Washington Update 

Government Shutdown Update 
The federal government remains in a partial shutdown after congressional leaders were unable to reach a government spending deal by October 1. APLU released a statement underscoring that the longer the shutdown lasts, the more harmful the impacts will be to public and land-grant universities and those they serve.  

APLU continues to provide updates to a number of the association’s councils and commissions have convened to discuss impacts and best practices for managing the challenges. Requests for proposals and grant reviews remain on hold as agencies operate with minimal staff support. As expected, the shutdown has impacted communication with furloughed program officers. Member institutions have reported difficulties with the Department of Veterans Affairs processing of benefits and checks for Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) students. Additionally, the White House engaged in further rounds of reductions in force (RIFs), including eliminating positions at the U.S. Department of Education (ED) working on TRIO and in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.  

As the shutdown continues, the White House has advanced novel strategies to fund administration priorities, including the Pentagon diverting approximately $8 billion in unobligated research and development funds to cover the costs of paying troops during the shutdown. The Pentagon moved money between accounts without seeking approval from Congress.  

APLU Opposition to SAFE Research Act in NDAA 
Last week, APLU and AAU issued a joint letter urging House and Senate Armed Services leadership to reject the SAFE Research Act in the final FY26 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) conference agreement. This annual policy bill provides legislative direction for the Pentagon, including research and development policy. Included in the House-passed version of the NDAA, the SAFE Research Act would prohibit all federal agencies, not just the Department of Defense, from funding researchers who collaborate with “hostile foreign entities.” The provision uses a five-year lookback with retroactive penalties to researchers for activities such as co-publications and conference attendance. Terms are defined so broadly it would capture activities beyond just research agreements and prohibit study abroad programs, university facilities abroad, etc. 

What’s Next: Now that the House and Senate have passed their respective versions of the NDAA, they will work to reconcile the differences between their chambers with a target deadline for a final agreement on the bill text after Thanksgiving. APLU is in discussions with House and Senate Armed Services Committee staff over provisions of concern in the NDAA, including the SAFE Research Act.  

Update on RISE Negotiated Rulemaking Session 
Earlier this month, the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) negotiated rulemaking committee completed its first session. The committee is charged by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to focus on the student loan provisions of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. A significant portion of their time has thus far been devoted to how to delineate between graduate and professional programs, which are eligible for different annual and aggregate loan limits under the new law.   

During negotiations, ED announced a temporary definition of professional programs, effective through June 30, 2027. The temporary definition considers a program eligible for higher annual and aggregate loan limits if:  

• The program offers degrees prior to July 1, 2027 

• The program existed at the time of enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill (July 4, 2025) 

• The program was Title IV eligible throughout that time 

• The program was considered to be a “professional” program by the institution 

ED previously announced their intention to keep the narrow definition of professional programs as found in current regulation and that any changes to that list must be made in a future negotiated rulemaking session, which the department has no intention of hosting at this time. This statement led to increased confusion and concern among the committee members, leading ED to introduce the temporary definition of “professional” programs.  

The Bottom Line: ED has not posted discussion drafts for the third day of negotiated rulemaking, which was when this temporary definition was introduced. Discussions are expected to continue when the panel reconvenes in early November. The temporary definition itself raises additional concerns and lacks the specificity institutions may need.  

New Political Nominees Confirmed by Senate 
In September, the Senate made a decision to change chamber rules governing the confirmation process for certain presidential nominees. This change allows the chamber to vote by simple majority to confirm a slate of nominees in a group. Following the Senate’s decision, several appointees to top science and education roles have been confirmed. This includes;  

• Darío Gil, U.S. Department of Energy Under Secretary of Science 

• Conner Prochaska, Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy Director 

• John Squires, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director 

• Neil Jacobs, U.S. Department of Commerce Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere 

• Ned Mamula, U.S. Geological Survey Director 

• Andrea Travnicek, U.S. Department of Interior Assistant Secretary for Water and Science 

• Scott Hutchins, U.S. Department of Agriculture Under Secretary of Agriculture for Research, Education, and Economics 

• David Barker, U.S. Department of Education Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education 

• Mary Christina Riley, U.S. Department of Education Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs 

• Kimberly Richey, U.S. Department of Education, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 

Ahead of their confirmations, APLU submitted letters endorsing Darío Gil and Scott Hutchins. The administration also recently nominated Arvind Raman to serve as Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Raman is the current dean of engineering at Purdue University. 

