The bill amends the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program in the Higher Education Act by adding a categorical exclusion: employment with any organization that “engages in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose” is not a qualifying public service job. It lists five illustrative categories — from aiding immigration violations to materially supporting terrorism, certain child-abuse conduct, patterns of illegal discrimination, and patterns of state tort violations — as activities that would trigger the exclusion.
This change shifts eligibility away from an employee’s job title and toward a judgment about an employer’s activities. That creates broad compliance and enforcement questions for the Department of Education, could remove PSLF access for people working in legal aid, immigrant services, civil-rights, health-care, and advocacy organizations, and invites constitutional and administrative-law challenges because key terms and procedures are undefined in the text.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds subsection (C) to 20 U.S.C. 1087e(m)(3) excluding from PSLF employment with any organization that ‘engages in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose,’ and then lists five illustrative categories of such activities.
Who It Affects
The change primarily affects nonprofit and NGO employees who currently qualify for PSLF — lawyers, health and social service providers, advocates, and other public-interest staff — by making eligibility turn on their employer’s activities rather than the employee’s role.
Why It Matters
Because the bill gives no statutory definitions or enforcement procedures, it transfers significant discretion to the Education Department and invites litigation over vagueness, selective enforcement, and potential conflicts with protected advocacy and service delivery.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill edits the statutory definition of a qualifying ‘public service job’ under PSLF. Instead of altering loan terms or repayment rules, it creates a new categorical bar: if an employer is judged to engage in activities that have a “substantial illegal purpose,” employment there cannot qualify for PSLF.
The text adds this exclusion directly to 20 U.S.C. 1087e(m)(3) and then provides five illustrative—though non-exhaustive—examples of proscribed activities.
Those examples range widely. They include aiding or abetting certain immigration-law violations, “materially supporting terrorism” (including references to funding or operational support for cartels designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations), materially supporting specified forms of child abuse (with explicit mention of chemical or surgical procedures on minors and trafficking children to certain jurisdictions), engaging in a pattern of aiding or abetting illegal discrimination, and engaging in a pattern of state-law torts such as trespass or obstruction.
The examples mix federal criminal statutes, charged political concepts, and common-law torts in the same exclusion clause.Critically, the bill does not define key terms that will control application: “substantial illegal purpose,” “materially supporting,” “pattern,” or the phrase “transgender sanctuary States.” The text also contains no process for how the Department of Education will make determinations, what evidence will be required, whether determinations are agency-driven or complaint-driven, or whether decisions will be subject to notice-and-comment or immediate appeal. Absent those procedural guardrails, eligibility becomes a fact-intensive, agency-determined inquiry rather than a clear bright-line rule.For affected organizations and employees, the practical mechanics matter: a single allegation that an employer engaged in one of the listed activities could jeopardize the PSLF eligibility of multiple employees, and employers that provide services that intersect with immigration, civil-rights advocacy, protest activity, or certain health services may have to document their operations and legal compliance to preserve employees’ PSLF status.
The Department of Education would need to create implementing guidance, criteria for investigation, and an appeals process — all of which the bill leaves to later rulemaking or agency action.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 20 U.S.C. 1087e(m)(3) by adding subsection (C) to exclude from PSLF employment with organizations that ‘engage in activities that have a substantial illegal purpose.’, It lists five illustrative categories that trigger the exclusion, including aiding or abetting violations of 8 U.S.C. 1325 (improper entry) and other federal immigration laws.
The bill bars PSLF for employees of organizations that ‘materially support’ terrorism, explicitly mentioning funding or operational support to cartels designated under 8 U.S.C. 1189 and violence aimed at influencing federal policy.
It identifies ‘materially supporting child abuse’ as a disqualifying activity and cites specific conduct (chemical or surgical castration or mutilation of children; trafficking children to ‘transgender sanctuary States’ for emancipation) as examples.
The statutory text provides no definitions, procedures, evidentiary standards, or administrative process for determining whether an organization’s activities meet the ‘substantial illegal purpose’ threshold.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the bill’s caption: the 'No Loan Forgiveness for Terrorists Act of 2025.' This is purely titular and carries no substantive legal effect beyond identifying the enactment.
