Federal Policy Update: September, 2025

Joe Brenckle:
Hello, everyone. Welcome to AGB’s podcast, and we’re providing a federal policy update for September. There’s a lot of things going on. Alex, I’m reminded of that curse/blessing. May you live in interesting times, and boy, are these interesting times. I know one of the things that has been worked on by the administration is implementing the regulations that were contained in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was also known as the Congressional Reconciliation bill that passed. Can you give us a current state of the negotiated rulemaking under these new policies that were adopted?

Alex Nock:
Yeah. Hey, Joe. Thanks for the question. So, yeah, the department is literally just about to actually begin the negotiated rulemaking sessions, Joe. In fact, gosh, about little less than two weeks from today, they’ll actually be in the first session talking about the issues. Now they are moving forward with two committees. One, the RISE Committee, and that’s going to focus on federal student loan programs that were modified by the reconciliation bill. Primarily, what you’re talking about there is new loan limits, a new loan repayment program, and other issues associated with that. Then there’s a second committee, the AHEAD Committee. This won’t begin until early December, Joe.

The department decided to first deal with the RISE Committee and have two sets of meetings there that finish up in early November and then begin the AHEAD Committee, which we will meet in early December and early January. That committee is focused on this new programmatic accountability or earnings test provision that was adopted in that bill as well as Pell changes and really specifically the new addition of Workforce Pell that that bill brings us. Obviously, if our listeners here are familiar with negotiated rulemaking, they know the department has already solicited nominations from different constituency groups that are impacted by these regulations. So, the department is considering these nominations now.

Joe, a little birdie told me that on Monday, so depending on when you listen to this, the RISE Committee names will be posted and we may not see the AHEAD Committee names for quite some time now, because remember I said that meeting doesn’t start until December. So, there’s really nothing pushing the department to immediately propose something or to announce the members of that committee. But just to remind folks of the constituencies we’re looking at, the department asked for nominations on students, institutions, state agencies, consumer advocate groups, taxpayer interest groups, and the like. So, really it’s a wide swath of individuals that they’re looking at to help inform the department’s regulatory efforts.

Again, for our listeners that maybe are familiar but may not super familiar with negotiated rulemaking, it is designed to be a consensus building process. Different administrations treat that differently. Some are serious about consensus, others aren’t with respect to that. But the idea is that the department makes a proposal and then the negotiators try to reach consensus around that proposal or suggest modifications to it. Sometimes consensus is possible, sometimes it’s not. But obviously it gives interested constituencies the ability to impact and share their thoughts on the department’s regulatory approach. Joe, you’re muted.

Joe Brenckle:
Definitely a lot of things going on. Are there some key dates that we should be aware of and what do we think on timing? I know that they have to have everything implemented by… I think, is it July 1st of next year?

Alex Nock:
Yeah, Joe, I think it’s worth reviewing. I said this earlier, but it’s worth reviewing the timing of the actual negotiated rulemaking committees because that leads you to think about when we’ll see proposed rules and final rules. So, like I said, the RISE Committee, the one focused on loans, that is meeting in that last week of September into October, so late September, October, and then has a second session in early November, and then that’s it.

That’s the negotiated rulemaking session for that committee. Then the AHEAD Committee is meeting in early December and then again in early January. Joe, I think for folks that aren’t super familiar with neg reg, this is not like a one-hour session one week and a one-hour session the next week. It is pretty much sessions all that week that I prescribe for each of those committees, and they go about seven or eight hours a day. So, it’s a lot of work, a lot of negotiations, a lot of back. So, now obviously as I stated, the RISE Committee is ending its business before the AHEAD Committee and they’re ending in early November. I would think of the department’s really on the ball, they have a proposed rule that either reflects the consensus of the RISE Committee or reflects what they want to do because there was not consensus. The department is able to move forward when there isn’t consensus on the committee. They would have that proposed rule out for public comment by the end of December. So, it would be out for public comment then probably for 30 days. That means the end of January is when those comments would be due back to Ed. Then Ed has to respond to the comments internally like, “Oh, Joe proposed a change. Is that change worthy? Should we consider it? Does it make sense? Why? How?” Does it obviously work with the department’s objectives with what they’re trying to do?

Then they have to run all that through OMB and then publish a final rule. If the department’s really moving at warp speed and on the ball, then I think you probably see a final rule probably sometime in March. It could be early March if they’re really moving quick. Now, this is again, what I just said, really moving quick. Can we see a final rule in April? Sure. I will say there are some real pressures, I would think, on that body of work that the RISE Committee is doing because it impacts loans, loan amounts. Joe, as you and I have talked about the issue and probably many of our listeners have wondered about, what is a professional graduate program and what is a graduate program, which we can talk some more about here.

