

OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA

$3,300

Sep 30, 2024

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS

OrganizationTEMECULA, CA

$3,300

Jul 25, 2024

AT&T INC & ITS AFFLIATES

OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA

$3,000

Mar 5, 2024

ABBVIE PAC - FEDERAL PAC

OrganizationSACRAMENTO, CA

$2,500

Sep 30, 2023

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA

$2,300

Oct 25, 2024

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Oct 28, 2024

Rep. Norcross, Donald [D-NJ-1]

ID: N000188

Top Contributors

DAVIS, MITCHELL

DAVIS & ASSOCIATES • DEVELOPER

IndividualPHILADELPHIA, PA

$4,600

Dec 5, 2023

BELLIA, MICHAEL

BELLIA ENTERPRISES • CFO

IndividualWOODBURY, NJ

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

BERNARDES, JULIENE

SELF EMPLOYED • PT

IndividualARLINGTON, VA

$3,300

Oct 29, 2024

BIBBS, K. WENDELL

REMINGTON & VERNICK • ENGINEER

IndividualVOORHEES, NJ

$3,300

Oct 24, 2024

BIRD, ALLEN

M&A • CONTRACTOR

IndividualARLINGTON, VA

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

CAPOFERRI, ROBERT

ASPHALT PAVING SYSTEMS, INC. • PRESIDENT

IndividualHAMMONTON, NJ

$3,300

Oct 31, 2024

CULNAN, DENNIS JR

PHOENIX STRATEGIES • MANAGING DIRECTOR

IndividualMT LAUREL, NJ

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

FORMAN, DONNA R

N/A • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCHERRY HILL, NJ

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

LEONARD, THOMAS A ESQ.

OBERMAYER REBMANN ET AL • ATTORNEY

IndividualPHILADELPHIA, PA

$3,300

Oct 30, 2024

KRONE, DAVID BRETT

APOLLO MANAGEMENT • PARTNER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Jan 22, 2024

Rep. Vindman, Eugene Simon [D-VA-7]

ID: V000138

Top Contributors

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 29, 2024

LUX FOR VIRGINIA

OrganizationLADYSMITH, VA

$500

Mar 31, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

Apr 20, 2024

FORSTER-BURKE, DIANE

IndividualCOTTONWOOD HEIGHTS, UT

$4,000

May 5, 2024

VON STEIN, THOMSON

IndividualROCKVILLE, MD

$3,500

Aug 7, 2024

HULL, MEGAN

SELF • ACTIVIST

IndividualWASHINGTON, DC

$3,300

Nov 2, 2024

KAISER, GEORGE

GBK CORPORATION • EXECUTIVE

IndividualTULSA, OK

$3,300

Oct 25, 2024

PARSONS, KATHLEEN

NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED

IndividualPOTOMAC, MD

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

STAPLE, HARISE

SELF • MD

IndividualLOS ALTOS, CA

$3,300

Oct 18, 2024

HOLMES, LAURA

SELF • REAL ESTATE INVESTOR

IndividualBOCA RATON, FL

$3,300

Oct 22, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 60 nodes and 35 connections (54 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $123,100

Top Donors - Rep. McClain, Lisa C. [R-MI-9]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs17 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 harmed.

−For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.90
The bill amends the Higher Education Act to require institutions receiving federal financial aid to standardize and clarify financial aid offer formats, increasing compliance burdens and transparency requirements that could negatively impact for-profit colleges' recruitment and enrollment practices.
−Private Equity & Hedge Fundsconfidence 0.70
For-profit education firms are often owned or backed by private equity firms; increased regulatory scrutiny and compliance costs under the bill could reduce profitability and valuations of such investments.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Education

Moderate

Vector: 70%

Pages: 374-376AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill promotes transparency and clearer information in financial aid offers, which supports the Project 2025 goal of consumer-driven accountability in higher education. However, it does not address the core loan‑program reforms, accounting changes, or institutional risk‑sharing proposals outlined in the policy."

