Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/7891

Last Updated: July 22, 2026

Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026

HR. 7891, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

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

The money

$71,700 raised

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

The alignment

67% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" 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. 582.

May 25, 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 Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026, HR 7891, is a bill that warrants scrutiny from a rational, self-interested perspective. As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I shall dissect this legislation to discern its implications on my empire's wealth and influence.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The primary objective of this bill is to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, specifically section 498A, to prioritize program reviews of institutions that disburse federal financial aid without verifying student identities when there is a reasonable suspicion of identity fraud. This measure aims to curb potential abuse and ensure accountability in the distribution of federal student aid.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces new provisions requiring the Secretary of Education to identify institutions that have disbursed federal financial aid to students with suspected identity fraud. These institutions will be subject to prioritized program reviews, audits, and investigations. The legislation also establishes procedures for institutions to verify student identities using in-person or live audiovisual verification.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The primary stakeholders affected by this bill are institutions of higher education, the Secretary of Education, and students receiving federal financial aid. However, as a billionaire entrepreneur with significant investments in the education technology sector, I must consider how this legislation may impact my own interests. The bill's emphasis on identity verification and accountability could create new opportunities for innovative solutions and services, potentially disrupting traditional players in the market.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a wealth and power perspective, this bill presents both risks and opportunities. On one hand, increased scrutiny and regulation may lead to additional compliance costs and bureaucratic hurdles for institutions, which could ultimately benefit my own education technology ventures. On the other hand, the bill's focus on identity verification and accountability may create new market demand for innovative solutions, potentially disrupting traditional players in the market.

As a thought leader at the forefront of innovation, I must consider how this legislation aligns with my own vision for the future of education. The Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026 has the potential to drive growth and consolidation in the education technology sector, ultimately benefiting my own interests. By prioritizing program reviews and emphasizing accountability, this bill may create new opportunities for innovative solutions and services, further solidifying my position as a leader in the industry.

In conclusion, HR 7891 is a bill that warrants careful consideration from a rational, self-interested perspective. As a billionaire entrepreneur with significant investments in the education technology sector, I must navigate the potential risks and opportunities presented by this legislation to ensure that my own interests are protected and advanced. By doing so, I can continue to drive growth and innovation in the industry, ultimately benefiting my own wealth and influence.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$71,700

26 donors

PACs

Organizations

$28,700

Committees

Individuals

$43,000

No PAC contributions found

BUTLER MACHINE

2 transactions

$6,600

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$3,300

CORTINA HULLING & SHELLING GROUP

1 transaction

$3,300

AG VENTURES

1 transaction

$2,500

ROESLEIN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, LLC

1 transaction

$2,000

KOHL REAL ESTATE

2 transactions

$2,000

EUROOPTIC, LTD

2 transactions

$2,000

RANCH 440

1 transaction

$1,500

DWIGHT STANSEL FARM & NURSERY

1 transaction

$1,000

HIGHLINE GRAIN GROWERS INC

1 transaction

$1,000

SCHRACK FARMS

1 transaction

$1,000

LUKE ROBISON FARMS LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

ARK-LA-TEX FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS LLC

1 transaction

$500

HARLOW CATTLE LLC

1 transaction

$500

MID ATLANTIC ASSOCIATION OF CAREER SCHOOLS

1 transaction

$500

No committee contributions found

BARENSFELD, WENDY H. MRS.

2 transactions

$6,600

LEMEUR, HENRI E. JR.

1 transaction

$5,000

MYERS, JOEL N. DR.

1 transaction

$5,000

FONALLEDAS, JAIME L JR.

1 transaction

$3,300

GUILLERMETY, RAFAEL

1 transaction

$3,300

ASHER, ROBERT B. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

CIARROCCHI, GUY

1 transaction

$3,300

LEPRINO, JAMES G. MR.