But that is a really important issue and it affects how much people borrow in a graduate program. So, those rules need to be out as quickly as possible. I think the department knows that, but obviously, it’s better if they come out in March versus April or May just from that perspective. So, the AHEAD Committee, they finish their work in January. Likewise, I would think the department would be really on the ball to have something out in February, probably late February, 30 days of public comment goes back to the department, goes through OMB. You’re probably looking at April, maybe even into May before that final rule is out.

That’s important too, Joe, because they are affecting this new authority or they’re regulating on this new authority called Workforce Pell, which in theory is supposed to go live July 1st, 2026. At Penn Hill, we’re not thinking there’s actually going to be a Workforce Pell Grant awarded on July 1, but could there be something coming shortly thereafter? Maybe because, Joe, as you know, there’s a state process to it, a department process. There’s several steps, but obviously, it’s pretty important that those regulations are out early as well. So, folks can respond to them, figure out how to implement them at the institutional and state level. So, a lot of work to do in a very short period of time with a deadline that is looming of July 1st, 2026.

Joe Brenckle:
Well, obviously, that’s not the only show in town.

Alex Nock:
No, it’s not.

Joe Brenckle:
We had that recent executive memorandum about data reporting. Can you give us an update on that?

Alex Nock:
Yeah, so like you said, that is not the only show in town, neg reg. It could be, and that would be a whole lot of work all by itself. But the administration just a couple of now weeks ago, I guess, a month or two ago now, Joe, especially depending when our listeners are listening to this, the president put out an executive order really focused on saying that the government should have expanded data collection to make sure that institutions are not using race in any capacity on admissions. Obviously, our listeners remember the Harvard versus Students for Fair Admissions case that went to the Supreme Court in 2023, big case obviously, redefined selective admissions for institutions of higher education in our country.

The administration obviously still has questions about what is going on with race and admissions. The president put out an executive order instructing the Department of Education to do additional data collection on this. That same day, Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon put out a… I guess I would call it a press release, I think she called it a plan, but it was press release essentially, instructing NCES, IES, National Center for Education Statistics and the Institute of Educational Sciences to essentially expand IPEDS collections, the tool that many of our users are super familiar with, to expand IPEDS to cover certain data that would allow the administration to get a fuller picture, I guess, right, Joe, on what they think is still an issue.

There that has then been followed with a federal register notice, which is actually the most important thing that actually says, “Hey, we are going to do this IPEDS data collection.” Now, one thing, and Joe, I know you’ve heard me say this, if you go and look for the actual questions that will be on the IPEDS survey, you can’t find them, which is a real disadvantage I think for our listeners who want to go see. But the federal register notice is fairly descriptive in terms of what it wants to look at, and they’re looking for certain data that deals with individuals who applied to the school, were accepted to the school, and then enrolled in the school. They’re looking for test scores, GPA, other admissions metrics in terms of that.

They want to make sure they’re looking at trends and saying, “Hey, are certain students based on a certain race or sex getting into an institution at a more significant rate, I guess, than other students?” The other real kicker with this, Joe, is they’re asking for five years of previous data. So, I think many of our users are like, “All right, we deal with IPEDS all the time. I guess we can set up a collection tool for this. It would be great if we could see the question so we know what we’re setting up.” But you may have data just thinking about some institutions that isn’t in a position to easily extrapolate to report on what happened three years ago and four years ago and think about a student that applied that you want this data on, but they didn’t enroll, they weren’t accepted.

Do you even know much about that student other than what you got on the Common App or what you got through your own application process? Definitely some questions about how this is going to work and this is not going to be a small undertaking for schools. Right now, this instrument is open for public comment. So, it’s possible the administration takes some of the thoughts and molds it and changes it. Executive order, sorry, for our listeners here, the EO’s pretty specific about what it’s trying to do. So, I think a lot of the thrust or the main force of what we’re talking about here is likely to stay. But obviously, Joe, this brings up big questions for institutions, right?

You are obviously giving data to the Department of Ed that is really looking at the trends of enrollment at your school that they have some data on now, of course, but they’re essentially asking for a road map, where folks were for the past five years. There is obviously some risk associated with this information and that’s probably why the administration thinks they want to see this information. So, more to come on that.

Joe Brenckle:
Thank you, Alex. Well, also, we have something that Congress is working on that could impact all of these things, and that is the continuing resolution that if not passed, we’ll shut down the government on October 1st. Do we have an update? We know that Congressional Republicans have released a short-term funding patch, but it doesn’t contain any of the Democrat priorities. So, I guess, do you have an update on where you think this might be going?

Alex Nock:
Yeah, so I think it does include one Democrat priority and I think the Democrats as the Republicans… I think absent what we’re about to talk about in terms of the other Democratic ask, everyone probably wants the government to stay open, right? So the bill would… As you said, it was just posted, gosh, just yesterday. So, depending on when you’re listening this, it may be a couple days from now, but it essentially would keep the government open and funded through November 21st, which is basically the Friday before Thanksgiving. So, nothing like a deadline for Congress if they want to get out of town to have a little momentum. I worry a little bit about that deadline, but we’ll see what happens.