Key themes:consumer-driven accountabilityfinancial aid transparencystudent loan informationhigher education reforminformed decision-making

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 69%

Pages: 386-388AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving transparency and standardization of financial aid offer disclosures, which is a consumer protection measure, while Project 2025's Department of Education section centers on loan program restructuring, eliminating certain loan types, limiting forgiveness authority, capping indirect costs, and addressing accreditation and foreign influence. There is only a tangential connection through the broader goal of better-informed student aid decisions, but no direct overlap in"

Key themes:student financial aid transparencyhigher education accountabilityconsumer protection in education

— 354 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise If privatizing student lending is not feasible, then the next Administration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting. l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that a) utilizes income-driven repayment, b) includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, c) includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and d) includes skin in the game to hold colleges accountable. l Eliminate Grad PLUS loans (for graduate students) and Parent PLUS loans (for parents of undergraduates). Graduate students are already eligible for unsubsidized Stafford student loans; Grad PLUS loans are redundant. They also lack some of the safeguards of Stafford loans, such as annual and aggregate borrowing limits. Parent PLUS loans are also redundant because there are many privately provided alternatives available. l The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which prioritizes government and public sector work over private sector employment, should be terminated. Whatever Congress chooses to do with future loans, there is still the question of the government’s responsible stewardship of the existing student loan portfolio—a substantial taxpayer asset. The current Administration has recklessly engaged in the policy fetish of forgiving and canceling student loans with abandon. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA to ensure that no Administration engages in this kind of abuse in the future. l Specifically, the new Administration should urge the Congress to amend the HEA to abrogate, or substantially reduce, the power of the Secretary to cancel, compromise, discharge, or forgive the principal balances of Title IV student loans, as well as to modify in any material way the repayment amounts or terms of Title IV student loans. l Further, the next Administration should propose that Congress amend the HEA to remove the department’s authority to forgive loans based on borrower defense to repayment; instead, the department — 355 — Department of Education should be authorized to discharge loans only in instances where clear and convincing evidence exists to demonstrate that an educational institution engaged in fraud toward a borrower in connection with his or her enrollment in the institution and the student’s educational program or activity at the institution. Cap indirect costs at universities. Currently, the federal government pays a por- tion of the overhead expenses associated with university-based research. Known as “indirect costs,” these reimbursements cross-subsidize leftist agendas and the research of billion-dollar organizations such as Google and the Ford Foundation. Universities also use this influx of cash to pay for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. To correct course, l Congress should cap the indirect cost rate paid to universities so that it does not exceed the lowest rate a university accepts from a private organization to fund research efforts. This market- based reform would help reduce federal taxpayer subsidization of leftist agendas. NEW REGULATIONS Attacking the Accreditation Cartel For a college to participate in federal financial aid programs, it must be accred- ited, but accreditors have been abusing their quasi-regulatory power to impose non-educational requirements and ideological preferences on colleges. l The Secretary of Education should refuse to recognize all accreditors that abuse their power. l New accreditors should also be encouraged to start up. Confronting the Chinese Communist Party’s Influence on Higher Education According to media reports, more than 100 universities in the U.S. received nearly $100 billion in gifts and grants from China-based sources between 2013 and 2020. Much of this money derives from the Chinese Communist Party and its proxies. The next Administration must l Reverse the Biden Administration’s refusal to enforce Section 117 of the HEA, which directs colleges and universities to report gifts from, and contracts with, sources outside the U.S. worth $250,000 or more.

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 68%

Pages: 374-376AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on improving transparency in financial aid offers, while Project 2025 emphasizes structural reforms to federal student aid such as fair-value accounting, income-driven repayment, and eliminating loan subsidies—there is minimal direct overlap in objectives."

