AASCU Federal Highlights – October 2026

From the week of Oct. 1

 U.S. Department of Education (ED) Reverts to 2020 Title IX Rules

On Tuesday, ED formally rescinded the Biden Administration’s 2024 Title IX regulations and reinstated the Title IX regulations issued under the first Trump Administration in 2020. The promulgated rules are the same ones ED has enforced since January of 2025, according to ED’s fact sheet. Notably, the revised language does not include provisions previously anticipated, including a definition of gender (although future regulatory action may address such issues). The rule language was effective immediately upon official publication without a public notice and comment period.

After publication, the 2024 regulations were enjoined and ultimately vacated by federal courts. As a result, the Biden Administration’s regulations have not been in effect, and the 2020 regulations have remained to be the operative framework for Title IX enforcement.

As a reminder, AASCU President Dr. Charles L. Welch informed AASCU’s membership earlier this week about the four specific changes in the 2020 regulatory language that this weeks’ action adopted.

Senate Passes Protect College Sports Act

On Monday, the Senate passed the Protect College Sports Act (S.4668), by a vote of 77-22. The bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA), passed the Senate Commerce Committee 19-9 in June. Following negotiations with the SEC and Big Ten—who later endorsed the bill—the revised text sets a hard revenue-sharing cap on universities’ payments to athletes, creates a $27.5 million retention fund, and bars universities from circumventing the cap. It also addresses NIL transparency, transfers, and eligibility. President Trump has since announced his support of the bill.

Notably, the legislation also does not address collective bargaining rights for student-athletes, a point of contention in the House. The House’s SCORE Act (H.R. 4312) regarding college sports has struggled to garner sufficient support due to this issue. Whether the House will take up the Protect College Sports Act remains to be seen, as the House is out of session until after the November midterm elections.

Trump Administration Plans to Rescind $95 Million from Education Programs

On Friday, the Trump Administration announced a plan to rescind $95 million from ED programs, including nearly $70 million from domestic grants within ED’s International and Foreign Language Education program and roughly $25 million for programs serving migrant students. The maneuver is known as a “pocket recission,” in which a president submits a recission proposal to Congress shortly before the end of the fiscal year, leaving insufficient time for Congress to act before the funds expire. This action effectively withholds and cancels spending without a congressional vote.

The proposed rescissions are part of an $810 million package across several federal agencies. The White House said it aims to “eliminate wasteful and harmful spending,” but the GAO reaffirmed that the Administration cannot use a pocket rescission to expire funds without Congress’s approval. The Trump Administration used a similar strategy in 2025 to withhold about $5 billion in foreign aid.

The current action has drawn bipartisan congressional criticism and renewed legal questions over the President’s authority to withhold Congressionally appropriated funds. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) criticized the Administration’s action, stating that rescinding appropriated funds without congressional approval undermines congressional authority.

ED Releases National Student Loan Cohort Default Rate

On Wednesday, ED released the FY23 official national student loan cohort default rate (CDR) briefing. Notably, the national rate increased to 0.4%, up from 0.0% for FY22. Public institutions had a rate of 0.3%, private institutions 0.3%, and proprietary institutions 0.8%. ED cautioned that these results should be interpreted considering the FY23 cohort’s pause on federal student loan payments that began in March 2020. Because no borrowers with Department-held loans entered default during the pause, it affected the subsequent CDR results. The FY 2023 CDR is the first to reflect a measurement period in which borrowers were able to enter default since the FY 2019 cohort.

ED also used the announcement to urge higher education institutions to review nonrepayment rates. ED recently updated this data, reporting that approximately 1,800 institutions have nonrepayment rates at or above 25%, and encouraged those institutions to prepare for the release of draft FY24 CDRs early next year. ED’s emphasis on the nonrepayment rate signals that the Department expects nonrepayment rates to translate into higher default rates and could result in CDR consequences for institutions following the full expiration of pandemic-era flexibilities.

