REDI Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/942
Last Updated: June 1, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

ID: R000608

Follow the money

The bill

REDI Act

S. 942, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

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

The money

$127,000 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Education" section, p. 371-373 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Hearings held.

March 18, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House 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

Another bill, another exercise in futility. The REDI Act: because what the country really needs is more debt-ridden doctors and dentists.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated purpose is to provide interest-free deferment on student loans for borrowers serving in medical or dental internships or residency programs. How noble. In reality, it's a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, designed to appease the medical lobby and make politicians look like they care about the crushing debt burden on young doctors.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to allow borrowers in medical or dental internships or residency programs to defer their student loans without accruing interest. Because, you know, $200,000 in med school debt isn't enough; let's give them a free pass on interest too.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects: medical students, residents, and interns who are already drowning in debt. Oh, and the politicians who get to claim they're "helping" these poor souls while actually just kicking the can down the road. Don't forget the lenders, who will still collect their pound of flesh once the deferment period ends.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a classic case of treating the symptom rather than the disease. The real issue is the exorbitant cost of medical education and the unsustainable debt burden on young doctors. But hey, let's just give them a temporary reprieve from interest payments and call it a day.

In reality, this bill will:

* Temporarily alleviate some financial pressure on medical students and residents * Do nothing to address the underlying issue of skyrocketing med school costs * Create a new class of borrowers who will still be saddled with massive debt once their deferment period ends * Provide politicians with a convenient talking point for their next election campaign

Diagnosis: Legislative Theater-itis, a chronic condition characterized by grandstanding, pandering, and a complete lack of meaningful action. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach for the inevitable consequences of this bill's passage.

Related Topics

Healthcare & Insurance Reform
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$127,000
17 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$49,800
Committees
$0
Individuals
$77,200

No PAC contributions found

1
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
3 transactions
$8,600
2
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
3 transactions
$7,000
3
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
2 transactions
$6,600
4
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
2 transactions
$6,600
5
CHEROKEE NATION
2 transactions
$5,300
6
SYUCAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
1 transaction
$3,300
7
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
1 transaction
$3,300
8
CHICKASAW NATION
3 transactions
$3,100
9
RENO-SPARKS INDIAN COLONY
1 transaction
$2,500
10
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
11
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
12
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
1 transaction
$1,000
13
TAHOE LAND AND DEVELOPMENT
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
SECUNDA, TOM
4 transactions
$50,800
2
MERRIN, SETH
2 transactions
$13,200
3
JONES, J.
1 transaction
$6,600
4
JONES, J. RANDALL
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Boozman, John [R-AR]

ID: B001236

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Oct 3, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDEKEWAKANTON COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Nov 7, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEKEWAKANTON COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Jun 27, 2024
4
BJERKE, TYLER
HERITAGE INSURANCE SERVICES • SALES
IndividualFARGO, ND
$5,000
Mar 22, 2023
5
LEPRINO, TERRY
LEPRINO FARMS • BOARD DIRECTOR
IndividualDENVER, CO
$3,300
Dec 6, 2024
6
POWELL, JESSE
PAYWARD INC. • CEO
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
7
POWELL, JESSE
PAYWARD INC. • CEO
IndividualSAN FRANCISCO, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
8
STEPHENS, WARREN MR.
STEPHENS INC • PRESIDENT
IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR
$3,300
Jul 7, 2023
9
STEPHENS, WARREN MR.
STEPHENS INC • PRESIDENT
IndividualLITTLE ROCK, AR
$3,300
Jul 7, 2023
10
WALTON, ALICE L.. MS.
SELF-EMPLOYED • PHILANTHROPIST
IndividualBENTONVILLE, AR
$3,300
Aug 11, 2023

Sen. Cantwell, Maria [D-WA]

ID: C000127

Top Contributors

10

1
SAC FOX TRIBE
OrganizationTAMA, IA
$5,000
Oct 29, 2024
2
LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE
OrganizationPORT ANGELES, WA
$3,360
Mar 31, 2023
3
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA
$3,300
Oct 28, 2023
4
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationHIGHLAND, CA
$3,300
Dec 21, 2023
5
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,300
Nov 16, 2023
6
SAN PABLO LYTTON TRIBE
OrganizationSAN PABLO, CA
$3,300
Nov 16, 2023
7
SAULT STE MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS
OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
8
SENECA NATION OF INDIANS
OrganizationSALAMANCA, NY
$3,300
Dec 14, 2023
9
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationAUBURN, WA
$3,300
May 12, 2023
10
NISQUALLY INDIAN TRIBE
OrganizationOLYMPIA, WA
$3,300
Jun 30, 2023

