No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/7892
Last Updated: July 22, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]

ID: O000086

Follow the money

The bill

No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026

HR. 7892, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]

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

The money

$127,006 raised

22 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. 383-385 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

June 10, 2026

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

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 masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of our esteemed Congress. The "No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026" - because, you know, the real problem with higher education is those pesky ghost students sucking up all the financial aid. (Sarcasm alert)

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's stated purpose is to prevent identity fraud in the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) process by implementing an identity fraud detection system. How noble. In reality, this is just a thinly veiled attempt to further bureaucratize and complicate the already Byzantine financial aid system, ensuring that only those with the means to navigate it will actually receive aid.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require the Secretary of Education to use an identity fraud detection system to screen FAFSA applications. Because, you know, the current system of verification processes wasn't already sufficient. The new system will flag applications with a "reasonable suspicion of identity fraud" - a term so vague it's practically an invitation for abuse. Institutions will be required to verify identities using in-person or live audiovisual methods, because who needs online convenience when you can have unnecessary hassle?

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include students (particularly those from low-income backgrounds), institutions of higher education, and the Secretary of Education. But let's be real, the only stakeholders who truly matter are the lobbyists for the identity verification industry, who will no doubt reap a windfall from this new requirement.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact is a further widening of the gap between those who can afford to navigate the financial aid system and those who cannot. This bill will disproportionately affect marginalized communities, who already face significant barriers to accessing higher education. The additional verification requirements will create more bureaucratic red tape, ensuring that only the most determined (or wealthy) students will persevere. And, of course, the identity verification industry will get a nice boost. It's a win-win for everyone - except, you know, the actual students.

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of legislative malpractice. It's a solution in search of a problem, designed to benefit special interests rather than the people it's supposed to help. But hey, who needs effective governance when you can have pointless grandstanding?

Related Topics

Education & Student Aid
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$127,006
22 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$5,300
Committees
$0
Individuals
$121,706

No PAC contributions found

1
UTE INDIAN TRIBE
1 transaction
$3,300
2
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,000

No committee contributions found

1
PALMER, JEFFERY
1 transaction
$13,200
2
JENKINS, JAMES W.
1 transaction
$10,000
3
HOLSCHER, KELLY
1 transaction
$6,600
4
LISONBEE, DAVID
1 transaction
$6,600
5
OVERHOLT, DAVID W. MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
6
DAICHENDT, JOE
1 transaction
$6,600
7
GRIFFIN, KENNETH
1 transaction
$6,600
8
PALMER, KELLY
1 transaction
$6,600
9
TAYLOR, MARGARETTA J. MS.
1 transaction
$6,600
10
LEVEY, ARTHUR
1 transaction
$6,600
11
FISHER, KENNETH
1 transaction
$6,600
12
FISHER, SHERRILYN
1 transaction
$6,600
13
MCGOVERN, JAMES F.
1 transaction
$5,000
14
HONIG, KEN
1 transaction
$5,000
15
CANNATELLI, ED
1 transaction
$5,000
16
DUCKWORTH, RICHARD
1 transaction
$4,306
17
CARTER, CHRISTOPHER
1 transaction
$3,300
18
OVERHOLT, SELENA
1 transaction
$3,300
19
DREYFUS, ALFRED MR.
1 transaction
$3,300
20
DAMSKI, SETH MR.
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 4 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rep. Kiley, Kevin [R-CA-3]

ID: K000401

Top Contributors

10

1
WINRED
COMARLINGTON, VA
$30
Oct 24, 2024
2
WINRED
COMARLINGTON, VA
$10
Oct 29, 2024
3
BENNETT WEST ROSEVILLE LLC
NOT INCORPORATED
OrganizationORANGEVALE, CA
$3,000
Oct 21, 2024
4
NICHOLSON & OLSON, CPAS
UNINCORPORATED PARTNERSHIP
OrganizationROSEVILLE, CA
$750
Jun 28, 2023
5
NASH, JILL
N/A • NOT EMPLOYOED
IndividualLINCOLN, CA
$6,600
Jul 22, 2024
6
ROWE, SUSAN
N/A • NOT EMPLOYED
IndividualBAKERSFIELD, CA
$6,600
May 20, 2024
7
BURKE, TIM
QUEST TECHNOLOGY • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualORANGEVALE, CA
$6,600
Oct 10, 2024
8
SMYTH, CHARLES
IndividualGRANITE BAY, CA
$6,600
Nov 3, 2024
9
FRANCK, KASI
SELF • DENTIST
IndividualROCKLIN, CA
$6,600
Dec 28, 2023
10
BRADLEY, KATHERINE
CITYBRIDGE FOUNDATION • BOARD CHAIR
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$5,000
Sep 11, 2024

Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6]

ID: G000576

Top Contributors

10

1
HO CHUNK NATION
OrganizationBLACK RIVER FALLS, WI
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
2
GENTINE, LOUIS P. II
SARGENTO • EXECUTIVE
IndividualELKHART LAKE, WI
$13,200
Mar 15, 2024
3
SCHLIFSKE, JOHN E.
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL • GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
IndividualELM GROVE, WI
$6,600
Mar 22, 2024
4
SCHLIFSKE, KIM C.
HOMEMAKER • HOMEMAKER
IndividualELM GROVE, WI
$6,600
Mar 22, 2024
5
LEVY, EDWARD
EDWARD C LEVY CO • CHAIRMAN
IndividualBIRMINGHAM, MI
$6,600
Apr 10, 2024
6
KRESS, DONALD F.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualGREEN BAY, WI
$5,000
Nov 22, 2023
7
WELLS, CECELIA A.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMEQUON, WI
$5,000
Jun 30, 2023
8
WELLS, CECELIA
IndividualMEQUON, WI
$5,000
Jun 30, 2023
9
AYLWARD, RICHARD J. MR.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualNEENAH, WI
$4,000
Mar 15, 2024
10
KRESS, DONALD F.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualGREEN BAY, WI
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023

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

ID: F000450

Top Contributors

10

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$3,300
Apr 26, 2024
2
EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS
OrganizationCHEROKEE, NC
$2,000
Dec 18, 2023
3
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF CHUMASH INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$2,000
Mar 11, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,650
May 31, 2023
5
CATAWBA NATION TRIBE
OrganizationROCK HILL, SC
$1,500
Mar 1, 2024
6
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,500
Jun 30, 2023
7
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,500
Apr 29, 2024
8
MOORE, JOHN T. MR.
MARWOOD GROUP • CEO
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,000
Aug 26, 2024
9
BARKER, PATRICIA M. MRS.
BOB BARKER CO • CORP SECRETARY
IndividualFUQUAY VARINA, NC
$3,300
Oct 28, 2024
10
DRESCHER, STEPHANIE MS.
APOLLO • PARTNER
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Nov 4, 2024

Rep. Obernolte, Jay [R-CA-23]

ID: O000019

Top Contributors

10

1
PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
OrganizationTEMECULA, CA
$3,300
Dec 18, 2023
2
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Nov 11, 2024
3
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Mar 31, 2024
4
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
OrganizationPALM SPRINGS, CA
$3,300
Jun 6, 2023
5
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$3,300
Jun 20, 2023
6
SANTA YNEZ BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationSANTA YNEZ, CA
$3,300
Jun 6, 2023
7
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Apr 14, 2023
8
SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
9
SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Sep 16, 2024
10
SHINGLE SPRINGS BAND OF MIWOK INDIANS
OrganizationPLACERVILLE, CA
$2,000
Oct 24, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 62 nodes and 34 connections (49 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $170,346

Top Donors - Rep. Owens, Burgess [R-UT-4]

Showing top 22 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

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

  • Section 2(b)(1)(B) requires institutions to verify identity of applicants flagged by fraud detection before disbursing federal aid, imposing additional compliance costs on for-profit colleges that rely heavily on FAFSA-based aid.

  • −Labor Unionsconfidence 0.70

    Section 2(b)(1)(B) mandates identity verification procedures that may increase administrative burdens on higher education institutions, potentially affecting staff represented by labor unions such as SEIU or AFSCME.

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: 383-385AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses identity fraud prevention in the FAFSA process, whereas Project 2025's Department of Education section focuses on school choice, accreditation reform, and state opt-out of federal programs; the only common ground is a general concern for the integrity of Title IV student aid funds."