1 transaction

$3,300

MYERS, STEPHANIE

1 transaction

$3,300

VAN VLECK, NICOLE

1 transaction

$3,300

VANN, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5]

ID: F000450

Top Contributors

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$3,300

Apr 26, 2024

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC

$2,000

Dec 18, 2023

SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH INDIANS

OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA

$2,000

Mar 11, 2024

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN

$1,650

May 31, 2023

CATAWBA NATION TRIBE

OrganizationROCK HILL, SC

$1,500

Mar 1, 2024

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,500

Jun 30, 2023

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

OrganizationBANNING, CA

$1,500

Apr 29, 2024

MOORE, JOHN T. MR.

MARWOOD GROUP • CEO

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$5,000

Aug 26, 2024

BARKER, PATRICIA M. MRS.

BOB BARKER CO • CORP SECRETARY

IndividualFUQUAY VARINA, NC

$3,300

Oct 28, 2024

DRESCHER, STEPHANIE MS.

APOLLO • PARTNER

IndividualNEW YORK, NY

$3,300

Nov 4, 2024

Donor Network - Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

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

Showing 42 nodes and 33 connections (40 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $79,000

Top Donors - Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]

Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount

15 Orgs11 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−For-Profit Education & Student Loansconfidence 0.90
Section 2(b)(2) adds paragraph (4) requiring the Secretary to identify institutions that disburse Title IV aid without verifying identity of students with FAFSA fraud suspicion, which will increase oversight and potential sanctions for for-profit colleges that heavily rely on federal aid and may have weaker identity verification.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate66.8%

Pages: 374-376

Introduction

Moderate66.8%

Pages: 374-376

— 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

Introduction

Moderate60.2%

Pages: 353-355

Introduction

Moderate60.2%

Pages: 353-355

— 320 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise The future of education freedom and reform in the states is bright and will shine brighter when regulations and red tape from Washington are eliminated. Federal money is inevitably accompanied by rules and regulations that keep the influx of funds from having much, if any, impact on student outcomes. It raises the cost of education without raising student achievement. To the extent that federal taxpayer dollars are used to fund education programs, those funds should be block- granted to states without strings, eliminating the need for many federal and state bureaucrats. Eventually, policymaking and funding should take place at the state and local level, closest to the affected families. Although student loans and grants should ultimately be restored to the private sector (or, at the very least, the federal government should revisit its role as a guarantor, rather than direct lender) federal postsecondary education investments should bolster economic growth, and recipient institutions should nourish academic freedom and embrace intellectual diversity. That has not, however, been the track record of federal higher education policy or of the many institutions of higher education that are hostile to free expression, open academic inquiry, and American exceptionalism. Federal post- secondary policy should be more than massive, inefficient, and open-ended subsidies to “traditional” colleges and universities. It should be rebalanced to focus far more on bolstering the workforce skills of Americans who have no interest in pursuing a four- year academic degree. It should reflect a fuller picture of learning after high school, placing apprenticeship programs of all types and career and technical education on an even playing field with degrees from colleges and universities. Rather than continuing to buttress a higher education establishment captured by woke “diversicrats” and a de facto monopoly enforced by the federal accreditation cartel, federal postsecondary education policy should prepare students for jobs in the dynamic economy, nurture institutional diversity, and expose schools to greater market forces.1 OVERVIEW For most of our history, the federal government played a minor role in education. Then, over a 14-month period beginning in 1964, Congress planted the seeds for what would become the U.S. Department of Education (ED or the department). In July of that year, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, after Congress reached a consensus that the mistreatment of black Americans was no longer tolerable and merited a federal response. In the case of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)2 and the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA),3 Congress sought to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged students by providing additional compensatory funding for low-income children and lower-income college students. Spending on ESEA and the HEA—part of Johnson’s “War on Poverty”—grew exponentially in the years that followed. By Fiscal Year 2022, ESEA programs received $27.7 billion in appropriations, in addition to $190 billion that came — 321 — Department of Education through the pandemic’s Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief (ESSER) Funds,4 which relied on ESEA formulas. The same year, the department spent more than $2 billion just to administer Title IV of the HEA, which authorizes federal student loans and Pell grants. It provided $22.5 billion in Pell grants, and it oversaw outlays of close to $100 billion in direct student loans. Since 1965, Congress has continued to layer on dozens of new laws and pro- grams as federal “solutions” to myriad education problems. In 1973, it passed the Rehabilitation Act,5 and, in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)6 to address educational neglect of students with disabilities. In 2002, it cre- ated the Institute for Education Sciences to consolidate education data collection and fund research. Congress has also enacted a series of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Acts, including Perkins V in 2018.7 Congress could have, and once did, distribute management of federal education programs outside of a single department. But for those interested in expanding federal funding and influence in education, this unconsolidated approach was less than ideal, because a single, captive agency would allow them to promote their agenda more effectively across Administrations. Eventually, the National Educa- tion Association made a deal and backed the right presidential candidate— Jimmy Carter—who successfully lobbied for and delivered the Cabinet-level agency. When it was established in 1979—becoming operational in 1980—the agency was supposed to act as a “corralling” mechanism. Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act8 into law in 1979, believing in part that it would reduce administrative costs and improve efficiency by housing most of the federal education programs that had proliferated in the wake of Johnson’s War on Poverty under one roof. It has had the opposite effect. Instead, special interest groups like the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the higher education lobby have leveraged the agency to continuously expand federal expenditures—a desirable funding stream from their vantage point because federal budgets are not constrained like state and local budgets that must be balanced each year. By FY 2022, the department’s discretionary and mandatory appropriation topped $80 billion, not including student loan outlays. Each of its programs has attendant federal strings and red tape. One recent example is the Biden Administration’s requirement that state educa- tion agencies and school districts submit “equity” plans as a condition of receiving COVID recovery ESSER funds in the American Rescue Plan (ARP).9 This exercise led to the hiring of numerous new government employees as the rules were pro- mulgated, plans were created after collecting public feedback, and those plans were eventually deemed satisfactory. The next Administration will need a plan to redistribute the various congres- sionally approved federal education programs across the government, eliminate

