This bill repeals several provisions enacted in Public Law 119–21 (the 2025 reconciliation act) that changed loan limits, repayment rules, deferment/forbearance, Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) rules, and certain Pell Grant eligibility and exclusion provisions. For each repeal the bill instructs that applicable statutes and regulations be treated as if the repealed subsection of P.L. 119–21 had never been enacted.
Separately, the bill amends the Higher Education Act’s low‑earnings outcomes provision (20 U.S.C. 1087d(c)) by introducing a new defined term, “covered educational program,” and adjusts the Internal Revenue Code to set the applicable excise percentage on private college endowment net investment income to 1.4 percent, with conforming subsection reorganizations and an effective date for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025. The package creates immediate regulatory work for the Department of Education and introduces a permanent tax change for private institutions with large endowments.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals named sections of P.L. 119–21 that implemented new student‑loan limits, repayment and deferment rules, PSLF changes, and Pell‑related adjustments, restoring the prior statutory/regulatory baseline. It also amends HEA section 454(c) to substitute a new ‘covered educational program’ definition and sets the IRC section 4968 applicable percentage to 1.4% for qualifying private college endowments.
Who It Affects
Federal student borrowers and prospective students whose eligibility, repayment, or forgiveness rules were altered by P.L. 119–21; institutions that administer affected programs under the Higher Education Act; Department of Education regulators and loan servicers; and private colleges and universities subject to the endowment excise tax.
Why It Matters
The bill reverses parts of a recent reconciliation law rather than layering new policy on top, which can produce immediate shifts in student aid administration, institutional compliance obligations, and federal revenues. The HEA text changes broaden the statutory universe of programs subject to low‑earnings consequences, and the endowment tax change establishes a clear, lower tax rate with near‑term tax‑year effect.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill works in two tracks. First, it voids a set of discrete provisions in the 2025 reconciliation statute by repealing named sections and instructing agencies to apply governing law as though those subsections had never been enacted.
The repeals cover loan limits, multiple repayment‑related provisions including deferment and forbearance rules, a Public Service Loan Forgiveness provision, and two Pell Grant provisions addressing eligibility and the treatment of other grant aid. By phrasing the change as a repeal plus a direction to treat the law as if the repealed text never existed, the bill aims to restore the pre‑reconciliation legal baseline rather than amend the new provisions piecemeal.
Second, the bill changes the Higher Education Act’s low‑earnings outcomes statute (Section 454(c)) by replacing repeated references to “an educational program” with “a covered educational program” and by defining that term. The statutory definition explicitly lists programs that prepare students for gainful employment (including certificate and credential programs), associate’s degrees, baccalaureate degrees, and graduate/professional degrees and certificates.
Textual edits propagate that new term throughout the subsection, which will affect how institutions and the Department evaluate program‑level earnings triggers and potential ineligibility outcomes.Finally, the bill alters federal tax code section 4968, which taxes net investment income of certain private colleges and universities, by fixing the “applicable percentage” at 1.4 percent and performing conforming renumbering and cross‑reference edits. That tax change is explicitly effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
The combination of repeals and the HEA amendment will require administrative adjustments at the Department of Education, changes to servicer processes and eligibility determinations, and updated tax reporting by private institutions with large endowments.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals specific sections of Public Law 119–21 by citation: 81001 (loan limits), 82001 (loan repayment), 82002 (deferment/forbearance), 82004 (PSLF), 83001 and 83004 (Pell‑related), and 85001 and 85002 (delays of borrower‑defense and closed‑school rules).
It amends 20 U.S.C. 1087d(c) (HEA §454(c)) to replace multiple references to “an educational program” with a newly defined “covered educational program” and inserts a three‑clause definition that expressly includes certificate/credential programs, associate and baccalaureate programs, and graduate/professional degrees and certificates.
The bill directs that where the repealed subsections applied, statutes and regulations ‘shall be applied as if such section and the amendments made by such section had not been enacted,’ effectively reverting to pre‑P.L. 119–21 regulatory baseline rather than creating transitional rules.
It amends IRC section 4968 to set the applicable percentage for the excise tax on large private college endowment net investment income to a flat 1.4 percent, with conforming subsection renumbering and cross‑reference fixes.
The endowment tax change is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025; other repeals do not include an independent tax‑year date but operate by removing the cited subsections from P.L. 119–21 and restoring prior legal text.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Repeal of P.L. 119–21 loan limits provision (sec. 81001)
Section 2 repeals section 81001 of the 2025 reconciliation act and instructs that any law or regulation referenced in that section be applied as though the section had never been enacted. Practically, this restores whatever loan‑limit rules existed immediately before P.L. 119–21 without amending the underlying statute directly; agencies will need to reconcile any regulatory changes made during the interim.
Repeal of repayment, deferment/forbearance, and PSLF provisions (secs. 82001–82004)
Section 3 repeals three separate reconciliation subsections: 82001 (loan repayment changes), 82002 (deferment and forbearance rules), and 82004 (Public Service Loan Forgiveness rules). Each repeal contains the same ‘apply as if not enacted’ language, which directs administrators to revert to prior regulatory regimes. The operational implication is a potential rollback of newly issued guidance, repayment plan structures, or eligibility criteria established under those reconciliation subsections.