Sen. Banks, Jim [R-IN]

ID: B001299

Top Contributors

10

1
STOCKAMP FOUNDATION
OrganizationCOLUMBIA CITY, IN
$100
Feb 26, 2024
2
NEAL, ROLLIE
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCLARKSBURG, WV
$13,068
Mar 12, 2023
3
NEAL, ROLLIE
IndividualCLARKSBURG, WV
$13,068
Mar 21, 2023
4
SALAMONE, CHRISTOPHER J
IndividualFAIRPORT, NY
$12,000
Feb 8, 2024
5
BARKLEY, JOSH
BARKLEY BUILDERS INC • GENERAL CONTRACTOR
IndividualOSSIAN, IN
$6,700
Apr 3, 2023
6
THRIFT, PAUL
THOMPSON THRIFT • CEO
IndividualTERRE HAUTE, IN
$6,700
Feb 28, 2023
7
MUSELMAN, ROGER C.
DRG HOLDINGS, LLC • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBERNE, IN
$6,700
Mar 28, 2023
8
WALTERS, KENNETH
JAYCO • PRESIDENT AND CEO
IndividualGRANGER, IN
$6,700
Sep 1, 2023
9
DUMEZICH, DANA A.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMARCO ISLAND, FL
$6,600
Jun 15, 2023
10
RAMSEY, JASON
IndividualBREVARD, NC
$6,600
May 8, 2023

Sen. Ossoff, Jon [D-GA]

ID: O000174

Top Contributors

10

1
THOMAS, TORI
IndividualMCLEAN, VA
$9,100
Jun 30, 2024
2
MCCLURE, RODERICK
RODFATHER PRODUCTIONS • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualALPHARETTA, GA
$6,600
Nov 25, 2024
3
MCCLURE, RODERICK
IndividualALPHARETTA, GA
$6,600
Dec 23, 2024
4
HOLLANDER, ELLEN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualROSWELL, GA
$5,000
Oct 6, 2024
5
HOLLANDER, ELLEN
IndividualROSWELL, GA
$5,000
Oct 14, 2024
6
MILLER, KRISTIE
SELF EMPLOYED • WRITER
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Jun 5, 2024
7
RECHNITZ, JOAN
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualRED BANK, NJ
$3,300
Apr 22, 2024
8
HOPPER, HEIDI
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualMENLO PARK, CA
$3,300
May 3, 2024
9
BRASCH, JOHN
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualLINCOLN, NE
$3,300
Apr 16, 2024
10
ARNOLD, JOHN
ARNOLD VENTURES • CO-FOUNDER
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$3,300
Apr 2, 2024

Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]

ID: C001088

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 27, 2023
2
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$1,700
Dec 27, 2023
3
CHEN, YU
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
4
MIRZAIE, REZA
RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024
5
CHEN, YU
NOT EMPLOYED • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
6
WASSERMAN, CASEY
WASSERMAN • CEO
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
7
ZHAO, PENG
CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
8
WASSERMAN, CASEY
WASSERMAN • CEO
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Nov 5, 2024
9
ZHAO, PENG
CITADEL SECURITIES • CEO
IndividualMIAMI, FL
$3,300
Dec 17, 2024
10
MIRZAIE, REZA
RUSS AUGUST & KABAT LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualPACIFIC PALISADES, CA
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024

Sen. Slotkin, Elissa [D-MI]

ID: S001208

Top Contributors

10

1
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
2
SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS
OrganizationSAULT SAINTE MARIE, MI
$3,300
Oct 31, 2024
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Mar 21, 2024
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Jun 30, 2024
6
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Jun 10, 2024
7
MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBAL NATION
OrganizationMASHANTUCKET, CT
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
8
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
9
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Sep 29, 2023
10
HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
Sep 27, 2024

Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]

ID: K000377

Top Contributors

10

1
PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE
OrganizationTUCSON, AZ
$3,300
Oct 23, 2023
2
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$2,500
May 23, 2024
3
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationSACATON, AZ
$1,000
Jun 15, 2023
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Aug 12, 2024
5
CORMIER, STEPHEN
IndividualMANSFIELD, LA
$6,000
Dec 31, 2023
6
LEWIS, PAUL
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualKINGMAN, AZ
$5,000
Oct 23, 2024
7
LEWIS, PAUL
IndividualKINGMAN, AZ
$5,000
Dec 6, 2024
8
BASS, JOSEPH P
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$5,000
Mar 29, 2024
9
PEROT, MARGOT B
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$5,000
Apr 8, 2024
10
MILLER, JUDITH
IndividualINDIANAPOLIS, IN
$5,000
Sep 11, 2024