Key themes:Department of EducationTitle IV student aidfederal aid integrity

— 351 — Department of Education as the Educational Choice for Children Act. This bill would create a federal scholarship tax credit that would incentivize donors to contribute to nonprofit scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). Eligible families could then use that funding from the SGOs for their children’s education expenses including private school tuition, tutoring, and instructional materials. ADDITIONAL K–12 REFORMS Allowing States to Opt Out of Federal Education Programs. States should be able to opt out of federal education programs such as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. Much of the red tape and regulations that hinder local school districts are handed down from Washington. This regulatory burden far exceeds the federal government’s less than 10 percent financing share of K–12 education. In the most recent fiscal year (FY 2022), states and localities financed 93 percent of K–12 education costs, and the federal government just 7 percent. That 7 percent share should not allow the federal government to dictate state and local education policy. l To restore state and local control of education and reduce the bureaucratic and compliance burden, Congress should allow states to opt out of the dozens of federal K–12 education programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and instead allow states to put their share of federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. This policy has been advanced over the years via a proposal known as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act. HIGHER EDUCATION REFORM HEA: Accreditation Reform Congress established two primary responsibilities for the U.S. Department of Education in the HEA: 1) to ensure the “administrative capacity and financial responsibility” of colleges and universities that accept Title IV funds; and 2) to ensure the quality of those institutions. Congress did not endow the Department of Education with the authority to involve itself in academic quality issues relating to colleges and universities that participate in the Title IV student aid program; the HEA allows the agency only to recognize accreditors, which are then supposed to provide quality assurance measures. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed closely in the footsteps of the Obama Administration by engaging in a politically motivated and incon- sistent administration of the accrediting agency recognition process. As a result, accreditors have transformed into de facto government agents. Despite claims by — 352 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise the department and accreditation agencies that accreditation is voluntary, the fact that Americans are denied access to an otherwise widely available entitle- ment benefit if the institution “elects” to not be accredited makes accreditation anything but voluntary. Today, accreditation determines whether Americans can access federal student aid benefits, transfer academic credits, enroll in higher-level degree programs, and even qualify for federal employment. Unnecessarily focused on schools in a specific geographic region, institutional accreditation reviews have also become wildly expensive audits by academic “peers” that stifle innovation and discourage new institutions of higher education. Of par- ticular concern are efforts by many accreditation agencies to leverage their Title IV (student loans and grants) gatekeeper roles to force institutions to adopt policies that have nothing to do with academic quality assurance and student outcomes. One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced col- leges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools. Perhaps more distress- ingly, accreditors, while professing support for academic freedom and campus free speech, have presided over a precipitous decline in both over the past decade. Despite maintaining criteria that demand such policies, accreditors have done nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade. The current system is not working. A radical overhaul of the HEA’s accreditation requirements is thus in order. The next Administration should work with Congress to amend the HEA and should consider the following reforms: l Prohibit accreditation agencies from leveraging their Title IV gatekeeper role to mandate that educational institutions adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. l Protect the sovereignty of states to decide governance and leadership issues for their state-supported colleges and universities by prohibiting accreditation agencies from intruding upon the governance of state-supported educational institutions. l Protect faith-based institutions by prohibiting accreditation agencies from: 1. Requiring standards and criteria that undermine the religious beliefs of, or require policies or conduct that conflict with, the religious mission or religious beliefs of the institution; and

Department of Education

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 386-388AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on preventing identity fraud in federal student aid through verification systems, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes reforming accreditation, privatizing student loans, and limiting federal loan forgiveness authority. There is minimal thematic overlap, as the bill does not address accreditation, loan structure, or Secretary’s forgiveness powers."

Key themes:Higher Education ActFederal student aidDepartment of Education oversight

— 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: 62%
Pages: 389-391AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on preventing identity fraud in federal student aid, while the Project 2025 Education section emphasizes guidance document reform, First Amendment protections, degree requirements, and transparency initiatives; there is only a tangential shared goal of improving program integrity and accountability."

Key themes:program integrityfederal student aid oversightaccountability

— 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.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills