Washington Update

Trump Administration Presents $810M Rescissions Package, Including Title VI International Education Funding, Multistate Coalition Files Challenge
President Trump announced on Friday evening an $810 million pocket rescissions package, which included $70 million in Title VI international education funding. The funding was expected to be awarded by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) through an interagency agreement with the U.S. Department of State in FY26 following significant funding disruptions to the programs in FY25.  

According to the Congressional Research Service, “pocket rescission” is an informal term for a potential use of the Impoundment Control Act that could allow a president to withhold funds without Congress completing a rescission bill. With the fiscal year ending September 30, funds effectively became unavailable for expenditure without further congressional action. The U.S. Government Accountability office reviewed this action at the request of Senate Democrats and found that the Impoundment Control Act does not provide the President with ”pocket rescission” authority as claimed.  

APLU’s advocacy with member institutions and coalition partners resulted in the release of two Title VI funding opportunities, Centers Aligned with Areas for National Need and the Mutual Education and Cultural Exchange program, both which reflected changes in program design to reflect the administration’s priorities. The programs were announced and competed this summer. Despite awards being promised before the end of the fiscal year, approximately $70 million of that funding was included in the rescissions package.  

In the rescissions package, the administration mischaracterized the programs as providing “grants and fellowships to support institutions bringing foreign students and faculty to the United States to study or teach language, conduct research, and provide professional and curriculum development. These programs have deviated from their core mission and instead support wasteful and divisive projects, including doctoral dissertations on queer and trans community building in foreign countries.”  

Late Friday, Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, released a statement: “Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.” Vice Chair Patty Murray also weighed in: “This is theft from the American people, plain and simple.” 

On the last day of the fiscal year, the attorney general (AG) of California, joined by the AGs of Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon, filed suit in the District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the White House Office of Management and Budget’s pocket rescission. The complaint alleges violations of the U.S. Constitution and Administrative Procedures Act, among other federal statutes, while seeking a variety of relief, including “an order compelling the United States and Agency Defendants to fully apportion, obligate, and spend the unlawfully impounded funds that they unreasonably delayed and unlawfully withheld.” 

Among other references, the complaint notes the rescission of funding to Department of Education Title VI international education programs and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) at the Department of Health and Human Services. 

What’s next: APLU is in contact with congressional appropriators to strengthen outcomes in the FY27 process in collaboration with partner organizations. The association is preparing a more formal communication to Congress to correct the narrative on the purpose and outcomes of the Title VI programs. APLU also provided the following statement to the media, which was quoted in Inside Higher Ed. 

“The administration launched an interagency agreement between the Departments of Education and State, fundamentally redesigned the programs to their priorities, launched a competition, asked institutions to compete and get support from their states, only to pull the rug out from underneath everyone in the final days of the fiscal year. The justification of the action is a fundamental mischaracterization of the immense importance and value of the program to the nation.” 

The association will also track the action in the judiciary for implications to member institutions. 

APLU Comments on USCIS/DHS $103,265 Fee for Certain H-1B Petitions 
APLU provided comments on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) and Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes a $103,265 fee, payable at the time of filing for any cap-subject H-1B petitions.  

As written, APLU members are not subject to the proposed fee in their capacity as employers because the rule does not extend the fee to petitions that are exempt from the annual H-1B cap lottery. APLU members qualify for this exemption under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which covers institutions of higher education, nonprofit entities related to or affiliated with an institution of higher education, nonprofit research organizations and governmental research organizations. 
 
The association’s comments: 

• Express appreciation for exempting APLU member institutions from the $103,265 fee in their capacity as cap-exempt employers, detailing the distinct circumstances of public universities, which operate in fundamentally different labor markets from private employers; 
• Note concern for ambiguity in the basis of the exemption’s potential interaction with a forthcoming rule to revise cap-exemption eligibility; 
• Raise concerns about the fee’s broader impact, which APLU anticipates would reduce opportunities for international students to make contributions to U.S. workforce competitiveness and contribute to our nation’s innovation ecosystem; and 
• Describe the cumulative impact that several regulatory actions are expected to have on recent graduates by increasing the upfront and ongoing costs for hiring H-1B workers 

New Presidential Proclamation and Executive Order on H-1B Visas 
On September 18, the White House renewed its Presidential Proclamation to reimpose a $100,000 H-1B fee and issued a separate Executive Order related to H-1Bs. A White House fact sheet provides summaries from the administration on both actions.  
 
Presidential Proclamation 
The new Presidential Proclamation, Restriction on the Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers, attempts to reimpose a $100,000 payment requirement on new H-1B workers. The fee was first imposed in September 2025 as a presidential proclamation with the same title. The new proclamation aims to extend the policy through September 2027.  

On September 30, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a preliminary injunction in Global Nurse Force et al. v. Trump, which temporarily blocks the proclamation’s effect as litigation proceeds. In June, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts vacated the previous $100,000 presidential proclamation in a lawsuit brought by a multistate coalition of state attorneys general. The court declared the $100,000 fee unlawful, though the government has appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. In the same manner as the first proclamation, the renewed version does not exempt higher education institutions or other cap-exempt employers.  

The White House fact sheet describes the proclamation as a solution to combat “H-1B abuses”, citing repeated references to labor market concerns for recent graduates including “a proliferation of lower-paid foreign labor flooding the American labor market and making it difficult for American workers and recent graduates, especially in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, to find employment.” The administration reports that over 700 H-1B petitions were accompanied by a $100,000 payment since the original proclamation took effect in September 2025. 

