Washington Update

APLU Submits Comments on U.S. Department of Education’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Reforming Accreditation
On September 17, APLU submitted extensive comments in response to the U.S. Department of Education’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on reforming the nation’s postsecondary education accreditation system. The proposed rule is currently slated to take effect July 1, 2027. APLU produced a summary of issues of interest in the proposed rulemaking.

APLU’s comment letter applauds efforts to use student outcomes data in the accreditation process to make risk-informed decisions identifying institutions in need of greater support and oversight while noting the proposal represents a missed opportunity for streamlining the accreditation process for high-performing institutions.

Additionally, APLU provided feedback on several other areas of the proposed rulemaking, including:

Intellectual Diversity
In the comment letter, APLU acknowledged the Department’s sincerely held concerns that in some cases students are not appropriately exposed to diverse viewpoints, including those that may challenge their own. However, APLU believes the accreditation regulations are not the appropriate mechanism for addressing these concerns.

APLU raised additional concerns with efforts in the proposed rulemaking to incorporate measurement of campus intellectual diversity into the accreditation process through the federal rulemaking process, writing: “Ultimately, APLU believes this second part of the policy relative to measurement goes too far for rulemaking on accreditation at the federal level and is an example of provisions of the proposed regulations that will distract accreditors and institutions from student outcomes.”

Student Outcomes
Given accreditation’s role in quality assurance and ensuring continuous improvement of institutions and programs, APLU writes in support of accrediting agencies’ greater use of student achievement measures and assessing institutional and programmatic outcomes, as appropriate.

To ensure effective and efficient implementation of these requirements, APLU suggests the Department should:

• Explore and invest in reliable and timely data sources of student outcomes.
• Encourage transparency without imposing unnecessary burden.
• Encourage the use of non-financial post-graduation outcomes in addition to earnings.

Transfer of Credit Policies
The Department proposes to make transfer of credit policies a more explicit accreditation and compliance focus. Specifically, accrediting agencies would be required to confirm, as part of initial accreditation, pre-accreditation, and renewal reviews, that institutions maintain detailed and publicly disclosed transfer credit policies consistent with federal expectations. These policies would need to address transcript submission timelines, transfer criteria, sources or types of credit not accepted, articulation agreements, prior learning criteria, and whether non-degree or non-credit coursework may apply toward degree programs.

While recognizing and working on needed improvements on credit transfer, APLU also notes the complexity of academic content comparability evaluation with more than 1.2 million students who transfer each year with individual, discipline-specific courses that require judgement against the unique requirements of hundreds of degree programs that in turn vary across the roughly 4000 degree-granting U.S. higher education institutions.  For some APLU member institutions, half of the incoming class may be transfer students with a concomitant large volume of transcripts, often from multiple institutions per student. In other cases, out-of-state or international coursework is not already mapped, and those with military credit or prior learning assessments require additional translation. While APLU believes the overall requirements in this section of the proposed regulations are well-intentioned and there are problems in credit transfer to address, the proposal is far afield from the scope of Departmental authority within the Higher Education Act.

The association further detailed its work on credit transfer through the AI Transfer and Articulation Network (ATAIN).

Research Integrity
Research integrity is a critical component of oversight for the nation’s research investments. APLU has advanced this cause through working groups supporting laboratory safety, research transparency, and research security with expertise from its member institutions.

While APLU agrees with the spirit of the Department of Education’s intent and appreciates the improvement in language from the original proposal, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would result in increased administrative burden without a corresponding increase in research safety and integrity.

The federal interest in the scope of issues is understandable given the unique partnership between research universities and the federal government, though the U.S. Department of Education and accreditors are not needed in this arena given the active engagement by other federal agencies and the White House. In fact, if advanced, ED and accreditors, who lack the requisite expertise on such issues, would duplicate and just layer on top of the research agencies’ already incredibly active oversight on research integrity.

APLU urges the Department of Education to defer to the better-equipped federal agencies already working on the frontlines of this issue and not create duplicative or conflicting assurance processes. APLU looks forward to continuing to advance research integrity in collaboration with the administration.

Judge Issues Nationwide Preliminary Injunction in Duration of Status Case 
Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a nationwide preliminary injunction on September 14, halting the implementation deadline for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) final rule on Duration of Status as litigation proceeds. The case was brought by NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, the Presidents’ Alliance, and other co-plaintiffs. 
 
Why it matters: The regulation, which has now been blocked nationwide as litigation proceeds, replaces “duration of status” admission for J (exchange visitor), and F (student), and I (media) visa holders with a fixed period of admission, up to the length of the program of study, not to exceed four years. The rule also imposes certain restrictions on F-1 visa holders’ ability to change programs, among other provisions. A detailed explanation of the final rule is available on the DHS’s webpage. 

In his ruling, Judge Saylor wrote: “The weakness of the connection between the rule and its purported rationales raises legitimate questions as to whether its real purpose is not to safeguard national security and protect our borders, but to achieve other, undisclosed, goals—such as, for example, asserting greater government control over academic institutions and the press.” The judge also extensively cited concerns raised in public comments that were not adequately addressed by DHS when issuing the final rule. APLU previously submitted comments raising substantial concerns that the regulation would weaken the country’s ability to attract the world’s best minds who contribute to its status as the global leader in research and innovation. 

APLU Endorses Congressional Effort to Overturn Duration of Status Final Rule 
APLU endorsed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of disapproval of the final rule on Duration of Status, introduced by Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-IL), along with Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). The Congressional Review Act is a federal law that gives Congress a mechanism to review and overturn certain agency rules through a joint resolution of disapproval. 
 
Go deeper: The CRA gives Congress 60 legislative days to disapprove a major rule, with special procedures, including a simple majority vote in the Senate. Since that period is not expected to expire before the end of the 119th Congress, it would reset in full in the next Congress, which is outlined in a Congressional Research Service report on the CRA process. This would give the next Congress a fresh 60 legislative days to consider and potentially pass the resolution in 2027. However, the resolution would ultimately need President Trump’s signature to take effect, or a veto override. 

USCIS/DHS Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Eliminating the Discretionary 60-Day Grace Period for Visa Holders 
On September 11, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to eliminate the discretionary 60-day grace period that currently allows E-1, E-2, E-3, H-1B, H-1B1, L-1, O-1, or TN visa holders to remain in the United States for up to 60 days after their employment ends. If finalized, the proposed rule would necessitate the above visa holders to depart the United States or otherwise take action to maintain lawful status at the conclusion of their employment. 

The proposed elimination of the grace period could make it more difficult for universities and other employers to retain international faculty and researchers who are already in the country when their employment circumstances change. Under the current policy, the above visa holders generally have up to 60 days after employment ends to identify another qualifying position, pursue a change or extension of status, or make arrangements to depart the United States.  

What’s next: APLU is preparing comments on the impact eliminating the grace period will have on affected visa holders. The NPRM has a 60-day comment period, which concludes on November 10. 

U.S. Department of Treasury, IRS Move to End Tax-Exempt Status for Discriminatory Practices in Private Schools 
On September 3, the U.S. Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue System issued a proposed regulation “to end federal tax-exempt status for private schools that engage in racial discrimination.” After consulting with counsel, APLU has confirmed the proposal is not expected to impact public institutions regardless of how they are organized under the tax code, nor impact affiliated foundations.  

Under the proposed rule, a private school would not qualify for federal tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) if it adopts, maintains, or enforces a policy or practice that discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national or ethnic origin. Per the IRS, the rule would apply across admissions, educational policies, scholarships and loans, athletics, and every other school-administered or school-supported program. 

APLU Endorses HONEST Act  
APLU endorsed the Higher Education Oversight for Nonprofits Ensuring Standards and Transparency Act (HONEST) Act sponsored by Representatives Alma Adams (D-NC) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD).  

Modeled on existing protections for houses of worship, the HONEST Act establishes clear, neutral procedures for how the IRS conducts inquiries and audits of colleges and universities. Before the IRS begins an audit, the bill requires U.S. Department of Treasury officials to document a reasonable belief that a school may be violating current federal tax law. The bill also requires the IRS allow institutions to request a conference before an examination begins and prevents repeat and duplicative investigations.  

Last week’s proposed rule from the U.S. Department of Treasury “to end federal tax-exempt status for private schools that engage in racial discrimination” adds new context to the legislation. 

U.S. Department of Education Cleared to Release Title IX Rule 
The White House Office of Management and Budget cleared the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to release its final Title IX regulation, which is expected to recodify the Trump administration’s policy on sex discrimination. The timing of when the final rule will be released and what is included is still unknown. Reports indicate it may formally remove the Biden administration’s interpretation extending Title IX protections to sexual orientation and gender identity, which courts already vacated. Currently, ED is enforcing the 2020 rule on sexual misconduct. 

House Passes Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act 
On September 3, the House passed the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act with a bipartisan 237-169 vote. The bill is led by Representatives Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ). According to Rep. Gottheimer’s  summary of the bill, it would:  

• Require colleges and universities to certify that the institution is not engaging in a non-expressive commercial boycott of Israel, or forgo the ability to receive federal student aid. 

• Define “non-expressive commercial boycott of Israel” to mean a commercial action (including engaging in refusals to deal with Israel and terminating business activities) intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities conducting business in Israel or Israeli-controlled institutions, and is not based on a valid business reason. 

• Direct the U.S. Department of Education to make publicly available a list of all institutions that do not certify. 

• Require colleges and universities that are recipients of U.S. Department of Education International Education Programs (Title VI) funding to not allow academic boycotts, but instead engage in academic exchange reciprocity. 

It is unclear at this time whether the Senate will consider the bill. 

President Trump Signs Executive Order Creating U.S. Space Academy  
On August 28, President Trump signed an executive order to establish a new NASA-led “United States Space Academy.” According to NASA, “The proposed academy would focus technical education with leadership development, discipline, and a commitment to public service, helping ultimately advance U.S. interests in space.” 

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman stated that the new academy, “…is a transformational step to educate the engineers, scientists, technicians, operators and even the astronauts” who are necessary to serve the space workforce broadly, including the commercial space industry and the U.S. Space Force.