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

ID: M001176

Top Contributors

10

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$2,500
Oct 17, 2024
2
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,500
Dec 30, 2023
3
SISSETON-WAHPETON OYATE
OrganizationAGENCY VILLAGE, SD
$2,000
Jun 21, 2024
4
CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND BANDS OF THE YAKAMA NATION
OrganizationTOPPENISH, WA
$1,000
Oct 7, 2024
5
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$1,000
Nov 9, 2023
6
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
May 2, 2024
7
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$1,000
Aug 2, 2024
8
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$400
Jul 17, 2023
9
STUBBS, MARILYN L.
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualPORTLAND, OR
$5,000
Jul 17, 2023
10
BARNHART, PHILIP N.
NOT EMPLOYED • RETIRED
IndividualEUGENE, OR
$5,000
Jun 21, 2024

Sen. Schiff, Adam B. [D-CA]

ID: S001150

Top Contributors

10

1
KOI NATION OF NORTHERN CA
OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA
$3,300
Feb 29, 2024
2
PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Feb 26, 2024
3
KOI NATION OF NORTHERN CA
OrganizationSANTA ROSA, CA
$3,300
Feb 29, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Mar 1, 2024
5
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Mar 1, 2024
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Sep 6, 2023
7
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS GENERAL FUND
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Aug 9, 2023
8
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,300
Sep 27, 2023
9
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS GENERAL FUND
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Aug 9, 2023
10
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Jul 21, 2023

Sen. Blunt Rochester, Lisa [D-DE]

ID: B001303

Top Contributors

10

1
PHAROS CAPITAL GROUP LLC
OrganizationBRENTWOOD, TN
$3,300
Dec 15, 2023
2
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
3
POMO BAND OF THE HABEMOTOLEL INDIANS
OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA
$3,300
May 17, 2024
4
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationMADILL, OK
$3,300
May 30, 2024
5
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationMADILL, OK
$3,300
May 30, 2024
6
THE DANIEL INITIATIVE, LLC
OrganizationSTAFFORD, VA
$3,300
Jul 24, 2023
7
TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LA
OrganizationMARKSVILLE, LA
$2,500
Sep 30, 2024
8
PHAROS CAPITAL GROUP LLC
OrganizationBRENTWOOD, TN
$2,300
Dec 15, 2023
9
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$2,000
Mar 31, 2024
10
1634 ASSOCIATES
OrganizationPHILADELPHIA, PA
$2,000
Sep 30, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 68 nodes and 45 connections (76 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $205,396

Top Donors - Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

Showing top 17 donors by contribution amount

13 Orgs4 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2 amends the Higher Education Act to provide interest-free deferment on student loans for borrowers in medical or dental internship/residency programs, reducing loan costs and potentially increasing enrollment in medical education programs, which benefits for-profit education providers that offer such programs.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

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

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 371-373AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The REDI Act provides interest-free deferment for medical/dental residents, which offers temporary relief but does not align with Project 2025's proposed IDR plan featuring income-based payments, poverty-line exemptions, and opposition to loan forgiveness. While both address student loan burdens, the REDI Act's narrow, profession-specific deferment contrasts with Project 2025's broad, structural repayment reform."

Key themes:student loan repaymentfinancial burden reliefDepartment of Education policy