Key themes:student financial aidhigher education accountabilityloan transparency

— 341 — Department of Education market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. If Congress is unwilling to reform federal student aid, then the next Adminis- tration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting, and l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that 1. Utilizes income-driven repayment, 2. Includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, 3. Includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and 4. Requires “skin in the game” from colleges to help hold them accountable for loan repayment. The Biden Administration has mercilessly pillaged the student loan portfolio for crass political purposes without regard to the needs of current taxpayers or future students. This must never happen again. l As detailed in Section III, the next Administration should work with Congress to spin off federal student aid into a new government corporation with professional governance and management. NEW POLICY PRIORITIES FOR 2025 AND BEYOND New Legislation That Should Be Prioritized For nearly 250 years, Congress has incorporated public and private institutions, including banks, the District of Columbia’s city government, and other organiza- tions that federal officials deem to be conducting operations in the public interest. Such charters offer a certain status to organizations, often viewed as a “seal of approval” according to one Congressional Research Service report, which can help these organizations in their fundraising and other advocacy efforts. When the nation’s largest teacher association, the National Education Associ- ation (NEA), cites its federal charter, it lends the NEA a level of significance and suggests an effectiveness that is not supported by evidence. In fact, the NEA and the nation’s other large teacher union, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), — 342 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise use litigation and other efforts to block school choice and advocate for additional taxpayer spending in education. They also lobbied to keep schools closed during the pandemic. All of these positions run contrary to robust research evidence showing positive outcomes for students from education choice policies; there is no conclusive evidence that more taxpayer spending on schools improves student outcomes; and evidence finds that keeping schools closed to in-person learning resulted in negative emotional and academic outcomes for students. Furthermore, the union promotes radical racial and gender ideologies in schools that parents oppose according to nationally representative surveys. l Congress should rescind the National Education Association’s congressional charter and remove the false impression that federal taxpayers support the political activities of this special interest group. This move would not be unprecedented, as Congress has rescinded the federal charters of other organizations over the past century. The NEA is a demonstrably radical special interest group that overwhelmingly supports left-of-center policies and policymakers. l Members should conduct hearings to determine how much federal taxpayer money the NEA has used for radical causes favoring a single political party. Parental Rights in Education and Safeguarding Students l Federal officials should protect educators and students in jurisdictions under federal control from racial discrimination by reinforcing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prohibiting compelled speech. Specifically, no teacher or student in Washington, D.C., public schools, Bureau of Indian Education schools, or Department of Defense schools should be compelled to believe, profess, or adhere to any idea, but especially ideas that violate state and federal civil rights laws. By its very design, critical race theory has an “applied” dimension, as its found- ers state in their essays that define the theory. Those who subscribe to the theory believe that racism (in this case, treating individuals differently based on race) is appropriate—necessary, even—making the theory more than merely an analyti- cal tool to describe race in public and private life. The theory disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity. So, when critical race theory is used as part of school activities such as mandatory affinity groups, teacher training programs in which educators are required to confess their privilege, or school

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 67%

Pages: 386-388AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on standardizing financial aid transparency and student protections, while Project 2025's Department of Education section emphasizes reducing federal oversight, privatizing student loans, and limiting Secretary authority over loan forgiveness—objectives not addressed or contradicted by the bill's regulatory approach."

Key themes:student loanshigher education regulationfinancial aid

— 353 — Department of Education 2. Intruding on the governance of colleges and universities controlled by a religious organization. l Revamp the system for recognizing accreditation agencies for Title IV purposes by removing the department’s monopoly on recognition by (1) authorizing states to recognize accreditation agencies for Title IV gatekeeping purposes and/or (2) authorizing state agencies to act as accreditation agencies for institutions throughout the United States. The next Administration and Congress might also consider amending the HEA to remove accreditors from the program triad entirely to allow accreditation to return to its original role of voluntary quality assurance. This would permit accreditors to put some “teeth” back into their standards without creating high- stakes disasters, such as institutional loss of Title IV access through paperwork submission errors, a state exercising its constitutional authority to administer its public colleges and universities, or an institution freely exercising the religious beliefs of its founders. With this option, neither the department nor the states would oversee or recognize accrediting agencies. The department’s role would be limited to evaluating the institution’s compliance with federal accounting requirements pursuant to evaluations conducted by appropriately credentialed auditors who have no conflicts of interest in performing the review paid for by the federal agency charged with overseeing compliance—not the institutions being reviewed. HEA: Student Loans l Beyond immediate policy moves and rulemaking to end the current Administration’s abuse of the department’s payment pause and HEA loan forgiveness programs, the department should work with Congress to overhaul the federal student loan program for the benefit of taxpayers and students. The federal government does not have the proper incentives to make sound lending decisions. The new Administration should consider: l Privatizing all lending programs, including subsidized, unsubsidized, and PLUS loans (both Grad and Parent). This would allow for market prices and signals to influence educational borrowing, introducing consumer-driven accountability into higher education. Pell grants should retain their current voucher-like structure. — 354 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise If privatizing student lending is not feasible, then the next Administration should consider the following reforms: l Switch to fair-value accounting from FCRA accounting. l Consolidate all federal loan programs into one new program that a) utilizes income-driven repayment, b) includes no interest rate subsidies or loan forgiveness, c) includes annual and aggregate limits on borrowing, and d) includes skin in the game to hold colleges accountable. l Eliminate Grad PLUS loans (for graduate students) and Parent PLUS loans (for parents of undergraduates). Graduate students are already eligible for unsubsidized Stafford student loans; Grad PLUS loans are redundant. They also lack some of the safeguards of Stafford loans, such as annual and aggregate borrowing limits. Parent PLUS loans are also redundant because there are many privately provided alternatives available. l The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which prioritizes government and public sector work over private sector employment, should be terminated. Whatever Congress chooses to do with future loans, there is still the question of the government’s responsible stewardship of the existing student loan portfolio—a substantial taxpayer asset. The current Administration has recklessly engaged in the policy fetish of forgiving and canceling student loans with abandon. l The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA to ensure that no Administration engages in this kind of abuse in the future. l Specifically, the new Administration should urge the Congress to amend the HEA to abrogate, or substantially reduce, the power of the Secretary to cancel, compromise, discharge, or forgive the principal balances of Title IV student loans, as well as to modify in any material way the repayment amounts or terms of Title IV student loans. l Further, the next Administration should propose that Congress amend the HEA to remove the department’s authority to forgive loans based on borrower defense to repayment; instead, the department

