How did the 2025 FAFSA reclassification affect income assessment for Pell Grants?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The 2025 FAFSA reclassification replaced the old Expected Family Contribution (EFC) with a Student Aid Index (SAI), shifted the Pell eligibility calculation from an EFC-based cutoff to rules tied to family size and federal poverty levels, and altered which income and assets are counted — changes that broadened eligibility for many low- and moderate‑income students while introducing new complexities for families and administrators [1] [2] [3].
1. What changed in the income model: EFC → SAI and greater reliance on IRS data
The FAFSA overhaul formally replaced the EFC with the SAI as the central metric determining Pell Grant eligibility and award amounts, and the Department of Education now requires use of IRS data through the FUTURE Act exchange to populate much of the income information used to calculate that SAI [1] [4]. This meant that income assessment shifted away from self‑reported calculations toward taxable‑income figures pulled directly from tax records, standardizing inputs but reducing families’ ability to tweak reported numbers [1].
2. Income protection and family‑size thresholds changed who qualifies
Under the reclassification, the Department updated statutory tables — including the Income Protection Allowance (IPA) — annually and explicitly tied Pell eligibility to family size and federal poverty percentages, so families whose AGI falls at or below specified multiples of the poverty line are more likely to receive Pell awards or larger awards than under the EFC system [5] [3] [6]. The net effect reported by multiple guidance documents was an expansion of Pell eligibility for many students whose family incomes were modest relative to household size [3] [6].
3. Assets and business/farm treatment were re‑scoped, changing “income assessment” indirectly
The reclassification also reworked asset assessment: updated tables and assessment rates altered how available income and asset contributions are calculated in the SAI, and the later 2025 reconciliation law and implementing notices adjusted exclusions for small family farms, businesses, and fisheries — exempting certain business/farm net worth from SAI calculations and thereby lowering some families’ calculated contribution [5] [7]. Those asset changes reduce the weight of non‑income wealth in the final assessment, meaning two families with identical AGI but different asset profiles can now receive different Pell outcomes [5] [7].
4. The foreign earned income exclusion and other legislative tweaks shifted actual AGI inputs
Separate legislative changes enacted in 2025 — summarized in Office of Federal Student Aid notices about 2026–27 changes — require that foreign earned income exclusion amounts reported on the FAFSA be added back into AGI for Pell calculation purposes beginning with the 2026–27 award year, an adjustment that makes some U.S. taxpayers living overseas appear to have higher AGI for Pell eligibility [8] [9]. Advocacy analyses of the 2025 reconciliation law also flagged that inclusion of foreign income and other targeted tweaks would take effect at different dates and could narrow eligibility for small groups even as the broader reform expanded it [7].
5. Outcomes, tradeoffs, and contested impacts
Taken together, the reclassification made income assessment for Pell more standardized and more closely tied to federal poverty measures — expanding eligibility broadly while removing some subjectivity from reporting [1] [3]. Critics and watchdogs warn the changes reintroduce complexity and administrative burden (for example, reconciling asset exclusions and new AGI adjustments), could harm specific groups (such as those with foreign earned income), and may create edge cases where SAI rules produce counterintuitive results compared with prior EFC outcomes [7] [8]. Supporters argue the net policy intent was to direct Pell toward larger families with lower incomes and to prevent non‑income assets from unfairly pushing students out of eligibility [6] [5].
6. What reporting cannot yet resolve
Public guidance and implementation notices paint a clear policy arc, but granular impacts — such as exact counts of students who gain or lose Pell eligibility, administrative costs to campuses, and how financial aid offices will handle borderline SAI cases in practice — are not fully documented in these sources and will require empirical post‑implementation study to quantify [5] [7].