Major Updates

ED Releases Proposed Accreditation Rule; Comments Due September 21
The U.S. Department of Education published its proposed accreditation rule, Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization: The Secretary’s Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, on August 20, following the AIM negotiated rulemaking committee’s consensus agreement in May (which we previously covered in our May Policy Matters newsletter). The proposal represents a significant reworking of the federal accreditation framework. Among other provisions, it would eliminate remaining geographic-scope distinctions among recognized accreditors, make it easier for institutions to change or use multiple accrediting agencies, strengthen separation and conflict-of-interest requirements between accreditors and affiliated trade or professional associations, and require accrediting decisions to be neutral with respect to viewpoint and ideology, with an exception for agencies with a religious mission.

Perhaps most consequential for institutions, the proposal would also place considerably greater emphasis on student outcomes at both the institutional and program level. Accreditors would be expected to assess measures such as completion, licensure or certification results where applicable, employment outcomes, and educational and economic returns relative to the cost of attendance. The rule also proposes substantial changes to transfer-of-credit practices. For comparable undergraduate coursework earned at another institution accredited by a federally recognized agency, institutions generally would be expected to presume that credit should transfer unless there is an academic or curricular basis for denial. Students denied credit would receive a written explanation and an opportunity to appeal within 15 days.

These provisions deserve particular attention from online, professional, and continuing education units. The proposal would require institutions to disclose whether credit earned through nondegree or noncredit programs may transfer or articulate into degree programs, and it expressly recognizes credit for prior learning as a potential component of student achievement and accelerated completion. It would also direct accreditors not to categorically prohibit or unreasonably restrict certain short-term programs and would scrutinize whether program length is appropriate to the credential being awarded. Taken together, those changes could shift the federal policy environment for stackable credentials, prior-learning pathways, shorter workforce programs, and adult-learner mobility, and could also require institutions to revisit transfer policies, articulation processes, data infrastructure, and their ability to demonstrate outcomes at the individual program level. Critics have mentioned how these proposals could lead to politicizing the accreditation process, allowing for whatever party is in power to change standards for schools and accreditors. Comments on the proposed rule are due September 21, 2026. If finalized on the anticipated timetable (ahead of November 1, 2026), the earliest the regulations could take effect would be July 1, 2027. Read more and submit comments here. 

Secretary McMahon Releases “A National Call to Action” for Universities
Following the Trump administration’s unsuccessful 2025 Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, Education Secretary Linda McMahon issued a new, substantially less prescriptive appeal to college and university presidents and governing boards on August 3. The “National Call to Action” asks every postsecondary institution, before the end of 2026, ”to describe to the American public your commitments to rigorous teaching, pathbreaking research, and national service — commitments that make our universities a bedrock institution of the American republic,” and to post those statements prominently on their websites. Rather than prescribing a common set of institutional policies, the letter poses seven questions spanning admissions transparency, free speech and intellectual diversity, affordability and student outcomes, academic rigor in the age of AI, research security, and programs serving national workforce and economic needs.

Importantly, the Call to Action is currently voluntary. During an August 19 Department briefing, officials emphasized that there are no direct penalties or awards associated with participation and described the initiative as not being tied to a specific funding “carrot or stick.” At the same time, when pressed about potential future consequences (including OMB’s pending overhaul of government-wide grant funding processes, which could create a policy risk institutions should watch closely) Department officials did not fully close the door on how an institution’s response (or decision not to respond) could factor into the administration’s broader approach to higher education. Officials stressed that the voluntary nature of the initiative does not mean the Department will “cease to hold institutions accountable in other ways,” and suggested that institutions declining to engage could be viewed as recommitting to what the administration considers a broken status quo. For university leaders, the practical question may therefore be broader than whether the Call to Action is technically voluntary: it is also whether the administration may incorporate these stated priorities into its exercise of discretion over federal funding.

For online and professional education leaders, several of the Secretary’s questions are especially noteworthy. The letter puts explicit emphasis on affordability, program-level value, workforce responsiveness, and academic rigor in the age of AI, areas already receiving increased attention elsewhere in federal policy. Institutions considering a response may want to inventory the evidence they can already point to around adult learner outcomes, transparent pricing, workforce-aligned programming, teaching and assessment practices, and the value delivered by individual programs. Even institutions that ultimately choose not to issue a formal response should view the letter as a useful indicator of the themes the Department is likely to continue emphasizing as part of its higher education policy agenda. Read the letter here.

Other News

• ‘Radical Reform’: Trump Official Explains New Plan to Get Colleges to Change (The Chronicle of Higher Education)

• DOD Demands 30 American Universities Audit Foreign Partnerships (Inside Higher Ed)

• U.S. Department of Education Approves the Nation’s First Workforce Pell Grant Program in Iowa (U.S. Department of Education)

• Senate panel OKs bill to block Education Department’s postsecondary office transfer (Higher Ed Dive)