Another Neg Reg, Another “Yes, But” Moment

The second round of negotiated rule making for accreditation reform wraps up this week, and if previous neg-reg sessions are anything to go on, the committee will reach a smooth consensus. After public comment and finalization, new rules that redefine how quality is assessed in higher education could be out by July of next year.

Colleges and universities themselves recognize improvements need to be made in accreditation, but many strongly disagree with how those changes should be brought about. This is another “yes, but” situation for higher ed in the second Trump administration: Yes, we know we need to do better, but this isn’t the way to do it.

The Education Department’s accreditation reforms seek in part to address affordability challenges by setting standards for students’ return on investment and mandating seamless credit transfer. The department also wants to make it easier for institutions to switch accreditors and to cut red tape around establishing new accreditors.

Most in the sector would agree those problems warrant reform, but accreditation experts and institutional leaders say the department’s plan introduces greater regulatory burdens and threatens academic freedom. And Bob Shireman, a longtime accreditation expert and Democratic appointee on ED’s National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, told our reporter Jessica Blake that the positive items in the proposed reforms “in no way are enough to make the rest of it worth doing.”

Elsewhere, Shireman said ED’s attempts at regulating ideological diversity, in particular, via accreditation reform “would destroy the independence that has made American higher education different, and better, than the more regulated systems across the rest of the world.”

David Baime, senior vice president for government relations at the American Association of Community Colleges, was more measured, but he said even the proposal to “presume” transferability of all general ed and elective credits from another accredited institution—while a move in the right direction—“would carry with it substantial administrative effort and cost on the part of institutions.”

Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent often boasts about the speed and breadth of his department’s accomplishments, and when it comes to negotiated rule making, he’s right to brag. In previous negotiations, Kent managed to reach consensus around three big policy shifts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, last summer’s sweeping reconciliation legislation: federal student loan changes, accountability measures for low-earning programs and Workforce Pell. In doing so, the regulations will be finalized by the ambitious July 1 implement deadline.

All this is part of the administration’s playbook to force its political will on institutions. Other creative strategies include ignoring congressional mandates for how to spend research and student aid funds, leveraging the legal system to end in-state tuition for undocumented students, and using the reconciliation process to push through major policy changes that are poorly thought through.

In the short term, the maneuvers are working—and there’s nothing stopping the next administration from deploying the same tactics.

OBBBA’s Do No Harm policy, which requires programs to show that their graduates earn more than a working adult with only a high school diploma, provoked another “yes, but” response from the sector. Everyone can get behind regulations that ensure graduates get a family-sustaining job when they graduate. But the data and systems to show program earnings don’t exist across the sector yet, and not all students graduate into jobs that give them high wages—even if those jobs are critical to society.

Higher ed’s “yes, but” response is understandable, given the threats to institutional autonomy and injection of political influence that the new accreditation rules would bring. And it’s too late to change the OBBBA regulations set to take effect this July. With just under three years left in this administration, and millions of U.S. learners and families who are less than satisfied with the higher ed status quo, there will be more calls for reform. Institutions and accreditors truly owning their shortcomings going forward—regulating themselves through agency and meaningful change—could help stave off “yes, but” moments and create “yes, and” opportunities.

The only way out of the cycle is to make the first move.