The $100,000 fee is separate from the proposed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rule that would impose a $103,265 fee on certain H-1B petitions subject to the annual visa cap. While that fee would not be applied to APLU members as employers, it contains language noting that employers participating in the lottery (i.e. private industry) would be subject to both fees, which total $203,265, if the proposed rule is finalized.  
 
Executive Order 
The executive order, Enhancing Program Integrity and Interagency Coordination in the Administration of the H-1B Nonimmigrant Visa Program, directs federal agencies to scrutinize H-1B visa applications “where there is a heightened risk that American workers would be laid off.” The Order specifically directs the Secretary of State, Secretary of Labor, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to consider petitioner employers’ “recent or planned layoffs of similarly situated U.S. workers when considering H-1B visa applications.” 

It also directs the Secretaries of State Labor, and Homeland Security to consult with the Secretaries of Commerce, Education, and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration in order to receive additional data for the administration of the H-1B program, such as data on wages, industrial conditions, and employment specialization.  

APLU Comments on U.S. Department of State Proposed Rule to Expand J Visa Termination Authority 
On September 30, APLU commented on the U.S. Department of State’s proposed rule titled, “Exchange Visitor Program: Termination of Program Participation, Extension of Program and Reinstatement to Valid Program Status.” The proposed rule applies to the J visa category for exchange visitors and changes the conditions under which a sponsor (e.g. an institution of higher education) or the State Department must terminate an exchange visitor’s program. The proposed rule also modifies reinstatement processes. 
 
APLU’s comments:  

• Express concern over a requirement that sponsors terminate an exchange visitor’s participation with immediate effect when the exchange visitor “falsifies or fails to provide full and truthful response, information, or documents as part of his or her application or ongoing program” without any requirement that the misstatement or omission be willful or material; 
• Describe how immediate termination of an exchange visitor’s status can abruptly disrupt university activities with consequences that extend to U.S. students, faculty, researchers, and federal partners; 
• Recommended that sponsors be afforded the same safeguards as the Department when making terminations: to allow J visa holders with application issues identified by sponsors to contest or remedy issues and allow for reinstatement; and 
• Recommends the Department retain the distinction between ‘minor and technical infractions’ and ‘substantive violations’ in the reinstatement process to make it easier to prioritize reinstatements that can more easily be remedied.  

APLU Comments on U.S. Department of Education “EDGAR” Proposed Rule 
On September 28, APLU submitted comments on the U.S. Department of Education General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) proposed rule, which governs how ED distributes their discretionary grants.  

The association’s comments raise concerns over: 

• Termination authority: APLU’s chief concern with the proposed rule is the “termination for convenience” authority which would make it easier for grants to be cancelled, making grant-funded projects and staffing more unpredictable.  
• Indirect costs: APLU opposed favoring applicants who accept below-negotiated indirect cost rates, warning this potentially rewards low costs over quality and risks a “race to the bottom.” 
• Merit certification: A new requirement to certify that hiring and admissions decisions rest on “merit” and “high standards” goes beyond EDGAR’s scope and uses undefined terms. 
• Executive orders: Requiring compliance with executive orders, which lack the force of law, could make grant rules shift with each administration. 
• Selection criteria: A new scoring factor that would give points based on whether “admissions, promotion or participant selection decisions” are based on academic excellence or high standards. The criterion is unrelated to the purpose of many ED programs, such as outreach and capacity-building grants.  

New APLU Resource: Summary of Proposed Changes to Federal Funding Compliance Policies 
APLU created a tracker that collates the association’s responses to regulatory actions that use federal grants and contracts as leverage to require federal fund recipients to accept terms and conditions, many of which are unrelated to the projects. The tracker summarizes proposed regulatory changes and includes links to APLU’s comment letters or other responses. 

U.S. Department of Education Releases new Title IX rule 

The U.S. Department of Education issued a final rule removing the 2024 Title IX regulations and restoring the 2020 Title IX regulations that preceded them. The rule is scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on September 29, 2026, and takes effect immediately upon publication. The Department describes the rule not as a new policy but as updating the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect the rules it has enforced since early 2025, after federal courts vacated the Biden-era 2024 Title IX rule.  

The big picture: The higher education community submitted extensive comments on the regulations when first proposed by the Trump administration in 2019. APLU also shared principles for Title IX regulations at the beginning of the Biden administration. 

Farm Bill Passes out of Senate Agriculture Committee  
Earlier this month, the Senate Agriculture Committee advanced its Farm Bill on a party-line vote of 12-11 with Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) casting the deciding vote. This vote follows an unsuccessful attempt to pass the bill out of committee on August 6. 

The path forward for the bill remains unclear, with the most likely opportunity for consideration on the Senate floor to be sometime when the Senate reconvenes after the midterm elections. The current 2018 Farm Bill expired in 2023. If a compromise cannot be reached, another extension will be needed. 

As in the House version of the Farm Bill, which was passed earlier this year, APLU’s policy recommendations for Title VII, the research title, are well represented in the Senate bill. APLU will continue to keep members updated as negotiations on the bill continue. 

Senate Launches Bipartisan Science and Innovation Caucus 
This month, Senators Dave McCormick (R-PA), and John Hickenlooper (D-CO) announced the formation of the Bipartisan Science and Innovation Caucus. The stated purpose of the caucus is “to highlight and elevate American scientific research and the application of those discoveries to promote innovation.” The announcement noted that “Caucus members will work together with industry leaders and the research community to develop policies that promote U.S. leadership in science.” The caucus held a kickoff event last Monday and released a launch video.