S.1845 - No Loan Forgiveness for Terrorists Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
S.1845, the "No Loan Forgiveness for Terrorists Act of 2025," aims to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 by excluding individuals employed by organizations with "substantial illegal purpose" from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. The bill specifically targets organizations involved in activities such as aiding illegal immigration, supporting terrorism, facilitating child abuse, engaging in illegal discrimination, or repeatedly violating state tort laws. This legislation seeks to ensure that taxpayer-funded loan forgiveness does not benefit those associated with illicit activities.
Expected Effects
The bill's enactment would change the eligibility criteria for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Individuals working for organizations involved in the specified illegal activities would no longer qualify for loan forgiveness. This could lead to legal challenges and debates about the definition and scope of "substantial illegal purpose."
Potential Benefits
- Prevents misuse of taxpayer funds: Ensures that public funds are not used to forgive loans of individuals associated with illegal or harmful activities.
- Strengthens national security: By denying benefits to those supporting terrorism, it reinforces efforts to combat terrorism.
- Protects vulnerable populations: Addresses concerns related to child abuse and illegal discrimination.
- Promotes rule of law: Reinforces the principle that individuals and organizations should not benefit from violating laws.
- Enhances program integrity: Increases public trust in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program by ensuring responsible use of funds.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for overly broad interpretation: The definition of "substantial illegal purpose" could be interpreted too broadly, affecting legitimate organizations.
- Risk of political targeting: The criteria could be used to target organizations based on political beliefs rather than actual illegal activity.
- Increased administrative burden: Determining whether an organization engages in activities with a "substantial illegal purpose" could be complex and resource-intensive.
- Potential for chilling effect: Organizations may be hesitant to engage in certain activities, even if legal, for fear of being labeled as having a "substantial illegal purpose."
- Disproportionate impact on certain sectors: Some sectors, such as those dealing with immigration or social justice, may be disproportionately affected.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutional alignment is complex. Congress has the power to regulate federal spending and set the terms of student loan programs under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8). However, the bill's provisions could potentially infringe upon First Amendment rights if the definition of "substantial illegal purpose" is overly broad and restricts freedom of speech or association. The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment could also be implicated if the determination of "substantial illegal purpose" lacks sufficient procedural safeguards.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).