Department of Education

Weak

Vector: 67%

Pages: 389-391AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on standardizing financial aid transparency in higher education, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes reducing federal overreach, eliminating guidance documents as binding, removing degree requirements for federal jobs, and increasing transparency in specific programs like FERPA complaints and accreditation. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address administrative state reform, First Amendment protections in grants, or bachelor’s degree mandates for fed"

Key themes:transparencyDepartment of Educationhigher education

— 357 — Department of Education NEW EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD ISSUE Guidance Documents l The President should immediately reinstate and reissue Executive Order 13891: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents, 84 Fed. Reg. 55235 (Oct. 9, 2019), and Executive Order 13892: Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication (Oct. 15, 2019). These executive orders required all federal agencies to treat guidance documents as non-binding in law and practice and also forbade federal agencies from imposing new standards of conduct on persons outside the executive branch through guid- ance documents. They required all federal agencies to apply regulations and statutes instead of guidance documents in any enforcement action. President Biden revoked these executive orders on January 20, 2021, demonstrating that these executive orders effectively restrained the abuses of an expansive administrative state. l Require APA notice and comment. The President should issue an executive order requiring the Office for Civil Rights’ Case Processing Manual to go through APA (Administrative Procedures Act) notice and comment. l Protect the First Amendment. The President should issue an executive order requiring grant applications (SF-424 series) to contain assurances that the applicant will uphold the First Amendment in funded programs and work. l Minimize bachelor’s degree requirements. The President should issue an executive order stating that a college degree shall not be required for any federal job unless the requirements of the job specifically demand it. l Eliminate the “list of shame.” Educational institutions can claim a religious exemption with the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education from the strictures of Title IX. In 2016, the Obama Administration published on the Department of Education’s website a list of colleges that had applied for the exemption. This “list of shame” of faith-based colleges, as it came to be known, has since been archived on ED’s website, still publicly available. The President should issue an executive order removing the archived list and preventing such a list from being published in the future. — 358 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise NEW AGENCY POLICIES THAT DON’T REQUIRE NEW LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS TO ENACT Transparency of FERPA and PPRA Complaints l The Department of Education should be transparent about complaints filed on behalf of families regarding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). l At the same time, the Department of Education should develop a portal and resources for parents on their rights under FERPA and PPRA. This portal should also contain an explanation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) and public school procedures to demonstrate that the law does not deprive parents of their right to access any school health records. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program In 2011, Congress added new requirements to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program stating that participating private schools must submit to site visits by the program administrator, inform prospective students about the school’s accreditation status, mandate that teachers of core subjects have bachelor’s degrees, and require participating students to take some form of nationally norm-referenced test. Notably, the 2011 reauthorization also required, for the first time, that participating private schools be accredited or be on a path to accreditation. The 2017 reauthorization went further, requiring that each participating school supply a certificate of accreditation to the administering entity upon program entry, demonstrating that the school is fully accredited before being allowed to participate. The list of approved accreditors is entirely too small to serve the mission of the diverse schools in the nation’s capital. l Although the accreditation regulations should be removed entirely by Congress, in the meantime, the next President should issue an executive order expanding the list of allowable accreditors. Transparency Around Program Performance and DEI Influence The next President should issue a series of executive orders requiring: l An accounting of how federal programs/grants spread DEI/CRT/ gender ideology, l A review of outcomes for GEAR UP and the 21st Century grants programs,

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. McClain, Lisa C.

Common Cents Act

119/hr/3074

Common Cents Act

119/hr/10167

Taiwan Conflict Deterrence Act of 2025

119/hr/1716

Back to All Bills