— 338 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise a new IDR plan. The new plan should have an income exemption equal to the poverty line and require payments of 10 percent of income above the exemption. If new legislation is possible, there should be no loan forgiveness, but if not, existing law would require forgiving any remaining balance after 25 years. President Biden has proposed a new income-driven repayment program that would be extremely generous to borrowers, requiring only nominal payments from most students. It would turn every policy lever to the most generous setting on record (e.g., lowering the percentage of income owed from 10 percent to 25 per- cent under existing plans to 5 percent, lowering the number of years of payment required from 20 or 25 years to 10 years, and increasing income exemption from 150 percent to 225 percent of the poverty line). The median borrower who earns an associate degree would owe only $15 a month, regardless of how much he or she had borrowed. The median bachelor’s degree borrower would owe only $68 a month. This plan essentially converts these student loans into delayed grant programs. OTHER STRUCTURAL REFORMS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REQUIRES Reform Federal Education Data Collection The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and other data col- lections currently release data by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, English language proficiency, disability, and sex. However, one of the most important—if not the most important—factor influencing student educational achievement and attainment is family structure. As education scholar Ian Rowe has noted, NAEP already collects data on students’ family structure; it just does not make those data publicly available. l The Department of Education (or whichever agency collects such data long term) should make student data available by family structure to the public, including as part of its Data Explorer tool. l As discussed above, data collection efforts should be consolidated under the Census Bureau. l Data collection efforts in higher education should also be improved by housing higher education data at the Department of Labor. This would provide more transparency in evaluating postsecondary education and workforce training program outcomes; contextualize those results based on trends observed more generally; enable the adjusting of real — 339 — Department of Education wages to account for regional differences in earnings and cost of living; and develop a reliable methodology for risk adjusting institutional and program outcomes to more accurately reflect the value added of education programs (as opposed to their admissions selectivity). Currently the Department of Education relies on graduation rates and average earnings as proxies for educational quality. Both of those outcomes, however, are highly dependent upon a student’s socioeconomic background, sex, family status, and other factors. Colleges and universities with selective admissions policies post the strongest outcomes, primarily because they admit mostly low-risk, traditional students. Open enrollment institutions post the weakest outcomes, largely because life is challenging and complicated for low-income and non-traditional students, who may be forced to drop out when a work schedule changes, a child needs more attention, or an unexpected repair or medical bill makes continuing impossible. Such confounding factors make it difficult to isolate the impact of educational qual- ity versus socioeconomic factors on student outcomes. The Department of Health and Human Services faced similar challenges in trying to evaluate healthcare out- comes since social determinants of health result in worse health outcomes among those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged, have low educational attainment levels, have struggled with addiction, or have poor diet and exercise habits. Without risk adjustment of outcomes, hospitals treating wealthy patients will always appear to be delivering good care, and hospitals treating low-income patients will appear to be delivering poor care. Higher education outcomes data should be similarly “risk adjusted” to more carefully isolate the impact of educational quality versus socioeconomic status and other factors on college outcomes. Reform the Negotiated Rulemaking Process at ED The U.S. Department of Education is required by statute14 to engage in nego- tiated rulemaking prior to promulgating new regulations under Subchapter 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as well as Subchapters II (Teacher Quality Enhancements) and IV of the Higher Education Act of 1964 (Student Assistance). The purpose of negotiated rulemaking is to engage a committee of stakeholders early in the drafting of proposed regulations to ensure that the reg- ulation can be implemented as written, to understand any potential unintended consequences, and to seek suggestions from stakeholders on alternative solutions. The goal is for the negotiators to reach a consensus, thus smoothing the way to promulgate a new rule. Although it is helpful for the department to receive stakeholder input, the negotiated rulemaking process has become an expensive and time-consuming undertaking. Consensus is only rarely reached, enabling the department to pursue its own path. The department’s master calendar (which requires final rules to be

Department of Education

Weak
Vector: 61%
Pages: 368-370AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The REDI Act focuses on providing interest-free deferment for medical/dental residents, while the Project 2025 excerpt emphasizes rolling back income-driven repayment plans and other regulations; both touch on student loan policy but have opposing goals regarding loan relief generosity."

