Protecting Students on Campus Act of 2025

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/s/163
Last Updated: January 6, 2026

Sponsored by

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

ID: C001075

Follow the money

The bill

Protecting Students on Campus Act of 2025

S. 163, 119th Congress — read as touching For-Profit Education & Student Loans.

The sponsor

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

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

The money

$162,500 raised

20 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. 362-364 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. Committee consideration and Mark Up Session held.

April 29, 2025

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 masterpiece of legislative theater, brought to you by the esteemed Senator Cassidy and his trusty sidekick, Senator Fetterman. The "Protecting Students on Campus Act of 2025" is a bill that promises to address the pressing issue of... wait for it... making sure students know where to file complaints about discrimination.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The main purpose of this bill is to create the illusion of action while doing nothing meaningful. It's a classic case of "legislative placebo." The objective is to make it seem like Congress cares about protecting students from discrimination, while actually just creating more bureaucratic red tape and opportunities for grandstanding.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires institutions of higher education to display information about Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (because apparently, no one knew it existed) and provide a link to the Office for Civil Rights' webpage. It also mandates an annual public awareness campaign, because what every student needs is more pamphlets and posters. Oh, and let's not forget the monthly briefings to Congress, where the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights will regale lawmakers with tales of complaint numbers and investigation timelines.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The affected parties include institutions of higher education, which will have to waste resources on compliance; students, who might actually think this bill does something meaningful; and the Office for Civil Rights, which gets to expand its bureaucratic empire. The real stakeholders, however, are the politicians who get to tout this bill as a victory for civil rights.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The potential impact of this bill is zero. Zilch. Nada. It's a feel-good measure that won't actually address any systemic issues or provide meaningful protections for students. The implications are that Congress will continue to prioritize grandstanding over actual governance, and the public will remain none the wiser.

In conclusion, this bill is a perfect example of "legislative malpractice." It's a cynical attempt to create the illusion of action while doing nothing to address the real problems facing students on campus. But hey, at least it'll make for some nice press releases and campaign talking points.

Related Topics

Civil Rights & LibertiesEducation & Student Aid
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$162,500
20 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$0
Committees
$0
Individuals
$162,500

No PAC contributions found

No organization contributions found

No committee contributions found

1
YAWITZ, JESS B. MR.
1 transaction
$14,000
2
MANDELBLATT, DANIELLE
1 transaction
$9,900
3
MANDELBLATT, ERIC
1 transaction
$9,900
4
JAYASINGHE, SAMAN K. DR.
1 transaction
$9,900
5
KARP, ALEXANDER C.
1 transaction
$9,900
6
OBERNDORF, SUSAN
1 transaction
$9,900
7
OBERNDORF, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$9,900
8
YAWITZ, ALICE G.
1 transaction
$9,900
9
GRIGSBY, BOBBI F. MRS.
1 transaction
$6,600
10
GRIGSBY, L. LANE MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
11
GOLDEN, GRADY CARLTON MR. JR.
1 transaction
$6,600
12
MYERS, GINGER
1 transaction
$6,600
13
MYERS, KEITH MR.
1 transaction
$6,600
14
GATES, MELINDA FRENCH
1 transaction
$6,600
15
MEHLMAN, KENNETH B.
1 transaction
$6,600
16
HAGER, SUSAN
1 transaction
$6,600
17
PANDE, VIJAY
1 transaction
$6,600
18
ROM, COLIN
1 transaction
$6,600
19
KAPLAN, JONATHAN L.
1 transaction
$6,600
20
KAY, ALISON
1 transaction
$6,600

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 6 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]

ID: F000479

Top Contributors

10

1
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,000
Feb 9, 2024
2
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Nov 29, 2023
3
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 18, 2024
4
SIMMS, RONALD
RONALD SIMMS REAL ESTATE • PRINCIPAL
IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA
$6,700
Jun 18, 2024
5
SIMMS, RONALD
IndividualBEVERLY HILLS, CA
$3,400
Aug 15, 2024
6
ADLERSTEIN, ARI
SELF EMPLOYED • FINANCIAL ADVISOR
IndividualMERION STATION, PA
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024
7
GOLDMAN, AMIR
SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP • VENTURE CAPITALIST
IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA
$3,300
Oct 6, 2024
8
GOLDMAN, AMIR
SUSQUEHANNA INTERNATIONAL GROUP • VENTURE CAPITALIST
IndividualBALA CYNWYD, PA
$3,300
Oct 6, 2024
9
LEPRINO, TERRY
LEPRINO FOODS • OWNER
IndividualDENVER, CO
$3,300
Nov 1, 2024
10
MAYER, ABRAHAM
AFTON PROPERTIES • PRINCIPAL
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Dec 12, 2024

Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]

ID: C001035

Top Contributors

10

1
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
PACPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jun 28, 2023
2
SILBEY, ALEXANDER
ATS COMMUNICATIONS, INC, • CONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$6,600
Jul 23, 2024
3
ARNOLD, LAURA
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualHOUSTON, TX
$6,600
Aug 10, 2024
4
READ, KURT
RSF PARTNERS • PARTNER
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
5
COATES, CHRIS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualIRVING, TX
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
6
READ, KURT
RSF PARTNERS • PARTNER
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
7
CROTTY, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
8
COATES, CHRIS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualIRVING, TX
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
9
CROTTY, THOMAS
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualSCOTTSDALE, AZ
$3,300
Dec 29, 2023
10
YOUNGMAN, ANDREW
CITIZENS DISABILITY LLC • CEO
IndividualWEST NEWTON, MA
$3,300
Nov 20, 2023

Sen. Rosen, Jacky [D-NV]

ID: R000608

Top Contributors

10

1
PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
OrganizationTACOMA, WA
$3,700
Jul 31, 2024
2
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
3
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Sep 30, 2023
4
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$3,300
Dec 28, 2023
5
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 10, 2023
6
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 10, 2023
7
SYUCAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION
OrganizationEL CAJON, CA
$3,300
Mar 31, 2023
8
POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS
OrganizationATMORE, AL
$3,300
Mar 28, 2024
9
SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA
OrganizationHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
10
MATCH-E-BE-NASH-SHE-WISH BAND OF POTTAWATOMI INDIANS
OrganizationSHELBYVILLE, MI
$3,300
Oct 21, 2024

Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

ID: G000555

Top Contributors

10

1
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, NY
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
2
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION
OrganizationONEIDA, NY
$3,300
Mar 29, 2023
3
THE CHICKASAW NATION
OrganizationADA, OK
$3,000
Mar 15, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$600
Jun 22, 2023
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$400
Jun 22, 2023
6
STRICKLER, DANIEL B. JR.
BEECHTREE CAPITAL PARTNERS INC. • INVESTMENTS
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$6,200
Mar 24, 2023
7
ROSENWALD, E. JOHN JR.
JP MORGAN • VICE CHAIRMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,800
Oct 16, 2023
8
ROSENWALD, E. JOHN JR.
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$5,800
Nov 3, 2023
9
VENNERBERG, VAUGHN II
XTO ENERGY INC • PRESIDENT
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$5,800
Mar 14, 2023
10
VENNERBERG, VAUGHN II
IndividualDALLAS, TX
$5,800
Mar 27, 2023

Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]

ID: C001113

Top Contributors

10

1
LAS VEGAS PAIUTE TRIBE
OrganizationLAS VEGAS, NV
$3,300
Nov 28, 2023
2
MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
OrganizationCHOCTAW, MS
$2,500
Dec 20, 2023
3
ALABAMA-COUSHATTA TRIBE
OrganizationLIVINGSTON, TX
$1,500
Oct 2, 2024
4
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Apr 26, 2024
5
SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY
OrganizationPRIOR LAKE, MN
$1,000
Jul 11, 2023
6
MUSCOGEE CREEK NATION
OrganizationOKMULGEE, OK
$1,000
Sep 18, 2024
7
MOHEGAN TRIBE OF INDIANS OF CONNECTICUT
OrganizationUNCASVILLE, CT
$1,000
Aug 12, 2024
8
CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA
OrganizationDURANT, OK
$550
Oct 2, 2023
9
LONGTIN, LUANN
IndividualPOTOMAC, MD
$17,325
Jun 30, 2024
10
SLIFKA, ROSALYN
IndividualWALTHAM, MA
$5,800
Jun 30, 2024

Sen. McCormick, David [R-PA]