Adds a categorical exclusion to PSLF
This provision inserts a new paragraph (C) into the PSLF definition of 'public service job' to exclude employment with organizations engaged in activities having a 'substantial illegal purpose.' Mechanically, it converts eligibility from an employee-focused test to one that may turn on employer behavior and activities.
Immigration-related conduct
Clause (i) expressly includes aiding or abetting violations of 8 U.S.C. 1325 (improper entry) or other federal immigration laws. That pulls civil- and criminal-facing immigrant-services providers and pro-bono legal assistance organizations into the scope of the exclusion if their actions are characterized as aiding violations.
Terrorism and cartel funding
Clause (ii) targets 'materially supporting terrorism' and mentions facilitating funding or operations of cartels designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations under 8 U.S.C. 1189, and engaging in violence to influence federal policy. The clause conflates terrorism definitions with cartel activity and political violence, which will require the agency to delineate the boundaries between protected advocacy and criminal support.
Child-abuse-related conduct and trafficking
Clause (iii) describes 'materially supporting child abuse' and gives specific examples — chemical or surgical castration or mutilation of children and trafficking children to 'transgender sanctuary States' for emancipation. The language mixes criminal-sounding conduct with politically charged terminology that lacks statutory definition, complicating application to health-care and child-welfare providers.
Patterns of illegal discrimination and state torts
Clauses (iv) and (v) bar employment with organizations that engage in a 'pattern' of aiding or abetting illegal discrimination or a 'pattern' of violating state tort laws (trespass, disorderly conduct, vandalism, obstruction of highways, etc.). These entries introduce an evidentiary threshold ('pattern') but do not describe how many incidents or what time frame establishes it, leaving significant uncertainty for enforcement.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal budget overseers and some taxpayers — by design the exclusion narrows the pool of PSLF-eligible borrowers and could reduce projected forgiveness outlays if applied broadly.
- Law-enforcement and immigration-enforcement proponents — the bill creates a statutory tool to press organizations believed to facilitate immigration violations or criminal activity by removing a federal benefit tied to employment.
- Organizations that avoid contentious advocacy or protest activity — they face less competitive pressure from organizations whose staff previously benefited from PSLF, which could be viewed as leveling the hiring field in certain sectors.
Who Bears the Cost
- Nonprofit legal-aid and immigrant-service organizations — employees who assist migrants or provide legal representation could lose PSLF eligibility if those activities are characterized as 'aiding' immigration violations.
- Public-interest health and child-welfare providers — clinics and practitioners that deliver controversial or politically contested care to minors risk determinations that their activities 'materially support' disqualifying conduct.
- Civil-rights and advocacy groups — organizations engaged in protest, litigation, or systemic-challenge work could be subject to 'pattern' and 'aiding or abetting' findings that remove employees’ PSLF access.
- Borrowers working in qualifying public service roles — individuals may lose a key repayment benefit through no change in their job duties, creating financial disruption and potential reliance losses.
- Department of Education and agency budgets — the Department will need to establish investigative, evidentiary, and appeals processes, which will require administrative capacity and likely consume staff time and funds absent allocated resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill seeks to prevent federal loan forgiveness from subsidizing work tied to criminal or violent activity, but it does so by delegating broad, vague judgment calls about third-party organizations to administrative action; that approach risks stripping benefits from employees who perform lawful public service, chilling constitutionally protected advocacy, and inviting litigation over vague standards and selective enforcement.
The bill creates a high degree of legal and administrative uncertainty by tying eligibility to an employer’s activities without providing statutory definitions or procedural protections. Terms such as 'substantial illegal purpose,' 'materially supporting,' 'pattern,' and 'transgender sanctuary States' are undefined; applying them will require agency rulemaking or case-by-case determinations.
That opens the door to inconsistent application across offices, politicized investigations, and predictable litigation over vagueness and constitutional protections for speech and association.
From an implementation perspective, the Department of Education will have to decide how to identify candidate organizations (complaints, referrals, interagency lists), what burden of proof to require, whether decisions are retroactive, and how to protect individual borrowers who performed qualifying work but whose employer is later disqualified. The lack of procedural detail also raises separation-of-powers and due-process issues: an administrative finding that an organization 'engages in activities' of a disqualifying nature could effectively strip thousands of employees of a statutory benefit without clear standards or notice, producing both fairness and legal-risk concerns.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.