The No Loan Forgiveness for Terrorists Act of 2025 amends the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program by expanding the definition of a “public service job”. It adds an explicit exclusion for employment with any organization that engages in activities with a substantial illegal purpose, listing five disqualifying categories.
The effect is to prevent PSLF forgiveness for borrowers who work for such organizations, even if their role would otherwise appear to be public service. The bill operates within the PSLF framework of the Higher Education Act and relies on existing immigration and anti-terrorism laws to define what counts as substantial illegal activity.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds a new exclusion to the PSLF definition of a public service job, preventing forgiveness for work with organizations that have a substantial illegal purpose. The bill enumerates five disqualifying activities tied to immigration violations, terrorism, child abuse, illegal discrimination, and state-tort-law violations.
Who It Affects
Borrowers pursuing PSLF who work for public service employers, as well as those employed by nonprofits and government entities that could be implicated by the new categories. Loan servicers and the Department of Education must apply the new exclusion when evaluating PSLF eligibility.
Why It Matters
This change tightens safeguards to ensure PSLF funds support legitimate public service and align student loan forgiveness with federal law enforcement and civil rights standards. It lowers the risk of PSLF subsidies flowing to organizations engaged in serious illegal activities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill changes how PSLF is applied by adding a precise exclusion: if the employing organization has a substantial illegal purpose, the job is not eligible for PSLF forgiveness. It codifies five categories that trigger the exclusion, covering immigration violations, terrorism-related support, child abuse, illegal discrimination, and patterns of violating state tort laws.
This means borrowers who thought they could qualify for PSLF while working for a public service employer may no longer be eligible if the employer falls into any of the listed categories. The mechanism relies on existing federal law definitions to determine what counts as a “substantial illegal purpose.” For compliance teams and loan servicers, the change introduces a clearer, though broader, screen for PSLF eligibility and requires review of an employer’s activities under the specified categories.
The bill does not create new funding or borrowing rates; it changes eligibility rules to ensure PSLF assistance goes to truly lawful, public-interest work.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new exclusion to the PSLF definition of a 'public service job' for organizations with a substantial illegal purpose.
It enumerates five disqualifying activities: immigration-law violations, terrorism support, child abuse, illegal discrimination, and patterns of tort-law violations.
The change amends Section 455(m)(3) of the Higher Education Act to redefine who counts as a PSLF-eligible public service employee.
The exclusions rely on INA and related federal statutes to define 'substantial illegal purpose.', Borrowers and loan servicers must verify employer activities to determine PSLF qualification.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
Section 1 designates the act as the No Loan Forgiveness for Terrorists Act of 2025, establishing the official nomenclature for the measure.
Exclusion from Public Service Jobs for Illegal Activities
Section 2 adds a new paragraph to the PSLF definition that excludes from consideration as a 'public service job' any employment with an organization that engages in activities with a substantial illegal purpose. It enumerates five disqualifying categories—immigration violations, material support for terrorism, child abuse, illegal discrimination, and patterns of tort-law violations—and states that those activities disqualify an employer from PSLF eligibility. This creates a concrete set of criteria for determining whether a public service job qualifies for forgiveness and ties those criteria to existing federal law definitions.
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
- PSLF borrowers who work for government agencies or legitimate public-service nonprofits that do not engage in the listed illegal activities, preserving PSLF eligibility where appropriate
- Public service employers (federal, state, and local) that operate within legal boundaries benefit from clearer eligibility rules and reduced risk of PSLF misclassification
- Public universities, hospitals, and other lawful public-serving entities gain a stable incentive structure for staff who qualify for PSLF
- Loan servicers and the Department of Education benefit from a clearer, more auditable standard for PSLF determinations
- Policy and enforcement agencies gain alignment with anti-terrorism and immigration enforcement objectives
Who Bears the Cost
- Borrowers who discover their employer falls under one of the listed categories and thus lose PSLF eligibility for their current or future employment
- Employers that inadvertently fall into the disqualifying criteria may lose eligible staff who would otherwise pursue PSLF
- Some public-service organizations may face increased compliance costs and monitoring burdens to ensure their activities do not trigger PSLF disqualification
- Loan servicers may face higher administrative overhead to verify employer activities against the specified categories
- Taxpayers could bear a higher program cost if more PSLF payments are denied due to stricter eligibility rules
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing strict anti-illegal-activity safeguards with the risk of chilling legitimate public service employment and creating ambiguity in how employers are evaluated for PSLF eligibility.
The bill tightens the PSLF framework by introducing a broad exclusion tied to the organizational activities of potential employers. On one hand, the approach strengthens the credentialing of public service work, ensuring PSLF funds do not subsidize groups that engage in illegal or harmful activities.
On the other hand, the criteria are expansive and rely on existing immigration and criminal-law definitions, which can be complex and subject to varied interpretations. Without a safe harbor or clearer implementation guidelines, there is a risk of overbroad application or misclassification of legitimate public service employers.
The reliance on pattern-based tort-law violations and a catch-all list of prohibited activities could lead to inconsistent determinations across agencies and lenders, creating uncertainty for borrowers and employers alike.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.