ID: M001243

Top Contributors

10

1
SIG SAUER PAC
PACPORTSMOUTH, NH
$2,500
Oct 4, 2024
2
SEGURO MEDICO LLC
OrganizationREADING, PA
$10,000
Aug 21, 2024
3
CLEMENTS MIDWAY PARTNERS LLC
OrganizationSALT LAKE CITY, UT
$10,000
Sep 16, 2024
4
BLOOMSBURG INDUSTRIAL VENTURES LLC
OrganizationBLOOMSBURG, PA
$4,000
Apr 23, 2024
5
SUN CENTER LP
OrganizationASTON, PA
$2,500
Dec 12, 2023
6
UTILITY ADVISORY GROUP LLC
OrganizationHAVERTOWN, PA
$1,500
May 7, 2024
7
MODEVITY LLC
OrganizationMALVERN, PA
$1,500
May 24, 2024
8
O'DONNELL PARTNERS LLC
OrganizationMALVERN, PA
$1,500
May 24, 2024
9
KRAUSE & ASSOCIATES LP
OrganizationAUSTIN, TX
$1,000
Dec 20, 2023
10
BLOOMSBURG INDUSTRIAL VENTURES LLC
OrganizationBLOOMSBURG, PA
$700
Apr 23, 2024

Donor Network - Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 69 nodes and 35 connections (46 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $207,900

Top Donors - Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA]

Showing top 20 donors by contribution amount

20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped, 2 harmed.

  • Section 2(b) amends HEA Section 487(a) to require institutions participating in Federal student aid programs to display OCR complaint links and post awareness campaign materials, imposing compliance costs on for-profit colleges that rely on federal aid.

  • Section 4(a) requires all institutions receiving Federal funds (including university hospitals) to submit annual discrimination complaint reports to the Inspector General, creating administrative burden.

  • +Labor Unionsconfidence 0.60

    Section 5 prohibits OCR from dismissing complaints resolved by other agencies, potentially strengthening union grievance processes and increasing oversight of employer discrimination, benefiting unions advocating for members.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Cassidy, Bill [R-LA])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 HARMS

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: 68%
Pages: 362-364AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on increasing Title VI awareness and reporting in higher education, while Project 2025 seeks to move OCR to the DOJ and reduce federal education oversight; there is minimal thematic overlap beyond civil rights enforcement."

Key themes:Title VIOffice for Civil Rightscivil rights enforcement

— 330 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise with the advice and consent of the Senate; (2) funded with annual appropriations from Congress; and (3) operated by professional managers. Federal loans would be assigned directly to the Treasury Department, which would manage collections and defaults. The new federal student loan authority would manage the loan port- folio, handle borrower relations, administer loan applications and disbursements, monitor institutional participation and accountability issues, and issue regulations. Office for Civil Rights (OCR) l OCR should move to the Department of Justice. The federal government has an essential responsibility to enforce civil rights protections, but Washington should do so through the Department of Justice and federal courts. The OCR at DOJ should be able to enforce only through litigation. Additional Bureaus and Offices For those attorneys, accountants, experts, and specialists in the department's remaining offices subject to closure whose positions might nevertheless be a key component of serving the mission—positions that might include the Office of the Secretary/Deputy Secretary, Office of the Undersecretary, Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Inspector General, Office of Finance and Operations, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Communications and Outreach, and Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs—the opportunity to join other agencies based on their expertise and the needs of other agencies should be made available. For example, OGC higher education lawyers would join the newly independent Federal Student Aid Office or the Department of Labor, and OGC civil rights attor- neys would join DOJ. These positions must first be determined to serve a continued mission need prior to being transferred. l Attorneys, accountants, experts, and specialists in the department’s remaining offices subject to closure, and whose positions are indispensable to serving the mission, should have the opportunity to join other agencies. Current Laws Relating to the Department of Education That Require Repeal In order to fully wind down the Department of Education, Congress must pass and the President must sign into law a Department of Education Reorganization Act (or Liquidating Authority Act) to direct the executive branch on how to devolve the agency as a stand-alone Cabinet-level department. l Congress should pass and the next President should sign a Department of Education Reorganization Act. — 331 — Department of Education Current Regulations Promulgated by or Relevant to the Agency That Should Be Rolled Back or Eliminated While the next Administration works to distribute department programs across the federal government, it will need to thoroughly review the many educa- tion-related regulations promulgated by the Biden Administration. There are five primary regulatory targets (as of December 2022) that require the next Adminis- tration’s attention: regulations on (1) Charter School Grant Program Priorities; (2) Civil Rights Data Collection; (3) Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Final Regulations; (4) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Title IX); and (5) Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Equity in IDEA). The next Administration should also review regulatory changes to the school meals program (under the Department of Agriculture) and changes to the Income-Driven student loan program. Additional Biden Administration regulations on (1) gainful employment, administrative capa- bility, and financial responsibility for institutions that participate in the federal student loans and grant programs; (2) Title VI, (3) accreditation of postsecondary institutions, and (4) female athletics are expected in to be released in 2023. l Thoroughly review the many education-related regulations promulgated by the Biden Administration, as well as the school meals program and the Income-Driven student loan program. Charter School Grant Programs Congress first authorized the Charter School Program (CSP) in 1994 [Title X, Part C of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 8061 et seq. (1994)]. It most recently reauthorized the program in 2015 as part of the Every Student Succeeds Act.13 On March 14, 2022, the department published a notice concerning proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and grant selection criteria relating to the award of federal grants to applicants in CSP. This proposal increases the federal footprint in the charter school sector by ignor- ing statute and adding to the list of requirements imposed on charter schools. l The new Administration must take immediate steps to rescind the new requirements and lessen the federal restrictions on charter schools. Civil Rights Data Collection On December 13, 2021, OCR published a notice concerning proposed revisions to OCR’s Mandatory Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) in which it proposed

Department of Education

Weak
Vector: 68%
Pages: 365-367AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on increasing awareness and transparency of Title VI protections against race, color, or national origin discrimination in higher education, while the Project 2025 policy section primarily addresses reversing Biden-era Title IX regulations related to sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation in education. Although both involve the Office for Civil Rights and civil rights enforcement in education, they concern different statutes (Title VI vs. Title IX) and distinct policy obje"

Key themes:Office for Civil Rightscivil rights enforcementhigher educationdiscrimination protectionsfederal education policy

— 333 — Department of Education discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities. Instead, the Biden Administration has sought to trample women’s and girls’ athletic oppor- tunities and due process on campus, threaten free speech and religious liberty, and erode parental rights in elementary and secondary education regarding sensitive issues of sex. The new Administration should take the following steps: l Work with Congress to use the earliest available legislative vehicle to prohibit the department from using any appropriations or from otherwise enforcing any final regulations under Title IX promulgated by the department during the prior Administration. l Commence a new agency rulemaking process to rescind the current Administration’s Title IX regulations; restore the Title IX regulations promulgated by then-Secretary Betsy DeVos on May 19, 2020; and define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth. l Work with Congress to amend Title IX to include due process requirements; define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth; and strengthen protections for faith-based educational institutions, programs, and activities. The Trump Administration’s 2020 Title IX regulation protected the founda- tional right to due process for those who are accused of sexual misconduct. The Biden Administration’s proposed change to the interpretation of Title IX disposes of these rights. l The next Administration should move quickly to restore the rights of women and girls and restore due process protections for accused individuals. At the same time, there is no scientific or legal basis for redefining “sex” to “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX. Such a change misrepresents the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock, threatens the American system of federalism, removes important due process protections for students in higher education, and puts girls and women in danger of physical harm. Facilitating social gender transition without parental consent increases the likelihood that children will seek hormone treatments, such as puberty blockers, which are experimental medical interventions. Research has not demonstrated positive effects and long- term outcomes of these treatments, and the unintended side effects are still not fully understood. — 334 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l The next Administration should abandon this change redefining “sex” to mean “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX immediately across all departments. l On its first day in office, the next Administration should signal its intent to enter the rulemaking process to restore the Trump Administration’s Title IX regulation, with the additional insistence that “sex” is properly understood as a fixed biological fact. Official notice-and-comment should be posted immediately. l At the same time, the political appointees in the Office for Civil Rights should begin a full review of all Title IX investigations that were conducted on the understanding that “sex” referred to gender identity and/or sexual orientation. l All ongoing investigations should be dropped, and all school districts affected should be given notice that they are free to drop any policy changes pursued under pressure from the Biden Administration. l The OCR Assistant Secretary should prepare a report of OCR’s actions for the new Secretary of Education, who should—by speech or letter— publicize the nature of the overreach engaged in by his predecessor. l The Secretary should make it clear that FERPA allows parents full access to their children’s educational records, so any practice of paperwork obfuscation on this front violates federal law. Title VI—School Discipline and Disparate Impact Assuring a safe and orderly school environment should be a primary consid- eration for school leaders and district administrators. Unfortunately, federal overreach has pushed many school leaders to prioritize the pursuit of racial parity in school discipline indicators—such as detentions, suspensions, and expulsions— over student safety. In 2014, the Obama Administration issued a Dear Colleague Letter that muddied the standard for civil rights enforcement under Title VI for student discipline cases. Before the DCL, a school would be in violation of federal law for treating black and white students differently for the same offense (dispa- rate treatment); under the Obama Administration schools were at risk of losing federal funding if they treated black and white students equally but had aggregate differences in the rates of school discipline by race (disparate impact). OCR leveraged federal civil rights investigations as policy enforcement tools; these investigations could only end when school districts agreed to adopt lenient

Department of Education

Weak
Vector: 66%
Pages: 365-367AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill addresses Title VI awareness and reporting, while the Project 2025 excerpt focuses on Title IX reforms, rescinding regulations, and defining sex biologically; they share only a general theme of civil rights enforcement in education but differ in substantive objectives and direction."

Key themes:Department of EducationOffice for Civil Rightscivil rights enforcementtransparencycomplaint reporting

— 332 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to create and collect data on a new “nonbinary” sex category (in addition to the current “male” or “female” sex categories) and to retire data collection that indi- cates the number of (1) high school–level interscholastic athletics sports in which only male and female students participate, (2) high school–level athletics teams in which only male or female students participate, and (3) participants on high school–level interscholastic athletics sports teams in which only male or only female students participate. These poorly conceived changes are contrary to law, fail to take account of student privacy interests and statutory protections favoring parental rights under the Protection of Pupils Rights Amendment, and jettison longstanding data collections that assist in the enforcement of Title IX. l The new Administration must quickly move to rescind these changes, which add a new “nonbinary” sex category to OCR’S data collection and issue a new CRDC that will collect data directly relevant to OCR’s statutory enforcement authority. Student Assistance General Provisions, Federal Perkins Loan Program, and William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program Final Regulations Effective July 1, 2023, the department promulgated final regulations addressing loan forgiveness under the HEA’s provisions for borrower defense to repayment (“BDR”), closed school loan discharge (“CSLD”), and public service loan forgive- ness (“PSLF”). The regulations also included prohibitions against pre-dispute arbitration agreements and class action waivers for students enrolling in institu- tions participating in Title IV student loan programs. Acting outside of statutory authority, the current Administration has drastically expanded BDR, CSLD, and PSLF loan forgiveness without clear congressional authorization at a tremendous cost to the taxpayers, with estimates ranging from $85.1 to $120 billion. l The new Administration must quickly commence negotiated rulemaking and propose that the department rescind these regulations. l The next Administration should also rescind Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) GEN 22-11 and DCL GEN 22-10 and its letters to accreditation agencies dated July 19, 2022, which are attempts to undercut Florida’s SB 7044, providing universities more flexibility on accreditation. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance (Title IX) With its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on July 12, 2022, the Biden Education Department seeks to gut the hard-earned rights of women with its changes to the department’s regulations implementing Title IX, which prohibits — 333 — Department of Education discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities. Instead, the Biden Administration has sought to trample women’s and girls’ athletic oppor- tunities and due process on campus, threaten free speech and religious liberty, and erode parental rights in elementary and secondary education regarding sensitive issues of sex. The new Administration should take the following steps: l Work with Congress to use the earliest available legislative vehicle to prohibit the department from using any appropriations or from otherwise enforcing any final regulations under Title IX promulgated by the department during the prior Administration. l Commence a new agency rulemaking process to rescind the current Administration’s Title IX regulations; restore the Title IX regulations promulgated by then-Secretary Betsy DeVos on May 19, 2020; and define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth. l Work with Congress to amend Title IX to include due process requirements; define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth; and strengthen protections for faith-based educational institutions, programs, and activities. The Trump Administration’s 2020 Title IX regulation protected the founda- tional right to due process for those who are accused of sexual misconduct. The Biden Administration’s proposed change to the interpretation of Title IX disposes of these rights. l The next Administration should move quickly to restore the rights of women and girls and restore due process protections for accused individuals. At the same time, there is no scientific or legal basis for redefining “sex” to “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX. Such a change misrepresents the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock, threatens the American system of federalism, removes important due process protections for students in higher education, and puts girls and women in danger of physical harm. Facilitating social gender transition without parental consent increases the likelihood that children will seek hormone treatments, such as puberty blockers, which are experimental medical interventions. Research has not demonstrated positive effects and long- term outcomes of these treatments, and the unintended side effects are still not fully understood.

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