Introduction

Moderate60.1%

Pages: 374-376

— 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 — 343 — Department of Education assignments in which students must defend the false idea that America is sys- temically racist, the theory is actively disrupting the values that hold communities together such as equality under the law and colorblindness. l As such, lawmakers should design legislation that prevents the theory from spreading discrimination. l For K–12 systems under their jurisdiction, federal lawmakers should adopt proposals that say no individual should receive punishment or benefits based on the color of their skin. l Furthermore, school officials should not require students or teachers to believe that individuals are guilty or responsible for the actions of others based on race or ethnicity. Educators should not be forced to discuss contemporary political issues but neither should they refrain from discussing certain subjects in an attempt to pro- tect students from ideas with which they disagree. Proposals such as this should result in robust classroom discussions, not censorship. At the state level, states should require schools to post classroom materials online to provide maximum transparency to parents. l Again, specifically for K–12 systems under federal authority, Congress and the next Administration should support existing state and federal civil rights laws and add to such laws a prohibition on compelled speech. Advancing Legal Protections for Parental Rights in Education While the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts have consistently rec- ognized that parents have the right and duty to direct the care and upbringing of their children, they have not always treated parental rights as co-equal to other fundamental rights—like free speech or the free exercise of religion. As a result, some courts treat parental rights as a “second-tier” right and do not properly safe- guard these rights against government infringement. The courts vary greatly over which species of constitutional review (rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny) to apply to parental rights cases. This uncertainty has emboldened federal agencies to promote rules and poli- cies that infringe parental rights. For example, under the Biden Administration’s proposed Title IX regulations, schools could be required to assist a child with a social or medical gender transition without parental consent or to withhold infor- mation from parents about a child’s social transition (e.g., changing their names or

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Thompson, Glenn

Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026

119/hr/7567

United States Grain Standards Reauthorization Act of 2025

119/hr/4550

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 10 East Main Street in Mahaffey, Pennsylvania, as the "Robert Allen Bishop, Sr. Post Office Building".

119/hr/7517

Back to All Bills

Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026