A Democratic bill with 3 Democratic cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
- This bill is known as the Protecting Students from Worthless Degrees Act.
- It sets new rules that higher education programs must follow if they prepare students for jobs that require state licensing.
- Programs must ensure that students can take required exams and get licensed in the places where the school says they will be prepared to work.
- Schools must also provide timely hands-on training like clinical placements, internships, or apprenticeships.
- The bill creates strict debt-to-earnings limits for programs to ensure that students are not trapped with high loan payments compared to what they earn after graduating.
- Schools cannot get federal funds for programs that repeatedly fail these debt-to-earnings standards.
Yes· 3 of 10
- Scored +6
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Young adults and college students are protected from low-value degree programs and heavy student loan debt.
- Scored +6
Would students be better off under this?
Students benefit directly from mandatory licensure preparation, guaranteed training placement, and debt protections.
- Scored +6
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
The legislation establishes consumer protections for students, ensuring they receive proper licensing preparation and value.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this make it easier to use public money at a school other than the local one?
Program closures resulting from failed debt-to-earnings metrics could reduce educational choices for students.
- Scored -1
Would business owners be better off under this?
Proprietary and vocational institutions face stricter operational standards and potential funding loss.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Better job preparation: Under Section 3, schools wanting federal funds for career and training programs must ensure that completing the program fully qualifies a student to take required entry exams and meet licensing requirements in the states where the school markets its programs. This protects everyday people from spending time and money on a degree that does not actually let them work in their chosen field.
- Guaranteed hands-on training: Section 3 requires schools to provide timely placement for required pre-licensure steps, such as clinical placements, internships, or apprenticeships. This helps students finish their schooling on time without unnecessary delays in getting real-world experience.
- Protection from low-earning traps: Section 4 adds strict debt-to-earnings standards under a new Section 498C of the Higher Education Act of 1965. If a program's graduates face overwhelmingly high debt relative to their earnings for multiple years, the program loses access to federal funds, which prevents hardworking people from wasting money on worthless degrees.
- Required student warnings: Under Section 4 and Section 498C(c)(2)(A)(ii)(IV), schools must warn enrolled and prospective students if a program fails or is at risk of failing debt-to-earnings standards. This gives everyday citizens crucial information before they commit their hard-earned money.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Program closures and reduced choices: Because Section 4 cuts off federal funds for programs that fail debt-to-earnings standards, some schools may choose to shut down certain educational programs entirely. This could limit the variety of training choices available to local students in their communities.
- Strict waiting periods to restart programs: Under Section 4, once a training program loses its eligibility for failing debt-to-earnings rules, the school cannot try to bring it back—or start a substantially similar program—for at least three years. This strict timeline means communities could go without specific career training programs for a long time if a school fails the benchmarks.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would students be better off under this? — Students benefit directly from mandatory licensure preparation, guaranteed training placement, and debt protections. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults and college students are protected from low-value degree programs and heavy student loan debt. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income individuals are safeguarded from spending financial aid on low-earning programs. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Middle-class families gain stronger protections against investing in worthless higher education credentials. Would business owners be better off under this? — Proprietary and vocational institutions face stricter operational standards and potential funding loss.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — The legislation establishes consumer protections for students, ensuring they receive proper licensing preparation and value. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — The bill protects federal funds from being wasted on low-performing higher education programs.
- Education And Technology
- Does this make college cost less? — The bill sets strict debt-to-earnings standards and cuts off funds for programs trapping students with high debt. Does this reduce what student borrowers owe or repay? — Students are protected from taking on burdensome loans for low-earning or worthless degree programs. Does this make it easier to use public money at a school other than the local one? — Program closures resulting from failed debt-to-earnings metrics could reduce educational choices for students.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates the publication of debt-to-earnings rates and student warnings regarding program performance. Does this give the federal government more power? — The legislation increases federal oversight and accountability requirements for higher education institutions.
- 7/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/16/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
Jeanne ShaheenDemocrat · New Hampshire