Bill · S. 5021· Senate(119-S-5021)
Protecting Students from Worthless Degrees Act
- Introduced
- 7/16/2026
- Last activity
- 7/16/2026 — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
- Sponsored by
- Jeff Merkley
- Cosponsors
- - 3 - 0
- 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
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?+6
Young adults and college students are protected from low-value degree programs and heavy student loan debt.
Would students be better off under this?+6
Students benefit directly from mandatory licensure preparation, guaranteed training placement, and debt protections.
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?+6
The legislation establishes consumer protections for students, ensuring they receive proper licensing preparation and value.
The opposite
Does this make it easier to use public money at a school other than the local one?-2
Program closures resulting from failed debt-to-earnings metrics could reduce educational choices for students.
Would business owners be better off under this?-1
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. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Students+6Good For Young Adults+6Good For Low Income Households+5Good For Middle Class Households+5Good For Business Owners-1
- Economy And Finance
- Improves Consumer Protection+6Improves Fiscal Responsibility+2
- Education And Technology
- Improves College Affordability+5Improves Student Loan Relief+4Improves School Choice-2
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Government Transparency+4Increases Federal Power+3
- 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