ED Extends Time to Select New Repayment Program and Establishes Defaulted Loan Support Center

On Tuesday, ED extended the enrollment period for a temporary 1% interest rate reduction for federal student loan borrowers. The deadline, previously set for the end of September, now allows borrowers who enroll in auto pay by December 31, 2026, to receive a 1% reduction through June 30, 2028. Before July 1, enrolled borrowers got a 0.25% reduction. ED announced this earlier to encourage on-time payments and support borrowers switching to the new repayment plan under H.R. 1. Nearly 2 million borrowers have enrolled since the benefit was announced.

This week, ED and the U.S. Department of the Treasury launched the Defaulted Loans Support Center, an online tool to help borrowers navigate options for defaulted federal student loans. It allows applying for loan rehabilitation or consolidation, making payments, and reviewing repayment or discharge options. These changes offer borrowers more incentives and tools to manage defaulted loans.

Institute of Education Sciences Obligates Remaining FY25 Funding

On Monday, a status report in NCLD v. OMB stated IES has obligated about 99.5% of FY25 funding. NCLD v. OMB questioned if the remaining $180 million would be obligated, with only $3.5 million now unobligated, mostly in the statistics account. This is typical for the fiscal year, fulfilling government obligations. ED is still closing out FY activities, so this may decline. Unlike other ED programs, IES has two-year spending authority, so unspent FY25 funds expire after September 30. The government plans to obligate all funds by the deadline. The judge required a status update on obligations by September 28, which is positive for higher education institutions and helps maintain IES’s research funding and data efforts.

‘Defend the Spend’ Reporting Applied to ED Programs

On Monday, ED issued a memo to agency grant recipients whose awards continue to be administered through the Department, announcing that, beginning November 1, 2026, recipients will be required to provide written justifications with payment requests for all ED-administered grants. The requirement is part of Executive Order 14222, “Implementing the President’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ Cost Efficiency Initiative,” colloquially referred to as “Defend the Spend.” The initiative directs federal agencies to establish systems to document and justify payments made under federal contracts and grants.

Affected grantees will likely need to provide more detailed information for each payment request, such as how funds will be used and why expenditures are necessary and allowed under the grant. This memo applies only to grants still managed by ED and excludes programs transferred via Interagency Agreements, including some Office of Postsecondary Education programs now run by the Department of Labor. Recipients should prepare to submit clear, specific documentation starting November 1. The ED memo offers guidance for those seeking clarification and support in complying with the new requirements.

Democrats Introduce America’s College Promise Act of 2026

Today, House Education and Workforce Committee Ranking Member Bobby Scott (D-VA), Representative Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), Representative Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM), Representative Madeleine Dean (D-PA), and Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) introduced the America’s College Promise Act of 2026. The legislation would create a new federal-state partnership to waive two years of tuition for community or technical college for eligible students. Other features of the bill include:

• Ensuring that programs offer academic credits that are transferable to four-year institutions in their state;
• Maintaining and encouraging state funding for higher education;
• Establishing a student success fund to improve enrollment, retention, transfer, or completion rates and labor market outcomes for underserved student populations; and
• Establishing a new grant program for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs).

The America’s College Promise Act is a longstanding Democratic proposal first introduced in 2015 by Senator Tammy Baldwin and Rep. Bobby Scott. It has been reintroduced each Congress with a consistent core, but is unlikely to progress now. Its recent introduction before the November midterms signals future Democratic priorities, highlighting community college affordability and MSI support if Democrats control either chamber.

Keith Sonderling Confirmed as Labor Secretary; Senate Departs Until After November Elections

Late yesterday, the Senate confirmed Keith Sonderling as the Secretary of Labor on a 47-41 vote. Sonderling, who was originally confirmed as the Deputy Secretary of Labor in March 2025, had been serving in an acting capacity as Secretary since former Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer resigned in April of this year. Since Sonderling was serving in an acting capacity as Secretary, the Department of Labor’s focus is likely to remain the same with his formal confirmation.

Sonderling’s vote also marked the last scheduled legislative business for the Senate until after the November elections. With the Senate’s departure, both the House and Senate will next meet November 9.

From the week of Oct. 15

ED to Award Fewer CCAMPIS Grants Than Expected

On Wednesday, POLITICO reported that the Department of Education (ED) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced fewer awardees than anticipated across several grant competitions, including in the case of Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) funding. ED and HHS, through an interagency agreement, awarded just 40 CCAMPIS grants using the program’s entire FY26 appropriation of $71.4 million to fund the full four-year grant period for each award. Given that the entire appropriation was used to cover the multi-year grant period rather than supporting annual continuation awards in future years, fewer institutions received funding through this year’s competition.

In May, ED stated that it anticipated 148 total awards, each capped at $1 million. Yet, the average award amount for the 40 FY26 awardees, as reported, is around $1.8 million. The FY26 competition has since drawn congressional attention, with Senate Democrats questioning the expanded use of grant “front-loading” and its effect on the number of institutions able to receive funding. The debate comes amid broader discussions about federal grant administration and sweeping proposed changes to grantmaking policies that would affect how future awards are distributed.

CCAMPIS grants allow institutions to provide childcare and related supports for Pell-eligible student parents as they persist and complete their degrees. The grants are often utilized at regional public universities (RPUs), where approximately 17% of students are parents of children under age 18 and/or caregivers. In the last FY23 competition, 264 institutions received funding, and about 1/3 of those were RPUs. Those interested in a deeper analysis of the FY26 competition can read an overview.

AASCU is closely monitoring developments related to the future of CCAMPIS program funding. We will keep members informed of developments, congressional activity, and opportunities for engagement.

Congressional Democrats Voice Concerns About MSI Funding Reallocation

On Wednesday, dozens of congressional Democrats sent a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon criticizing ED’s decision to reallocate funding from several Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) programs to other grant programs. The lawmakers called on the Department to restore funding to its originally designated programs, arguing that funds appropriated by Congress for specific purposes should be used as intended.

The letter follows ED’s September announcement of a one-time $235 million investment for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCUs). The funding was reallocated from programs that traditionally support other categories of Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), including Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), Alaska Native- and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions (ANNHIs), Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTIs), and Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs).

As a reminder, ED has argued that grant programs tied to racial or ethnic enrollment thresholds raise constitutional concerns, asserting that eligibility criteria based on an institution’s student-body composition may be inconsistent with equal protection principles. The reallocation follows the Department’s cancellation of most MSI grants in September 2025 on similar grounds and has prompted greater debate over the Department’s authority to alter the distribution of congressionally appropriated funding. The congressional letter signals growing scrutiny of the Administration’s approach to MSI programs. AASCU will keep you updated on their respective statuses.

DOJ Lawsuit Dismissed Over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

Last week, a federal judge dismissed the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) lawsuit challenging two Virginia laws related to in-state tuition policies for undocumented students. The DOJ argued that the laws conflict with federal immigration statutes and therefore are preempted by federal law. However, the district judge rejected the agency’s arguments, marking the second dismissal of a DOJ lawsuit challenging such state policies, following a similar decision in Minnesota.

The DOJ has filed similar lawsuits against 24 states and the District of Columbia, citing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which generally prohibits states from providing certain benefits to undocumented immigrants based on residency unless U.S. citizens are eligible for the same benefits regardless of their state residency. Federal courts have sided with the DOJ in six of these cases thus far, including Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas.

In Virginia, however, the judge found that the state’s laws differed from those struck down elsewhere. He ruled that Virginia’s Domicile Pathway does not provide tuition benefits to undocumented students and that its Tuition Equity Pathway does not condition eligibility on state residency. The recent decision reflects how the specific eligibility criteria in each state’s laws may affect the outcome of these cases, as the DOJ continues its broader effort to challenge state tuition policies nationwide. AASCU will keep you updated as new developments arise.

ED Releases College Affordability and Transparency Report

On Wednesday, ED released its 2025 College Affordability and Transparency Report (CATR), which summarizes institutions’ mandatory explanations for rising tuition, fees, and average net prices. Statutorily required under Section 132 of the Higher Education Act, the annual report identifies the 5% of institutions with the highest tuition and net prices, the 10% with the lowest tuition and net prices, and the 5% with the largest increases in tuition and net prices over the previous three years. Nearly 450 colleges and universities were required to submit a College Affordability and Transparency Explanation Form (CATEF), outlining the reasons for their cost increases and any plans to reduce prices.

According to ED, 198 institutions were identified on the list of schools with the largest increase in tuition and fees, while 216 were identified on the list of schools with the largest increases in net price. Institutions cited factors including additional staffing, higher salaries and wages, and increased operating costs. Of the institutions that responded, 60% reported having no plans to lower prices, while 40% indicated plans to reduce costs.

The report comes amid continued federal oversight on college affordability, transparency, and the return on investment, including recent policy changes enacted through H.R. 1. While the report does not establish new requirements for institutions, it provides additional public information on institutional pricing decisions and reinforces ED’s emphasis on transparency and accountability for rising college costs. ED has published information on rising prices at institutions of higher education since 2011, and stated that it intends to continue publishing this data annually.

Census Bureau Proposal Sparks Discussion About Native Population Data

Proposed changes to the 2030 U.S. Census are drawing attention across higher education and tribal advocacy communities due to their potential implications for Native populations and federal programs that rely on Census data. Indicated in last month’s publication by the U.S. Census Bureau, the proposal would establish residency criteria for determining who is counted in the Census based on a person’s “usual residence” and would restrict the inclusion of certain demographic questions related to race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation on the decennial census questionnaire. The Census Bureau argues that the changes would help ensure an accurate count and prevent Census data from being influenced by characteristics it considers unrelated to apportionment.

While the proposal would not directly affect funding formulas for Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) or Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTIs), Native organizations and advocates have raised concerns that limiting race and ethnicity data could make it more difficult to accurately count Native Americans, particularly those living outside tribal lands or identifying with more than one race. Stakeholders argue that the resulting data gaps could affect long-term planning and the administration of federal programs and services that rely on Census demographic data. The proposal is currently open for public comment through November 2, 2026. Additional information is available in the U.S. Census Bureau’s proposed rule published in the Federal Register.

From the week of Oct. 29

Final Accreditation Rule Released

Today, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) released its final Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Rule, making significant changes to the federal regulations governing accrediting agencies and the standards they use to evaluate institutions for Title IV federal student aid eligibility. The final rule closely mirrors the proposed rule issued earlier this year and is intended to reshape the accreditation recognition process and expectations placed on accrediting bodies.

Among other changes, the final rule:

• Reduces barriers for institutions seeking to change accreditors and for new accrediting agencies seeking federal recognition;
• Expands conflict-of-interest requirements and strengthens organizational separation requirements between accreditors and affiliated entities;
• Revises accrediting standards related to student achievement and post-completion outcomes, faculty, facilities, civil rights compliance, First Amendment protections, and intellectual diversity;
• Establishes new requirements intended to facilitate the transfer of academic credit;
• Prohibits certain accreditation policies that provide preferences based on race;
• Modifies the administrative processes governing accreditor recognition, renewal, and changes in scope; and
• Clarifies implementation timelines, specifying that the new requirements apply to accrediting agencies that submit applications for renewal of recognition after July 1, 2026.

As a reminder, the AIM regulations emerged from a negotiated rulemaking process convened by ED, which concluded in May of this year. Key areas of debate included transfer-of-credit policies, the role of accreditors in addressing academic freedom and intellectual diversity, and the relationship between accrediting agencies and affiliated membership organizations. This final rule largely reflects the consensus agreement and formalizes the changes negotiated by ED and the committee. It is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2027.

ED Removes MSI Filters from College Scorecard

On Wednesday, Inside Higher Ed reported on recent changes to the College Scorecard, a free federal resource that provides comparable data on college costs, value, and post-graduation outcomes. Notably, it shared that the Trump Administration has recently removed designations for several categories of Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), including those for Alaska Native- and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions (ANNHIs), Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), and Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs).

Students can still filter searches to view Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) as well as Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs). The changes also add new data on the earnings of an average student at a given institution seven years after they graduate. This update comes amid broader ED actions affecting MSIs and related funding. As a reminder, in late September, the Administration moved to withdraw funding from grant programs that directly serve MSIs, arguing that eligibility criteria based on racial or ethnic enrollment thresholds were unconstitutionally discriminatory.

AASCU will continue to keep you updated on all developments impacting MSIs.

House Democrats Share Priorities on Higher Education and Student Success

Democrats on the House Committee on Education and Workforce recently released a report examining the academic, financial, and personal barriers that can hinder college completion, including challenges related to transfer, housing and food insecurity, mental health, and access to childcare. The report highlights a range of evidence-based strategies aimed at improving student persistence and credential attainment, while noting that millions of Americans have some college credit but no degree.

The report also provides an early indication of higher education priorities that Committee Democrats could pursue in a future Congress, particularly in the context of a potential Higher Education Act reauthorization. A significant portion of the report focuses on transfer student success, pointing to persistent challenges in credit mobility and degree completion. It notes that while a large majority of community college students initially intend to pursue a bachelor’s degree, relatively few ultimately transfer and complete one. To address barriers to access, the report recommends strengthening articulation agreements, expanding transfer advising and student supports, reducing credit loss during transfer, and improving pathways for students with some college credit but no credential to return and complete their studies.

DOD Concludes Audit of Foreign Partnerships

Last week, the Department of Defense (DOD) announced the completion of an audit on university partnerships with foreign entities of concern. DOD reported that the review resulted in more than 80 “termination-related” actions across the 30 universities it investigated. The review covered partnerships with entities on the Section 1286 list of foreign entities of concern, as well as additional entities subject to “precautionary terminations” that were not explicitly named on the list.

As a reminder, DOD published an updated Section 1286 list in July and, on August 17, directed universities to conduct an “immediate and comprehensive” audit of foreign partnerships within two weeks. Most of the partnered entities were based in China. The Washington Post, which conducted an analysis of 17 university response letters, found that many institutions had already planned to end partnerships or determined that the relationships did not involve sensitive technology.

The audit and its conclusion signal continued federal scrutiny of international research partnerships. DOD’s use of precautionary terminations also suggests that institutions may face pressure to reassess partnerships, including those not explicitly identified on the Section 1286 list. DOD stated that their review fully mitigated the identified relationships under scrutiny from the Administration. AASCU will continue to keep you updated.

DOJ Announces First Charges in Nationwide “Ghost Student” Fraud Investigation

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the first indictments stemming from “Operation Ghostbusters,” a nationwide investigation into an alleged student aid fraud scheme involving the use of stolen identities to create fraudulent FAFSA applications and enroll fictional “ghost students” at colleges and universities. According to DOJ, the scheme allowed fraudsters to obtain federal student aid funds and divert refunds to accounts controlled by domestic and overseas actors, with investigators estimating losses could exceed $200 million nationwide. The initial enforcement actions include charges against five defendants, the seizure of more than $750,000 in cryptocurrency, and ongoing investigations spanning more than 40 cases across 26 FBI field offices.

The announcement underscores growing federal scrutiny of student aid fraud and identity theft within higher education. Federal officials indicated that colleges, universities, and government agencies have identified increasing numbers of fraudulent applications in recent years, particularly in online learning environments where bad actors have used stolen identities and automated tools, including artificial intelligence (AI) to maintain enrollment status and access aid funds. The case is likely to renew attention on institutional verification practices, FAFSA fraud prevention measures, and broader efforts to safeguard federal student aid programs while ensuring eligible students can access assistance.