Washington Update

White House Releases FY2027 Budget Request 
On April 3, the White House unveiled its FY2027 President’s Budget Request (PBR) to Congress. The $2.2 trillion base request includes $1.15 trillion in defense discretionary spending, a 28 percent increase from FY2026 enacted levels, and $350 billion in mandatory defense spending through reconciliation. The White House’s non-defense discretionary request totals $660.1 billion, which is a $73 billion or 10 percent cut from FY2026 enacted levels. 

APLU’s government affairs team created and compiled a set of resources on the request: 

• APLU’s Analysis of the President’s Budget Request 
• APLU’s Statement on the President’s Budget Request 
• FY2027 President’s Budget Request 
• Appendix 
• Chart of APLU Appropriations Priority Accounts 

The Bottom Line: APLU’s detailed analysis of the PBR includes specifics on funding levels and policy language for programs of interest to APLU institutions at priority agencies. Overall, the PBR proposes a significant increase in funding for the Pell program to address the budget shortfall and maintain the current maximum grant level. However, it also calls for devastating cuts to research funding and the elimination of numerous U.S. Department of Education programs. 

Requests of interest and concern to public and land-grant universities include: 

• An additional $10.5 billion in discretionary funding for the Pell Grant program, total of $33 billion, to maintain the maximum award and address the budget shortfall; 
• Elimination or sharp reductions of many other key higher education and student aid programs; 
• A proposed $41.4 billion topline for the National Institutes of Health, a 12.3 percent cut from FY26 enacted levels; 
• A proposed $7.1 billion for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, a 15 percent cut from FY26 enacted levels; 
• A record $1.5 trillion request for the Department of War, yet a 9 percent cut to defense basic research funding; 
• A proposed $4 billion topline for the National Science Foundation, a 52.4 percent cut from FY26 enacted levels; 
• Significant cuts to competitive agriculture research funding at USDA and severe cuts to vital capacity programs. 

APLU underscores that the PBR is the beginning of the process, representing what the White House requests of Congress. Ultimately, Congress has the responsibility of determining funding levels through the annual appropriations process. For Fiscal Year 2026, through the dedicated hard work of APLU institutions and many other partners, we were successful in our advocacy to Congress in preventing the worst harms. 

Advocacy by public and land-grant universities to their members of Congress remains vital as we look to ensure our priorities are funded at appropriate levels. The House of Representatives Appropriations Committee plans to start moving FY2027 bills in late April. APLU’s FY2027 appropriations priorities chart has been updated to reflect President Trump’s request to Congress. As a reminder, APLU’s advocacy resources are also available on the association’s website. APLU member institutions should follow their institution’s policies as it relates to congressional advocacy, coordinating with government relations offices. 

U.S. Department of Education Begins Accreditation Negotiated Rulemaking Session 
Negotiated rulemaking at the U.S. Department of Education (ED) is underway on “Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization” (AIM). Sessions will take place on April 13-17 and May 18-22. Of note, individuals from multiple APLU member institutions are on the committee, including former APLU President Mark Becker in his new role at the Commission for Public Higher Education. APLU is monitoring the rulemaking sessions.  

Go deeper: The draft of regulatory language and summary are available on the Department’s website. 

Per ED, the draft regulations address the following priorities and concerns:

• Deregulation: Addressing regulations that impede the entry of new accreditors, reduce burdensome and duplicative requirements that hinder efficient reviews, and require accrediting agencies to enforce their standards in ways that minimize unnecessary costs and administrative burden on institutions. 

• Student Outcomes: Amending regulations to establish expectations that accrediting agencies assess quality using data-driven student outcomes, rather than unlawful DEI-based standards.  

• Merit: Revising regulations to ensure accreditors’ standards comply with all federal civil rights laws and prohibit standards or policies that require or facilitate discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics, such as race-based scholarships.  

• Integrity: Ensuring accrediting agencies and institutions do not mislead students or the public with misrepresentative labels, such as: “regional accreditor” strengthen requirements to maintain greater separation between accrediting agencies and related trade associations; and improve college affordability by reforming transfer-of-credit policies that force students to unnecessarily repeat coursework and incur additional debt.  

APLU Joins Coalition for Aerospace and Science’s FY2027 NASA Request of $26 Billion  
Last week, the Coalition for Aerospace and Science, which includes APLU, requested Congress to appropriate at least $26 billion for NASA in FY2027 – “a vital increase to maintain development and execution of ongoing missions while initiating work on new groundbreaking endeavors.” 

The coalition specifically requested at least $9 billion for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate; $1.1 billion for the Space Technology Mission Directorate; $8.3 billion for the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate; $4.4 billion for the Space Operations Mission Directorate; $1 billion for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate; and $150 million for the Office of STEM Engagement. 

Preliminary Injunction Issued in ACTS Data Collection Case; Relief Limited to Plaintiffs 
On April 3, U.S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the IPEDS Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) Data Collection, which had previously been blocked under a temporary restraining order. Relief continues to be limited to public institutions within plaintiff states. 

The Big Picture: The case was initially brought by a coalition of 17 blue state attorneys general, led by Massachusetts and including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Washington.  

Separately, the Association of American Universities (AAU), joined by a number of state chapters of organizations representing nonprofit private institutions, filed a motion to intervene as a plaintiff and sought relief to both stay the U.S. Department of Education’s policy and provide specific injunctive relief for its member institutions.  

The ACTS reporting requirements, which ED finalized in December, require institutions to report detailed admissions and enrollment metrics—many of which are not currently collected through IPEDS. 

White House Releases Executive Order “Urgent National Action to Save College Sports”  
On April 3, the White House released an Executive Order, Urgent National Action to Save College Sports, and accompanying fact sheet.  

The executive order encourages athletics governing bodies to update eligibility, transfer, medical leave, revenue-sharing, and national agent registry rules by August 1, 2026. The order also directs the Administrator of General Services and the U.S. Department of Education to increase data collection across college athletics to ensure compliance.  

APLU Joins Community Comments in Response to Sente HELP Committee’s RFI on Athletics 
APLU joined the higher education community in comments on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Chairman Bill Cassidy’s (R-LA) request for information on “Stabilizing College Sports and Preserving Opportunities for Athletes.” The request for information specifically relates to compensation and benefits, protections of paid student-athletes, academic eligibility, and student-athlete status. 

The community’s response, which was submitted on April 8, centered on the issues associated with the possibility of classifying student-athletes as employees. Of particular concern, the comments underscore the potential increased financial burden on institutions and students, threats to non-revenue generating sports, and the loss of valuable opportunities for student-athletes.