Key themes:student loansfederal education policyloan repayment/deferment

— 336 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise on civil rights, the next conservative Administration should take sweeping action to assure that the purpose of the Civil Rights Act is not inverted through a disparate impact standard to provide a pretext for theoretically endless federal meddling. Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities; Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Equity in IDEA) l Effective January 18, 2017, the department issued final regulations under Part B of IDEA that require states to consider race and ethnicity in the identification, placement, and discipline of students with disabilities. The new Administration should rescind this regulation. Students should never be denied access to special education services because of their race or ethnicity, but this is happening in school districts across the country thanks to the Obama Administration’s Equity in IDEA regulation. This was not the intent of the regulation, but it is an inevitable byproduct of its flawed assumptions. The Obama Administration looked at the racial statistics on special education assignment and made two assumptions: that African American students were dis- proportionately overrepresented, and that this overrepresentation constituted a harm that required federal pressure to ameliorate. School districts deemed to overrepresent minority students in special education assignment, or in discipline amongst special education students, are tagged by their state education agencies as engaging in “significant disproportionality,” and are required to reallocate 15 percent of their IDEA Part B money into coordinated early intervening services that are intended to address the “root causes of dispro- portionality.” In practice, this can mean raiding special education funding to pay for CRT-inspired “equity” consultants and professional development. This is especially problematic given that both of the assumptions behind Equity in IDEA are flawed. Special education services provide extra assistance to students; they do not harm them. And according to the most rigorous research on the subject, conducted by Penn State’s Paul Morgan, black students are actually underrep- resented in special education once adequate statistical controls are made. That means that this regulation effectively further depresses the provision of valuable services to an already underserved group. l The next Administration should immediately commence rulemaking to rescind the Equity in IDEA regulation. No replacement regulation is required. l The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) should prepare a digest of the best research on this subject and share — 337 — Department of Education it directly with state superintendents and state special education leaders across the country, who have been led by this regulation to believe a false problem diagnosis. Every effort should be made to dissuade states from continuing to operate on the assumption that overrepresentation requires state intervention after the federal pressure is rescinded. Provide School Meals to Children in Need; Do Not Use Federal Meals to Support Radical Ideology In May 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) tried to advance a radical political agenda using the federal school meal program. Nearly a century ago, federal lawmakers adopted the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) and other services that provide meals for K–12 students to give children from low-income families access to food while at school. Since the 1940s, federal lawmakers have greatly expanded these meal programs, creating an entitlement for nearly all students, regardless of family income levels, and have turned the meal programs into some of the most wasteful federal pro- grams in Washington. Now, the USDA is threatening to withhold federal taxpayer spending for these meals from schools that do not implement Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 so that the term “sex” is replaced with “sexual orientation and gender identity” (SOGI). l The next Administration should prohibit the USDA or any other federal agency from withholding services from federal or state agencies—including but not limited to K–12 schools—that choose not to replace “sex” with “SOGI” in that agency’s administration of Title IX. The Administration will have significant support for this policy change among state officials and Members of Congress. Twenty-two state attorneys general filed a lawsuit after the USDA’s announcement that the agency intended to withhold spending from schools that do not replace sex with SOGI. Members of Congress also introduced legislation in 2022 that would prohibit the agency from carrying out its intentions regarding Title IX. Phase Out Existing Income-Driven Repayment Plans While income-driven repayment (IDR) of student loans is a superior approach relative to fixed payment plans, the number of IDR plans has proliferated beyond reason. And recent IDR plans are so generous that they require no or only token repayment from many students. l The Secretary should phase out all existing IDR plans by making new loans (including consolidation loans) ineligible and should implement

Department of Education

Weak
Vector: 60%
Pages: 371-373AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the REDI Act and the Project 2025 Department of Education section address student loan relief, but the REDI Act offers a narrow, interest‑free deferment for medical/dental residents while Project 2025 proposes a broad income‑driven repayment plan with specific payment and forgiveness parameters; there is little direct overlap in design or intent."

Key themes:student loan debt reliefinterest accrualborrower assistancehigher education policytargeted financial relief

— 338 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise a new IDR plan. The new plan should have an income exemption equal to the poverty line and require payments of 10 percent of income above the exemption. If new legislation is possible, there should be no loan forgiveness, but if not, existing law would require forgiving any remaining balance after 25 years. President Biden has proposed a new income-driven repayment program that would be extremely generous to borrowers, requiring only nominal payments from most students. It would turn every policy lever to the most generous setting on record (e.g., lowering the percentage of income owed from 10 percent to 25 per- cent under existing plans to 5 percent, lowering the number of years of payment required from 20 or 25 years to 10 years, and increasing income exemption from 150 percent to 225 percent of the poverty line). The median borrower who earns an associate degree would owe only $15 a month, regardless of how much he or she had borrowed. The median bachelor’s degree borrower would owe only $68 a month. This plan essentially converts these student loans into delayed grant programs. OTHER STRUCTURAL REFORMS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REQUIRES Reform Federal Education Data Collection The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and other data col- lections currently release data by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, English language proficiency, disability, and sex. However, one of the most important—if not the most important—factor influencing student educational achievement and attainment is family structure. As education scholar Ian Rowe has noted, NAEP already collects data on students’ family structure; it just does not make those data publicly available. l The Department of Education (or whichever agency collects such data long term) should make student data available by family structure to the public, including as part of its Data Explorer tool. l As discussed above, data collection efforts should be consolidated under the Census Bureau. l Data collection efforts in higher education should also be improved by housing higher education data at the Department of Labor. This would provide more transparency in evaluating postsecondary education and workforce training program outcomes; contextualize those results based on trends observed more generally; enable the adjusting of real

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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills