Major Updates

Public Comment Period Opens on Workforce Pell Implementation Rules (Due April 8)

The U.S. Department of Education has officially opened the public comment period on proposed regulations to implement Workforce Pell Grants, with comments due April 8, 2026. These grants offer a new federal financial aid pathway that will allow students to use Pell Grants for high-quality, short-term workforce training programs. The proposed rule outlines details within eligibility for these workforce programs, accountability measures such as completion and job-placement benchmarks, and state approval processes designed to ensure programs align with statutory requirements. Higher education leaders, workforce partners, and stakeholders now have an opportunity to provide feedback before the regulations are finalized. For institutions that offer short-term workforce, professional, continuing, and online programs, the proposal is worth close attention because it would shape how eligible workforce programs are approved, overseen, and measured for value under the new federal aid framework.

The Department offered some directed questions focused on seven specific parts of the regulation for input, including: whether ineligible partners should be limited to providing 25 percent of a workforce program under written arrangements; how to prevent institutions from sidestepping the new Pell restriction when nonfederal grants or scholarships cover a student’s full cost of attendance; whether the Department should use an interim value-added earnings measure before official earnings calculations begin in 2030–31; whether additional groups of students should be excluded from the completer cohort used for earnings calculations; how many years of cohorts should be combined for smaller programs. The two final areas have particular relevance to the online education community: how interstate distance education could best work within bilateral agreements between governors; and how earnings should be handled when large shares of students are located out of state.

Responses from the UPCEA community are encouraged. Keep your comments focused on items within the regulatory framework which are able to be tweaked. Avoid those that are constrained by the language within public law, which the Department is not able to affect change on. View the proposed rule and submit comments ahead of the April 8 deadline.


The Trump Administration and DEI: When One Door Closes with the DCL and its Certification Requirement, Another Door Opens with the GSA’s New Certification Requirement (Thompson Coburn LLP)

“Higher Ed’s battle with the Trump Administration over DEI can feel a bit like whack-a-mole, with the DCL defeat closely followed by the emerging GSA proposed revisions and then the Fourth Circuit’s ruling upholding the DEI Executive Orders. What makes the GSA’s new proposed certification requirement particularly potent for the Government’s anti-illegal DEI campaign is that it controls the federal purse. This may result in a chilling effect—some institutions may stop programs, even if they have been upheld by courts or authorized by Congress—for fear of losing them. For now, the GSA proposed revisions are only that—proposed. They are not final until the notice and comment period ends, and even then only after the final policy is adopted—which may be different from the proposal. Thus, there is not an immediate date on which GSA has stated financial assistance recipients may expect to see the GSA certification in SAM. […]

Although much has happened with the Trump Administration’s war on illegal DEI in the last few months, the bottom line has not changed: the Administration’s anti-illegal DEI efforts will continue, perhaps until the Supreme Court weighs in on the Administration’s broad interpretation of the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College decision. At the end of the day, even if the DEI Executive Orders are declared unlawful and the GSA proposed rule is struck down after becoming final, what matters most is whether the Government’s view of the Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College decision is the correct one, and how soon the Supreme Court might make that determination.” Read more.

 

Other News

Major Updates

Education Department AHEAD Negotiated Rulemaking Wraps Up; Consensus Achieved on New Accountability Metrics
The Department of Education’s AHEAD negotiated rulemaking committee has now wrapped its winter work with consensus language on the program accountability portion, following the committee’s earlier consensus on Workforce Pell regulatory text. Now that consensus has been reached, ED is positioned to move from negotiated language into one (or likely two or more) Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs), with a public comment period expected soon. This matters because the negotiated package is designed to implement major statutory changes adopted in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), with ED moving on an accelerated timeline toward a July 1, 2026 effective date rather than the usual “final rule by November 1” cadence of the federal calendar.

Substantively, the consensus framework is built around a sector-neutral “do no harm” earnings comparison that would apply broadly across Title IV-eligible programs (not just “gainful employment” programs). Programs would be evaluated on whether completers’ earnings meet or exceed the earnings of an identified comparison group (generally working adults ages 25–34 without the same level of education). Importantly, this comparison is calculated without accounting for the previously known debt-to-earnings ratio. Programs that fail the earnings comparison in 2 out of 3 consecutive years would lose eligibility for Direct Loans, creating a materially higher stakes, outcomes-based compliance environment for institutions.

For campus leaders, the immediate to-dos are less about waiting for final thresholds and more about building readiness: identify programs that could be vulnerable under an earnings-based test (initial draft calculations were issued by the Department). Also plan internal governance now—finance, registrar, institutional research, career services, and program leadership will all need aligned processes for monitoring outcomes and responding quickly if a program is trending toward failure as the proposed rules move through notice-and-comment. Read more.

Resources: 

  • Webinar Recording | Decoding Workforce Pell and the New Program Accountability Framework
    UPCEA has a recording and slides available that walk through what negotiators debated on Workforce Pell for short-term credentials as well as the discussions and regulations on the emerging, earnings-based accountability framework. For administrators tracking both program expansion opportunities and Title IV risk, it’s a useful “single-stop” resource to compare the statutory parameters Workforce Pell must follow and the requirements that will apply to almost all programs as part of the new earnings metrics required from OBBBA. Watch the webinar and access the slide deck.

 

Department of Education Seeks Info on State Authorization Student Location Reporting – (Public Comment Deadline March 16th)
ED (Federal Student Aid) has opened a public comment period (due March 16, 2026) on the information collection tied to state authorization requirements under 34 CFR § 600.9. The notice asks for data collection insights on institutions that determine the state in which a student is located when enrolled in distance education/correspondence (including when operating under a reciprocity agreement). This is a good prompt for institutions to review their student-location determination process, documentation practices, and how those workflows map to multi-state authorization/reciprocity obligations—then consider submitting operational feedback during the comment window. Read more and submit a comment. 


Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee: Rulemaking Committee Announced
The Department of Education has formally launched a new 2026 negotiated rulemaking process, the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee, to pursue potential regulatory changes. The committee’s first negotiating session is scheduled for April 13–17, 2026 in Washington, DC (ED headquarters), with livestreaming available and a second session planned for May 18–22, 2026; registration for attending sessions is noted as “coming soon.” For universities, this is an early signal to issue recommendation for nominators, as well as flag likely accreditation-related regulatory issues that could impact institutional strategy (including oversight, innovation pathways, and modernization efforts), and prepare to engage,either by attending/livestream participation and/or shaping positions for the eventual public comment stage. Read more about the upcoming rulemaking here.

Other News

Major Updates

Workforce Pell Grants for Short-Term Programs: A Primer and Update from Negotiated Rulemaking: Consensus Reached – What’s in the Draft Regulations
We’ve developed a blog that provides a primer and overview of the recent negotiated rulemaking work on Workforce Pell Grants for Short-Term Programs, focusing on the first week of sessions held by the Department of Education’s Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-Driven Workforce Pell (AHEAD) committee. Negotiators reached consensus on draft regulations governing the new Workforce Pell program and related Pell eligibility issues. These draft regulations will serve as the basis for the Department’s proposed rule that will go out for public comment, although public feedback could still shape the final text. The blog underscores that this negotiated language reflects statutory requirements for eligible short-term programs, including duration, alignment with in-demand industries, job placement and completion rates, and a value-added earnings test. 

For administrators planning for institutional readiness, the blog highlights key elements of the draft Workforce Pell framework that universities and colleges should focus on. Eligible programs must meet specific criteria (e.g., 150–600 clock hours, alignment with defined industry needs, recognized credentials, and thresholds for completion and employment) and also satisfy new financial and earnings criteria tied to value added. Governors play a central role in certifying programs at the state level, and institutions will need to understand pathways for compliance, data reporting, and cross-state participation. The article will help campus teams engage with the evolving regulatory landscape as the implementation timeline toward July 1, 2026 continues.

In January (5-9) the committee will shift to negotiating regulations on program accountability metrics. To help you unpack everything that was discussed during these sessions, UPCEA will be hosting a webinar, “Decoding Workforce Pell and the New Program Accountability Framework: Negotiated Rulemaking Insights and Implementation Guidance,” on January 28 at 2:00 p.m. ET, and you can register here. Read our blog for more information.

 

Department of Education Launches New Institutional Earnings Indicator as Part of FAFSA
The U.S. Department of Education has announced the launch of a new earnings indicator embedded in the FAFSA process, designed to give prospective students and families clearer insight into post-graduation earnings outcomes at the institutions they are considering. Using existing, publicly available Department data, the FAFSA will now display average earnings information for each selected institution and generate a “lower earnings” disclosure when an institution’s graduates earn less, on average, than high school completers. The Department positions this addition as a transparency measure amid growing public concern about the value of a college degree and rising student loan debt, noting that more than 2 percent of undergraduates attend institutions with earnings outcomes below the high school benchmark, even as those institutions receive significant federal aid.

For higher education institutions and student support professionals, the indicator is part of a broader federal effort to make postsecondary outcomes more visible at key decision points. The Department emphasizes that the metric is intended to inform student choice and should be considered alongside other factors such as cost, mission, location, and individual goals. Counselors and college access staff are encouraged to use the indicator, in combination with tools like the College Scorecard, to support informed decision-making. Check out these FAQs from our partner Thompson Coburn LLP on the new indicator. The underlying data are now available through the FSA Data Center and will be updated as new earnings information becomes available, signaling continued federal focus on outcomes and value in higher education. Read more. 

 

Other News

What Online and Professional Continuing Higher Education Leaders Should Know

In early December, the Department of Education kicked off negotiated rulemaking with the Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand-driven Workforce Pell (AHEAD) committee, focusing most of its efforts in the first week on new Workforce Pell regulations and loss of Pell eligibility as created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). [For those of you who are new to negotiated rulemaking, and are wondering what it is and how it works, check out our UPCEA Policy Matters: Primers and Insights article – An Introduction to Negotiated Rulemaking for Higher Education.]

The AHEAD committee’s focus has been separated into three buckets:

  1. Loss of Pell eligibility when a student’s non-federal grant/scholarship aid equals or exceeds cost of attendance (COA)[1]
  2. Workforce Pell for short-term programs
  3. Accountability changes (“Do No Harm”, Financial Value Transparency, Gainful Employment) to be addressed in the January (more details, including how to register to watch those sessions are available here).

The Department set an unusual protocol for this committee: a separate consensus vote at the end of each week, rather than what had been done in past negotiated rulemaking sessions, which included either topic-based consensus votes, or an overall vote on all language during rulemaking. The committee did reach consensus at the end of the first week on the Pell-related topics (items 1 and 2 above) with all but one negotiator (state higher education officers’ representative) providing a thumbs up on the draft language. That matters because, under the Department’s stated approach, consensus language becomes the basis for the Department’s proposed rule.

The December session was the first of two within this rulemaking, however the Department chose to bifurcate the Loss of Pell due to non-federal aid, and Workforce Pell work during the December session, while reserving the January session for work on accountability frameworks like “Do No Harm,” Gainful Employment (GE), and Financial Value Transparency (FVT).

Additionally, while the Department has agreed to the consensus draft regulations, they also discussed changing some items discussed during the final day that may not yet be reflected in the the last draft available to negotiators. And while this draft language is likely to be very close to what the Department releases for public comment in the coming months, there are still opportunities for this language to change before becoming the final regulatory text. The Department can still revise provisions in the final rule based on public comments, even where negotiators reached consensus.

While we have provided an overview of certain topics within the consensus reached on Workforce Pell changes below, please attend our webinar on January 28th at 2-3PM ET “Decoding Workforce Pell and the New Program Accountability Framework: Negotiated Rulemaking Insights and Implementation Guidance” for more information on Workforce Pell, and also the details which will be focused on accountability metrics during the January rulemaking.

What are Statutory Requirements of Workforce Pell Programs?

To start, it is helpful to frame what the broad statutory requirements for Workforce Pell programs are based on the requirements enacted in OBBBA. The law restricted the Department and negotiators in what they could tweak within the regulations as part of the negotiations[2]. To be eligible for Workforce Pell, a program:

  • Must be offered by eligible institutions of higher education.
  • Must be at least 150, but less than 600 clock hours of instruction, with a minimum of 8 weeks, and less than 15 weeks of instruction.
  • Must be aligned with high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry or occupation, which are defined by a state’s governor.
  • Must meet programmatic eligibility for the 12 months immediately preceding the certification for inclusion in Workforce Pell
  • Must meet a 70% job placement rate (as measured in the draft regs by employment in the second quarter after completion, with additional occupation‑matching requirements after the initial transition period).
  • Must meet a 70% completion rate, within 150% of the normal time for completion.
  • Must satisfy a value‑added earnings cap: published tuition and fees may not exceed value‑added earnings (median earnings adjusted by Bureau of Economic Analysis[3] regional price parity minus 150% of the poverty line)
  • Must provide a recognized postsecondary credential that is stackable and portable across more than one employer, or prepares students for employment in an occupation for which there is only one recognized postsecondary credential.
  • May be a distance education program, however correspondence courses are not eligible.
  • May not be offered to a student who is enrolled, accepted for enrollment, or has attained a graduate credential.
  • May not be offered concurrently with Pell for any other educational program (including another Workforce Pell program).

What Types of Programs are Workforce Pell Programs?

The Department shared a document outlining what they see to be the most likely programs that will fit into the Workforce Pell framework. Their examples included:

  • Health-Related Programs (Nursing Assistants/Aides; Phlebotomy Technicians; EMT Paramedics);
  • Commercial Driver’s License & Vehicle Operation Programs;
  • Career & Technical-Related Programs (Welding Technology/Welders; Automotive Mechanics; Fire Prevention/Fire Safety; Computer & Information Sciences);
  • Child Care-Related Programs (Child Care Providers; Early Childhood Education Teachers).

The Department noted it was difficult for them to ascertain the data to figure out which programs could receive Workforce Pell Grants. This is because these programs are generally not captured as part of ED datasets because almost none receive Title IV federal financial aid. Among the reasons the Department noted in the document for what their limitations were included:

  • Federal data may overcount certain programs because it includes programs that are between 1-7 weeks in length.
  • Federal data may undercount certain programs because it does not include programs between 12-14 weeks in length and does not include non-credit programs.
  • Federal data also may overcount certain programs because we are unable to layer on the other WFP eligibility requirements.

So, they turned to two states to provide more data to inform the negotiators and themselves about what programs may qualify, with California and Virginia being the examples shown. However, even those datasets proved difficult to get a full picture as they did not contain information on for-profit institutions. And, because these two states offer robust data, and not all states do, it was difficult for the Department to extrapolate this because needs will vary across states based on the labor markets of that region.

The Department was also asked about the existing pathway programs which are similar and eligible for federal student loans, and they stated that out of the thousands of American institutions, that only 79 programs currently take part.

Based on their analysis, the Department assesses that overall, there could be as little as several hundred programs to up to a few thousand programs which could currently qualify for Workforce Pell and more may be added as Federal funding opens up.

How Much Will a Student Be Receiving Based on Workforce Pell?

The Department also provided an analysis during the rulemaking about the amount of money that a student could get for these programs, which is prorated off the overall Pell Grant maximum (currently $7,395 for 2025-2026). The Department analyzed the maximum and minimum amounts that a Workforce Pell Grant would be. On the upper bound, the most a Workforce Pell recipient would receive would be approximately $3,980; and on the lowest end, the minimum is approximately $123[4]. The Pell maximum award amount is a congressional appropriation, and in recent years, it has ticked up a small amount each year. However, it is important for institutions to note, there have been recent proposals, including from the Trump Administration FY 2026 presidential budget to lower the current Pell maximum amount from $7,395 to $4,650

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate projected that by 2034, there would be approximately 100,000 Workforce Pell recipients receiving an average of about $2,200 each.[6]

What Did Negotiators Discuss?

While we won’t do a full review of all the topics that negotiators discussed, we want to highlight those that may be most relevant to the UPCEA community and members.

  • There were many discussions about how financial aid will be distributed.
    • In the first day, negotiators discussed the new statutory OBBBA requirement for all Pell Grant programs to lose Pell eligibility for a student when non-federal grant/scholarship aid equal or greater than COA(cost of attendance).
  • The Value-Added Earnings requirement was a topic of much discussion. This requirement is such that programs will not be able exceed the amount of the total tuition and fees when calculating the difference between what the Secretary/Department of Education has determined are the median earnings of students and the state and metro area price parities and 150% of the poverty line. If the institution is found to be offering a program that fails this metric, they will need to lower the tuition and fees of that program.
  • Governors (often in coordination with state workforce entities) are critical to the approval of these programs. The negotiated language requires Governors to:
    • Determine that the program:
      • Provides an education aligned with the requirements of high-skill, high-wage (as identified by the State pursuant to section 122 of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (20 U.S.C. 2342)), or in-demand industry sectors or occupations;
      • Meets the hiring requirements of potential employers in the sectors or occupations;
      • Either leads to a recognized postsecondary credential that is stackable and portable across more than one employer; or prepares such students for employment in an occupation for which there is only one recognized postsecondary credential and provides such students with such a credential upon completion of the program
      • Prepares students to pursue one or more certificate or degree programs at one or more eligible institutions (which may include the eligible institution providing the program), including by ensuring:
        • Upon completion of the program and enrollment in such a related certificate or degree program, will receive academic credit for the program that will count toward the related credential.
    • Create a written, publicly available policy for the criteria the Governor will use to determine if a program meets each of the requirements including:
      • The State’s methodology to determine and periodically review which occupations and industry sectors are high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand
      • Whether the expected competencies for which the recognized postsecondary credential intends, align with the competencies needed in such high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand sectors and occupations
      • Incorporates direct input from employers, which may be secured from the state board and local workforce development boards, industry or sector partnerships, sponsors of Registered Apprenticeship programs, joint labor-management partnerships, or through other methodologies established by the State
      • If a credential is stackable and portable, including documented connections to additional credentials, and considers, if available, data showing whether students have obtained additional credentials through career pathways, real-time labor market information, and includes a process for employer validation
      • For institutions to establish that an eligible workforce program will ensure the award of academic credit towards a certificate or degree program upon a student’s successful completion of the eligible workforce program and enrollment in such certificate or degree program, and that such credit will be accepted at one or more eligible institutions through written agreements, including established articulation agreements, transfer-of-credit agreements, consortium or partnership agreements, or similar arrangements

Distance Education and Workforce Pell – What Happens with Online Education and Out-of-State Students? Does SARA Apply?

For distance education, for those students located within the state in which the institutions are located and the governor has offered approval for the program, they may partake in the Workforce Pell program like any other on-campus student. For those students who are out of state, the draft language notes that the governors of the state in which the institution is located, and the state in which the student is located are allowed to enter into a bilateral agreement in which they both recognize the program meets the state-based requirements of Workforce Pell. Separately, institutions will still need to meet the separate regulatory professional licensure requirements (if they are a licensure program) [7], and also meet all of the necessary approval processes with Workforce Pell.

While institutions may be taking part in SARA, and that may provide that their institutions may be authorized to administer programs in another state, that does not mean that they are automatically eligible for Workforce Pell if the two states governors have not collaborated to provide approval specifically on the programs which could be Workforce Pell eligible.

This concept, according to the Department’s example, is to allow for distance education programs from an out-of-state (State A) institution, such that another state (State B) could receive programs for students residing in State B may not have the capacity to provide those programs, but have a high need for them. It will also help in states which metropolitan areas where there is significant overlap between one or more states and students can easily work and live in multiple states.

One of the other regulatory draft changes included that if more than 50 percent of students included in the value-added earnings calculation are not located in the State in which the institution offering the program is located, the Department will not adjust the program’s median earnings by the State and metropolitan area regional price parities of the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The Department did clarify, that institutions still may provide workforce programs to students in other states, meaning out‑of‑state students can still enroll in the online program, but cannot receive Pell for that Workforce Pell program absent the bilateral governor agreement mechanism.

Other Interesting Notes and Take-Aways

  • Written arrangements with an ineligible entity will be allowed up to 25% or less of an eligible Workforce Pell program.
  • For credit‑hour eligible workforce programs, institutions may not count noncredit or reduced‑credit remedial coursework (including ESL) toward enrollment status/COA. However, noncredit programs may be eligible within a clock hour format.
  • Direct assessment programs are not eligible.
  • Study abroad programs are not eligible.
  • An eligible student enrolled in an eligible workforce program is only eligible for Federal financial assistance under the Federal Pell Grant program and no other title IV, HEA program.
  • Programmatic approval from the Governor can last as long as the Program Participation Agreement with the Department of Education.
  • Pathway vs. Workforce Program, isn’t it both? According to the Department, while there is a statutory requirement for stackability, that does not align nicely with the overarching goal of getting completers into jobs. The Department stated the overarching congressional intent for these programs was workforce development. And as such, the job placement rate would be negatively affected by a student who continues in education, but does not get employment. This would generally discourage institutions from trying to make these programs pathway programs to make sure they retain their 70% job placement rates.
  • The Department frequently noted that there are still many specifics to work out in terms of where earnings data will be pulled from, how data systems will be put into place, and the overall short timeline to get to the July 1, 2026 implementation date.
  • The Department worked to conform Workforce Pell definitions and processes as best as possible with those that had been established within the existing WIOA and Perkins frameworks.
    • Alignment included a continuous review process for Governors in which they will need to assess high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand occupations and the competencies needed for such at least every two years, in conjunction with requirements set in WIOA.
  • Loss of Eligibility Details
    • Two‑year lockout: If the Department determines a program fails the completion and/or job placement requirements (or it’s voluntarily discontinued while failing), the institution can’t re‑establish it, or a “substantially similar” program with the same 4‑digit CIP and identical SOC codes, for two years.
    • Regaining eligibility after a governor‑approval loss: A program can come back only after the Department receives a new governor certification and the Secretary determines the program again meets the eligibility criteria.
    • Value‑added earnings reinstatement is a process (not automatic): If a program loses eligibility because tuition/fees exceed value‑added earnings, reinstatement requires (1) new governor certification, (2) documentation + attestation that tuition/fees were reduced and will remain less than or equal to recalculated VAE, and (3) an ED recalculation request.

What Else? And What Should Institutions Be Doing Next for Workforce Pell Implementation?

While this post is not exhaustive (but perhaps it is for you reading it?), we encourage institutions to review the regulatory draft text with your institutional teams, since there are many details around the ins and outs of the program and how it will be administered. UPCEA will also be offering more details and review in a January 28th webinar from 2-3PM ET “Decoding Workforce Pell and the New Program Accountability Framework: Negotiated Rulemaking Insights and Implementation Guidance” covering the AHEAD committee work from both the December Workforce Pell session and January session focusing on accountability – so register today to attend. UPCEA has also developed a “Workforce Pell Readiness Checklist – For Four-Year Colleges & Universities” to help guide your efforts.

 

[1] https://studentaid.gov/help-center/answers/article/what-does-cost-of-attendance-mean

[2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text

[3] https://apps.bea.gov/itable/

[4] https://www.ed.gov/media/document/2025-ahead-calculation-of-federal-pell-grant-eligible-workforce-program-112683.pdf

[5] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/appendix_fy2026.pdf

[6] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61412

[7] https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/higher-education-laws-and-policy/certification-procedures-questions-and-answers#ldr

 

Jordan DiMaggio is the Vice President of Policy and Digital Strategy for UPCEA. He comes from a background in non-profit organizations and public service with a career spanning federal policy, data infrastructure, web design, and collaborative communications. His focus is in higher education and federal policy reform, as well as technology-focused organizational structure and strategy. Currently UPCEA’s federal advocacy and governmental relations liaison, working on advancing policies that support online and nontraditional students as well as the universities which serve them. Before joining UPCEA, Jordan worked on Capitol Hill for former U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman (NM) as Systems Administrator and Legislative Aide. Prior to that, he served in the Second Judicial District Court of New Mexico in their criminal, civil, and domestic relations divisions.

Major Updates

Federal Grant Opportunities: Funding for Workforce Pell Programs and AI (Applications Due December 3)
The Department of Education has launched a rapid grant competition under the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE–Special Projects), with applications due December 3, 2025. The program is designed in part to help institutions build or scale short-term credential programs that align with the new Workforce Pell Grants.

Two of the “absolute priorities” in this competition focus on creation of new short-term offerings as well as the expansion of existing programs. Eligible activities span the practical work of standing programs up or scaling them: hiring faculty and staff, purchasing equipment and technology, improving labs and classrooms, convening employers and workforce boards, and building the data and reporting capacity needed to demonstrate Workforce Pell eligibility and outcomes. Across both priorities, ED emphasizes close collaboration with employers, integration of work-based learning, and alignment with real labor-market demand.

At the same time, there are grant opportunity priorities around advancing AI understanding and use in postsecondary education. The funding opportunities don’t come without criticism, as the Department has repurposed dollars that Congress had originally earmarked for student success and basic-needs initiatives. That funding shift has prompted critiques from some advocates and lawmakers, who argue the move stretches congressional intent and raises questions about executive flexibility in reallocating higher ed funds. Still, for institutions able to move quickly, especially those with existing online, certificate, and nondegree infrastructure or interest in promoting AI understanding or use in teaching and learning, this competition may offer an opportunity for funding. Read more about the grant opportunities and how to apply. 

If your institution is considering applying, UPCEA Research & Consulting could be a partner and provide support for the work. We are interested in opportunities to work with you. Contact [email protected].

 

Consensus Reached in RISE Negotiated Rulemaking: New Graduate Loan Caps; Narrow Definition of “Professional” Programs
The Department of Education’s negotiated rulemaking committee has reached consensus on how to implement the new federal loan caps for graduate and professional students created by Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which take effect in July 2026. Under the law, students in most graduate programs will be limited to $100,000 in federal loans, while students in designated “professional” programs can borrow up to $200,000. The negotiations centered on which programs qualify for that higher cap.

The department and negotiators ultimately agreed on a relatively narrow list of professional fields that include medicine (M.D. and D.O.), dentistry, pharmacy, veterinary medicine, optometry, podiatry, chiropractic programs, law, certain theology degrees (such as M.Div.), and clinical psychology doctorates, along with a few related doctoral tracks. Programs outside this group, including the vast majority of master’s, Ph.D., Ed.D., and professional graduate programs, many of which are offered online, will fall under the lower $100,000 cap. Department officials have touted the policy as a step toward restraining graduate borrowing and tuition growth, while many in the higher ed community worry it could push students into private loans or out of high-cost advanced degrees altogether, especially in health and human services fields.

The way consensus was reached is also notable. ED presented a package of regulatory changes and signaled that several concessions important to different stakeholder groups might be withdrawn if negotiators failed to support the overall deal. That approach left committee members weighing tradeoffs among provisions that helped some constituencies while disadvantaging others, with many reluctant to reject the package and risk a more restrictive rule if the Department proceeded without consensus. For institutions, especially those offering high-tuition online or professional graduate programs, the new caps will likely require revisiting pricing, financial aid strategies, and program design as the rules move toward publication in the Federal Register and eventual implementation. Read more.

 

Trump Administration Accelerates Effort to Dismantle the Department of Education
On November 18, the Trump Administration announced a new set of interagency agreements that would shift large portions of the U.S. Department of Education’s work, and billions of dollars in grant funding, to other federal departments. Building on an earlier transfer of career and technical education and adult education programs to the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration, the latest moves relocate the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of Postsecondary Education to Labor, the Office of Indian Education to the Department of the Interior, child-care and foreign medical education functions to Health and Human Services, and international and foreign language education programs to the State Department.

Administration officials, such as in a recent op-ed from Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, frame the restructuring as a way to “return education to the states,” reduce federal bureaucracy, and better align specific programs with agencies that have related missions, such as workforce development at Labor. However, critics argue that using these agreements to effectively dismantle much of the department sidesteps statutory requirements that establish these offices in law and may violate obligations such as prior consultation with Native nations. They warn that scattering programs across multiple agencies could increase complexity for institutions, disrupt services to students, and trigger significant legal challenges.

For colleges and universities, especially those with large online and professional portfolios, the immediate practical impact is uncertain. Programs that historically interacted with ED for grants, reporting, and oversight may soon find themselves dealing with different agencies, unfamiliar processes, and potentially divergent policy priorities. Federal student aid remains within the Department of Education for now, but observers note that those responsibilities could also be targeted in future rounds of restructuring. Read more.

Other News

 

 

Major Updates

  • UPCEA Joins National Opposition to Federal Compact
    UPCEA has joined with over thirty higher education associations to make a statement opposing the federal government’s proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” The coalition, coordinated by ACE, warns that the compact would impose federal conditions on what and how colleges teach, threatening academic freedom and institutional autonomy. UPCEA’s participation underscores the shared concern across all sectors of higher education, including online and professional education, that innovation and independence must remain central to the mission of U.S. colleges and universities. Read the full statement.

  • Let Your Legislators Know – Contact Congress Now to Oppose Cuts to FWS and to Save FSEOG
    The House has written its education funding bill, proposing the elimination of the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG) and a nearly 40% cut to Federal Work-Study (FWS). If enacted, these cuts would be detrimental to low-income students who need additional resources to access postsecondary education and succeed to degree completion. It is critical that Congress hear your opposition to these cuts. Please tell your Representative and Senators to oppose the elimination of FSEOG and funding cuts to FWS. Please contact your Representative and Senators today!
    UPCEA is a proud member of the Student Aid Alliance.

  • Invite Your Students to the 2026 DC Student Summit
    Being held this coming March 23-25, the three-day DC Student Summit in our nation’s capital will equip students with the skills necessary to elevate their stories and lived experiences directly to federal policymakers. Led by the Today’s Students Coalition (of which UPCEA is a steering committee member), students will have the opportunity to: learn how to effectively share their stories with policymakers; hear about the most pressing issues in D.C. related to higher education; engage in conversations with dozens of congressional offices and representatives from both the legislative and executive branches of government. Read more and share with students.

Other News

Major Updates

Trump Administration Gives Harvard 20 Days to Turn Over Admissions Data

The U.S. Department of Education has given Harvard University 20 days to turn over detailed admissions data in connection with an ongoing federal review of selective admissions practices. While focused on one institution, this move signals heightened scrutiny across higher education. Administrators should be mindful of growing calls for transparency and ensure their own admissions data processes are audit-ready. Read more.

 

International Enrollment Declines, Causing Institutions Financial Strain

A sharp drop in international student enrollment, driven in part by new federal visa restrictions, is beginning to hit university budgets. At some institutions, international graduate enrollment fell by half compared to last year, significantly impacting tuition revenue. Institutions dependent on international enrollments should monitor their own exposure and consider diversifying recruitment pipelines, as this trend may continue under current policies. Read more.

 

Proposed IPEDS Revisions: Comments Open Until October 14

The U.S. Department of Education is proposing revisions to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to add a new Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS). This initiative, aligned with a recent White House directive, would expand required reporting on admissions and transparency practices. The Department is accepting public comments through October 14, and institutions may want to submit feedback on potential administrative burdens and compliance implications. Read more and submit comments here by October 14.

 

Trump Administration Ends Funding for Minority-Serving Institutions

The U.S. Department of Education announced it will end discretionary funding for certain Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) programs that base eligibility on racial or ethnic criteria. This marks a significant policy shift with potential downstream effects on institutional support and equity initiatives. Leaders at MSIs and partner institutions should review funding portfolios to assess programmatic impacts and plan for alternative resources. Read more.

 

Other News

 

Major Updates


Justice Department Threatens College Funding Over DEI Policies; Administration Requests Detailed Admissions Data

The U.S. Department of Justice has issued guidance warning that colleges and other federally funded institutions could lose federal support if they continue certain diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices. The DOJ’s new memo flags a sweeping range of campus diversity efforts as potential violations of federal law: from race-conscious scholarships or mentorship programs, to diversity statements in hiring, to allowing transgender women to use women’s campus facilities or having identity-based student lounges. It even suggests that ostensibly neutral strategies used to boost diversity (for example, recruiting in specific regions to reach more minority students) might be deemed unlawful if officials believe those criteria were chosen for demographic reasons. This stance represents a dramatic shift in civil-rights enforcement under President Trump, effectively targeting initiatives that were originally created to combat inequality on campus. College leaders are growing anxious that these broad edicts will force them to scale back DEI programs or risk losing critical funds, even as civil rights groups warn the administration’s approach poses an “existential threat” to long-fought anti-discrimination efforts.

In a related development, Education Secretary Linda McMahon directed colleges to hand over detailed admissions data to prove they are complying with the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action. This will require institutions to report their applicant, admitted, and enrolled student statistics disaggregated by race and sex, along with academic metrics like test scores and GPAs. Administration officials cast this as a push for fairness in college admissions, pledging to ensure a return to meritocracy in higher education. However, many in higher education are alarmed at how this data could be used. Advocates point out that the directive doesn’t spell out how schools will be judged or punished, leaving significant room for political influence. Critics argue the policy shines a spotlight on programs meant to uplift underrepresented students while ignoring admissions advantages often afforded to privileged groups (like legacy preferences), a dynamic they fear will “tilt the field” against students of color and ultimately threaten campus diversity.

UPCEA member institutions are encouraged to review marketing and enrollment as well as admissions practices in light of these developments. 

 

Trump Administration Report | America’s Talent Strategy: Building the Workforce for the Golden Age

The Trump Administration has unveiled a sweeping workforce development blueprint titled America’s Talent Strategy: Building the Workforce for the Golden Age. Drafted by the Departments of Labor, Commerce, and Education, this plan centers on five pillars: Industry-Driven Strategies, Worker Mobility, Integrated Systems, Accountability, and Flexibility & Innovation. All pillars are aimed at refocusing education and job training to meet industry needs in a rapidly changing economy. It calls for significantly expanding employer-led training initiatives like apprenticeships (with a goal of over one million active apprentices) and introducing career exploration as early as middle school, while channeling federal resources into critical sectors such as advanced manufacturing, energy, semiconductors, and artificial intelligence. The strategy also seeks to draw more Americans into the workforce by removing barriers to employment. For example, easing onerous occupational licensing rules, improving access to childcare and transportation, and even supporting new “Workforce Pell” grants to help students afford short-term credential programs that lead directly to in-demand jobs. Finally, the plan promises to hold workforce programs accountable for results by tying federal funding to measurable outcomes like job placement rates and earnings gains, and it aims to streamline a number of federal training programs by consolidating efforts under the Department of Labor’s leadership. Institutions may welcome the stated goal of workforce investment, but they also may face pressure to rapidly adapt programs and demonstrate outcomes, amidst smaller support via federal financial aid – and underperforming initiatives could see funding cut or redirected under this outcome-driven approach. Read the report.

 

Other News

Major Updates

Congress Passes President Trump’s OBBB—Workforce Pell Included, but Higher Ed Gets $300 Billion Slash

President Trump’s newly signed One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) overhauls the federal approach to higher education policy. Short-term Pell advocates (of which UPCEA has been a long supporter) have something to be thankful for, as it opens Workforce Pell Grants to short-term training programs of 150-600 clock hours delivered in 8-15 weeks of length. This program opens for the award year starting July 1, 2026 but is only applicable to programs which have been in existence for a full year prior to becoming eligible.

Performance metrics set for the new Workforce Pell-eligible programs set restrictions to those programs which provide greater than or equal to 70% completion rate, as well as greater than or equal to 70% job placement rate within 180 days of completion. There is also a metric that relates to earning requirements that the program outcomes must lead to students’ value-added income earnings that exceed the median price of the program. Noncredit programs are not excluded from eligibility and  it will be up to the U.S. Department of Education to decide whether the program meets the guidelines set. States will also be assessing these programs for eligibility via the governor or state workforce boards. There is a requirement that the program lead to a recognized credential that is stackable and portable, unless it leads to a single industry-recognized credential.

There are a lot of outstanding questions about how Workforce Pell will be functionally enacted and the details of the plan. The Department of Education has announced that there will be an upcoming negotiated rulemaking session taking place, and you can find more details on that process included in a dedicated section below. One notable change from the House-passed bill that did not make its way to the final law’s language was that of making unaccredited providers eligible to receive this Workforce Pell aid. And, in another dodging of the worst of the House-backed proposals, the final bill does not tighten broader Pell eligibility for full- and part-time qualifications, however it does restrict Pell grants from any student who receives full-ride or total cost of tuition covered by a combination of financial aid offers. 

Overall, however, most higher education advocates see this bill as a significant backsliding in the federal support for higher education, as it trims nearly $300 billion from federal student-aid spending overall, in addition to other non-calculable/scored losses that will be incurred by functional policy shifts. And, in a significant development that will affect almost all programs at all institutions, beginning in 2027, a program’s access to federal student loans will hinge on whether its graduates earn more than the typical high-school graduate; early modeling suggests as many as half of two-year programs could fail that test. Although UPCEA members should note that certificate programs were exempted under the same restrictions under this framework. 

The bill also has the following changes which will impact UPCEA institutions and the students they serve: 

  • Collapses the set of student loan repayment options into just two plans—one of them a 30-year income-driven scheme with higher minimum payments and sharply limited forgiveness. It also caps on the aggregate amount of public loans for graduate students to $100k, and $200k for professional students—changes analysts say will push more families into pricier private lending options
  • Raises the endowment-tax rate on certain colleges up to 8 percent
  • Eliminates Grad PLUS loans and caps Parent PLUS borrowing at $65,000 per student

Although supporters hail the OBBB package as a fiscally responsible reset, the Congressional Budget Office projects it will add $3.3 trillion to the deficit over the next decade, largely due to broader tax cuts which benefit more greatly those at the highest end of the income spectrum. This, while the higher education provisions shift more risk onto students, graduate programs, access-oriented campuses that serve low-income and working learners, and institutions themselves. Read more.

  • The bill’s implications for higher education are wide-reaching, and we know there are many questions for institutions. Our partners at Thompson Coburn LLP can help you uncover how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1) could reshape higher education in a three-part webinar series. Partners Aaron Lacey and Chris Murray will break down everything from new loan-limit rules and Pell Grant reforms to sweeping accountability measures. It all starts with the first in the series on August 12, 2025 ​3-4:30 PM ET with “Soup to Nuts: A Review of the OBBBA’s Higher Education Provisions,” with two other webinars on August 14, and 19, all open now for registration. This series will assist institutions with the insights they need to navigate the Act’s political, regulatory, and operational impact. Register for this webinar series.


Negotiated Rulemaking on OBBBA for Student Loan and Workforce Pell Regulations Announced
Mark your calendar: The U.S. Department of Education will hold a virtual public hearing on August 7, 2025 to gather public input for its next round of Title IV higher‑education rulemaking resulting from new changes to financial aid due to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). After the hearing, two negotiated‑rulemaking panels will meet in person (with livestream access): the Reimagining and Improving Student Education (RISE) Committee addressing student loan changes on Sept. 29-Oct. 3 and Nov. 3-7, 2025, and the Accountability in Higher Education and Access through Demand‑driven Workforce Pell (AHEAD) Committee working through the new short-term Pell legislation on Dec. 8-12, 2025 and Jan. 5–9, 2026. Sessions will run daily from 9 AM-12 PM and 1-4 PM ET. Individuals can submit written comments via Regulations.gov until August 25. Registration links for observers will be posted to this site one week before each negotiating session. The Department is also seeking a set of negotiators for each group, and nominations are due by August 25. Read more and submit nominations or comments.

 

Other News

Major Updates

Trump Administration Resumes Embassy Review on Student Visas, Implements Social Media Vetting Requirements

The Trump Administration has lifted its pause on F‑, M‑, and J‑visa processing but simultaneously unleashed sweeping new social-media vetting requirements: all international student applicants must now make their Facebook, X, Instagram and other accounts public for consular review, with officers instructed to flag any content seen as “any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States,” support for terrorism or antisemitic violence, and evidence of political activism, complete with detailed notes and screenshots. This follows May’s temporary halt to new student visa interviews ordered by Secretary Rubio to implement the expanded policy, which had generated concern over academic freedom and enrollment delays. In response to those actions UPCEA, alongside ACE and other higher ed associations, sent a May 30 letter to Secretary Rubio urging reconsideration, warning that the sweeping halt on visa issuance and stricter digital scrutiny risks undermining the U.S.’s reputation as a welcoming destination for global learners. Read more.


With stakes high, White House pushes negotiations with Harvard (Washington Post)

“Harvard has been racking up wins in court as the Trump administration has frozen research funding and sought to block admissions of international students.

The Trump administration is ramping up negotiations with Harvard University in an effort to reach an end to its months-long battle with the elite school, two senior White House officials have said, as Harvard has been racking up legal wins in court.

The administration expects a deal to land by the end of the month, one official said, and hopes the agreement would make a big enough splash to ‘basically be a blueprint for the rest of higher education.’ The White House officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

Harvard declined to comment.” Read more.

 

Professional Licensure Regulations – Highlights from UPCEA’s Coffee Chat

Curious how your peers are handling the professional licensure rules which went into effect last year? Kristen Brown from University of Louisville’s latest CORe post distills a lively Coffee Chat where poll results revealed schools are scattered along the implementation continuum. Some attendees are already logging every attestation, others are just drafting their first workflow, but no one is standing still. Participants traded pain points on program changes, multistate quirks and certificate rules, proving there’s as much to learn as to share. Dive into the recap, weigh in on the discussion thread with any questions or solutions for these newer regulations, and assess your own licensure processes. Visit the CORe thread.

 

Federal Budget Watch – The “Byrd Bath” Will Impact Higher-Ed Provisions, Including Workforce Short-Term Pell
The Senate Parliamentarian ruled that multiple sections of President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” reconciliation package violate the Byrd Rule and would need 60 votes to survive, rather than a simple majority, throwing a wrench in the hopes of the Trump administration and Republican Senate leadership that the bill would continue unscathed. Some of the provisions in higher education language were found to be subject to this rule. This include sections of the bill that provide Workforce Pell Grants for short-term programs to unaccredited and for-profit institutions, student aid eligibility for immigrant students, student loan repayment plans, among others. The Senate Parliamentarian is also considering topics like repeal of Borrower Defense to Repayment, Closed School Discharges Rule, and limitation on the authority of the Secretary of Education from issuing regulations that are “economically significant”. UPCEA has signed a letter to Senate leadership regarding issues we find with the bill. Read more.

 

Other News

  • Litigation Summary – Court Cases Related to Higher Education, What Is Happening?
    Thompson Coburn’s June 24 litigation digest underscores the sheer volume of higher-ed cases now in play. Covering a slew of cases currently working through the courts, including updates related to Gainful Employment, the Bare Minimum Rule, Borrower Defense to Repayment, Student Loan Forgiveness, Nonprofit Institution Status, Federal Funding Freeze, DEI Executive Orders, the Executive Order Directing the Closure of ED, Grant Terminations, Student and Exchange Visitor Program Litigation, among others.

    Check out these summaries and highlights to brief yourself and share with your colleagues to track the rapidly changing legal landscape. Read more.