Feed the Future Innovation Labs Could Restart as Soon as End of Year 
According to recent reporting in Agri-Pulse, the U.S. Department of State is poised to reopen the Feed the Future Innovation Labs before the end of the calendar year. “The U.S. government’s partnership with American universities on agricultural research to facilitate the betterment of lives around the world is invaluable,” a State Department spokesperson shared with Agri-Pulse. “The Department of State looks forward to both continuing and reestablishing relationships with key U.S. universities on Feed the Future this year.” 

While the Labs were all but cancelled during the early days of the Trump administration, one Innovation Lab—Climate-Smart Cereals Lab at Kansas State—was not cancelled by DOGE and was restarted as part of the merger of USAID and the Department of State. Meanwhile, the fate of the cancelled 16 Labs has since remained in limbo. After the Innovation Labs were explicitly protected from The Rescissions Act of 2024, and unaffected by the pocket rescission of September, the Department of State could potentially relaunch the program. 

APLU has worked extensively with member institutions and champions on Capitol Hill in advocacy to the administration to restore the program. 

APLU Submits Comments on IES Reorganization; ACTS IPEDS Collection 
Last week, APLU submitted comment letters on U.S. Department of Education proposals to reorganize the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and collect new admissions data. APLU is grateful to member institutions for providing feedback to inform both letters.  

Comment Letter on the Institute of Education Sciences Reorganization 

ED sought stakeholder feedback on its proposed reorganization of the Institute of Education Sciences. APLU’s comments proposed five broad principles for reimagining the agency, including: 

• Prioritizing collaboration; 

• Balancing timely data release while maintaining statistical rigor; 

• Prioritizing increased access to and utility of research evidence; 

• Increasing access of funded research, promoting innovation; and 

• Ensuring appropriate staffing levels.  

The comment letter further provides concrete policy recommendations ED can adopt to advance the work of IES.  

Comment Letter on ACTS Collection 
ED also sought stakeholder feedback on its proposed race in admissions data collection that would gather various information by race-sex pairs for the current academic year in addition to the previous five. In its comments, APLU provided five recommendations to ease data privacy concerns, improve data quality, strengthen the comparability of data, enhance transparency, and increase quality and validity of data collected.  
 
APLU additionally responded to ED’s queries on which institutions should be subjected to the data collection and whether its estimate of burden was accurate. On both questions, feedback from the APLU Council on Governmental Affairs and Commission on Information, Measurement, and Analysis was instrumental in informing the association’s response.  

United for Medical Research Highlights the Personal Impacts of NIH Research 
A new report from United for Medical Research (UMR), of which APLU is a member, highlights personal impact stories from individuals across the nation sharing why a strongly funded National Institutes of Health (NIH) is important to them. Through testimonials collected as part of UMR’s “My Why” campaign, the report highlights the critical role NIH funding plays in advancing the education and careers of researchers and scientists, as well as improving the lives of patients and families. APLU members are encouraged to use the report and social media promotion in their advocacy for NIH funding. 

USCIS Published Guidance on Implementation of $100,000 H-1B Fee 
Earlier this week, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) published guidance on implementation of a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas. The guidance clarifies that the fee is applicable to all new H-1B petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025, on behalf of beneficiaries outside of the U.S. without a valid H-1B. The fee does not apply to individuals with valid visas requesting a change of status or extension of stay, thus exempting individuals switching from an F-1 to H-1B visas among others. Payment of the fee must be made prior to filing a petition with USCIS. The guidance notes that exceptions to the fee will be made on an individual basis, thus appearing to rule out a blanket exemption for higher education. Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a suit challenging the legality of the fee in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.    

APLU is weighing further community advocacy on the fee and will share additional details in future Washington Updates.