Repeal of Pell eligibility and grant treatment provisions (secs. 83001 and 83004)
This section removes two reconciliation provisions that altered Pell Grant eligibility and the federal treatment of Pell relative to other grant aid. Repealing those subsections returns the statutory landscape to the pre‑reconciliation configuration, which may change institutional awarding practices and student packaging that were modified under P.L. 119–21.
Amend HEA §454(c): define 'covered educational program' and update cross‑references
Section 5 makes targeted textual revisions to 20 U.S.C. 1087d(c) by inserting a new definition—‘covered educational program’—and replacing multiple occurrences of ‘an educational program’ with that term. The definition explicitly lists certificate/credential programs that prepare students for gainful employment, associate’s degrees, baccalaureate degrees, and graduate/professional degrees or graduate certificates. These changes alter the statutory scope for any low‑earnings outcomes regime tied to §454(c) and will affect which programs can trigger ineligibility measures or monitoring requirements.
Repeal of regulatory delays for borrower‑defense and closed‑school rules (secs. 85001–85002)
Section 6 repeals reconciliation subsections that previously delayed implementation of borrower‑defense‑to‑repayment and closed‑school discharge rules. By removing those delay provisions, the bill requires that existing statutory or regulatory text be treated as if no delay were ever put in place, potentially accelerating the operative effect of previously published rules or reviving rules that agencies had paused.
Set endowment excise tax rate to 1.4% and make conforming tax code edits
Section 7 amends Internal Revenue Code section 4968 by replacing the phrase ‘the applicable percentage’ with an explicit 1.4 percent rate, removes and renumbers several subsections for internal consistency, and updates cross‑references in section 6033. The provision includes an express effective date: it applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025, so colleges’ 2026 returns and later would reflect the change.
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
- Private colleges and universities with large endowments — the bill fixes the excise tax applicable percentage at 1.4%, lowering or clarifying the tax burden for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025.
- Students and borrowers affected by P.L. 119–21’s changes to loan limits, repayment, deferment, PSLF, and Pell treatment — the repeals are designed to restore the pre‑reconciliation statutory/regulatory baseline that governed those matters prior to those subsections.
- Institutions that relied on pre‑P.L. 119–21 program eligibility and packaging rules — the return to the prior legal baseline may reduce disruption for schools that had not completed compliance transitions to the reconciliation changes.
- Loan servicers and financial aid offices that prefer established rules over recent interim changes — reverting to a known baseline reduces the need for immediate reengineering of systems implementing newly altered reconciliation provisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal budget/taxpayers — reverting reconciliation provisions and reducing the effective endowment tax rate will change revenue projections and could increase discretionary outlays tied to student aid or forgiveness programs.
- Department of Education (and Federal Student Aid) — the agency must reverse or reissue guidance, update systems and communications, and reconcile records if eligibility, repayment counts, or discharges shift back to the pre‑P.L. 119–21 regime, imposing administrative costs.
- Loan servicers, institution financial‑aid offices, and IT vendors — these actors face operational costs to update servicing platforms, billing logic, eligibility calculations, and reporting to reflect the reverted rules and the amended §454(c) program scope.
- Private colleges with complex endowment reporting — although the rate is fixed lower, the section’s renumbering and cross‑reference changes require careful tax analysis and potential restatements to ensure accurate filings for 2026 onward.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits restoring a known regulatory and statutory baseline—argued to favor access and institutional stability—against the fiscal, administrative, and legal costs of reversing a recently enacted reconciliation package; policymakers must choose between immediate relief for students and institutions and the budgetary and implementation clarity that comes from letting newer reforms stand.
The bill’s chosen drafting technique—repealing specific subsections of P.L. 119–21 and directing that statutes and regulations be applied as if those subsections never existed—produces legal and administrative ripple effects. Agencies will have to determine which regulations, guidance or interim actions flowed directly from the repealed text and whether those actions remain valid independently of the repealed subsections.
That analysis can be time‑consuming and invite litigation over whether particular agency decisions were truly tied to the repealed language or to separate statutory authority.
The amendment to HEA §454(c) changes terminology throughout the subsection and adds an explicit, broadly worded definition of “covered educational program.” That clarity helps in one sense but broadens the statutory coverage in another: programs awarding certificates, associate, bachelor’s, and graduate credentials are all listed, which may expand the universe of programs subject to low‑earnings monitoring or sanctions. Institutions will need precise guidance from the Department on how program boundaries are drawn (e.g., when a certificate sits inside a degree‑granting program) and how earnings metrics apply across credential types.
Finally, the endowment tax fix is straightforward in percentage terms but bundled with renumbering and cross‑reference edits that require tax practitioners to reconcile historical filings and future compliance, especially for fiscal years that straddle the effective date.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.