Pathway to Trades Act

Full Title:
Pathway to Trades Act

Summary#

This bill, the Pathway to Trades Act, adds two new requirements to institutions that have agreements for Federal Perkins Loans. It would require each participating school to name a faculty member as a point of contact for students interested in trades, and to develop courses related to trades. The broad goal is to expand opportunities for students at colleges and universities to study trades.

  • Main change: Institutions with Federal Perkins Loan agreements must (1) designate a faculty contact for students studying or interested in trades and (2) develop courses relating to trades.
  • Who it applies to: Institutions that enter into agreements under the Federal Perkins Loan program.
  • Sponsor and status: Introduced by Rep. Christopher Deluzio on July 27, 2026, and referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
  • Policy goal: Encourage higher-education institutions to support and offer training or classes in trade fields.

What it means for you#

  • Institutions (colleges and universities that participate in Perkins Loan agreements):

    • Must assign a faculty member to serve as a point of contact for students studying or interested in trades.
    • Must create or adopt courses that relate to trades.
    • Could need to change internal agreements or procedures to meet these requirements.
  • Students (those studying or interested in trades):

    • Would have a named faculty contact to ask about trade-related study options and guidance.
    • May see more trade-related course offerings at institutions that participate in the Perkins Loan agreements.
    • The bill does not specify eligibility rules for students or change loan terms.
  • Faculty and staff:

    • A faculty member will be designated at each participating institution as the contact for trade-interested students. This could be an added role for an existing staff member.
    • Academic departments may be asked to develop new courses or adapt existing ones to meet the requirement.
  • General public / taxpayers:

    • The bill changes institutional requirements tied to a federal loan program. It does not itself describe new loan amounts, student eligibility, or direct new federal spending in the text provided.
  • What is unclear:

    • The bill does not define “trades” or say what counts as a sufficient “course relating to trades.”
    • It does not explain how compliance will be checked or what happens if an institution does not meet the requirements.
    • It does not specify whether existing courses or staff assignments satisfy the new rules.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

  • The bill text does not include a fiscal note or estimate of costs.
  • Possible costs that could follow (not specified in the bill): developing new courses, faculty time for the designated contact, administrative work to update agreements, and potential hiring or training needs. These are reasonable possibilities but are not quantified or authorized in the bill text.

Proponents' View#

  • The bill appears intended to increase opportunities for students to pursue trade-related education at higher-education institutions.
  • Supporters may argue that naming a faculty contact helps students find information and supports navigation of trade pathways.
  • Developing courses related to trades could expand on-campus training options and add clearer pathways into skilled trades careers.
  • The change ties these actions to participation in a federal loan agreement, which could encourage institutions to follow through.

Opponents' View#

  • One concern is the lack of funding or a fiscal estimate: the bill requires new actions but does not provide money to pay for course development or staff time.
  • The bill does not define key terms (for example, what counts as a “trade” or a qualifying “course”), which could lead to uneven implementation across institutions.
  • It is unclear how compliance would be enforced or monitored, and whether existing courses and staff assignments will satisfy the requirement.
  • Institutions with limited resources could face an administrative burden to meet the new requirements, possibly diverting resources from other programs.