That is a future problem in terms of that data if they’re successful in passing that. The big ask though that, Joe, I think you’re referring to that is not in that CR is the Democrats are asking, insisting as the price of their votes on this to include an extension of the Expanded Affordable Care Act subsidies that were adopted in 2021 during the COVID pandemic that essentially provide additional resources to individuals who get their health insurance on the Affordable Care Act exchange, Obamacare exchange to afford those policies.

The Republicans, I would say, I think, Joe, this is the right way to say it, I think they have migrated a bit on this issue where initially when the Democrats were asking for this a couple of weeks ago, there were calls by many Republican leadership saying, “No, we’re not going to extend these” to now, well, we do have to extend these, but we just don’t have to do them in the CR. If you didn’t use that acronym, CR is continuing resolution. Joe and I thrust the word CR around all the time because we’re in DC. I think the question here is, “Okay, what happens?”

So I think the reason this is an issue for the CR, at least as identified by the Democrats, is that individuals who get their insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchanges will start receiving their renewals on November 1st, on or about November 1st. So, if you’re thinking in your head, “Huh, well, November 1st is literally right around the corner,” so if you get your renewal and you are not sure this additional assistance will be there to afford your health insurance policy, you may drop your coverage under the exchange. Frankly, I think members of both parties are a little bit worried about that. There’s some estimates that could be as much as four or five million people who get insurance through the exchange might be affected by this.

So, it is a fairly significant number of people. If you’re passing a bill, hopefully by October 1st because that’s when the fiscal year starts for the federal government to keep them funded, November 1st is 30 days away. So, I think there is a bit of an issue here. If you’re not extending it in the continuing resolution, when are you extending it? I think we’ll have to see how this plays out this week and next. The first test on this, Joe, is going to be this week when the house will take up this CR that does not have this Affordable Care Act exchange addition to it. Will that pass?

Right now, it looks like it may have to pass with only Republican votes or almost only Republican votes. Joe, as you and I know from the DC parlor game, if all Democrats vote now and everyone shows up to vote, can only lose two Republican votes on that. There are several Republican members who have already publicly said they’re not going to vote for it. Now, are they really not going to vote for it? Because we’ve seen this movie before where sometimes people say they won’t vote for it and then they do vote for it. Will all Democrats hold and vote no? Then the second test, let’s just assume for the sake of our listeners here, that somehow the House does push this through.

If the House can’t pass it, then of course, it stops and it’s like, “All right, how do we get a bill that can pass the House?” But if the House can pass it, then you go to the Senate and there it’s not a simple majority. You need 60 votes. So, you need seven Democrats to join all the Republicans. That is a really high bar when the Democrats have basically said, “We need this Affordable Care Act exchange.” So then the question, Joe, is do the Republicans and Democrats negotiate in advance of October 1 to come up with a solution on the policy that Democrats want or not? Does that mean if nothing passes on October 1, does the government shut down?

Joe, you and I have watched how the Republican leadership has migrated a little bit on this. As I said, I don’t know if the migration will happen in time for October 1. I will say too that Democrats probably are unlikely to get a straight extension of the ACA or the Affordable Care Act subsidies they want. There’s probably going to have to be changes. The question though will be can those changes be worked out in time if the GOP is interested in negotiating on those things? So that is a TBD. As we often say here towards the end of September, who knows what’s going to happen?

Joe Brenckle:
Thanks, Alex. Great update. Lots of moving parts that we’ll be watching. I think we have time for one more issue. It’s something that the Department of Education recently released. It’s Unified Spring Agenda. Do you want to touch a little bit about that and what that means and how it’s going to impact everything going forward?

Alex Nock:
Yeah. So, if our listeners are going, “Oh, boy, I might stop listening now. What is the Unified Spring Agenda?”, yes, it’s a DC thing. Yes, it’s pretty nerdy, but it’s a really important window into future regulatory action of the administration. So, twice a year, the administration, whether they’re a Republican, Democrat, whatever, has to update their projected regulatory agenda. So, the public knows what’s coming. Now, the update that just came out about a week ago was the spring 2025 update. Yeah, if you’re going, “Wait, it hasn’t been spring for a couple of months,” yes, these updates are often late, but it is the latest one we have and this spring 2025 update actually tells us two really important things.

There are two future negotiated rulemakings that the Department of Education is planning. First is a negotiated rulemaking on accreditation. There, Joe, if our listeners have been following some of the comments of the administration, they are concerned that accreditors are getting too much into the governance roles of institutions that might be the purview of the state or the institution themselves. People disagree on that stance. So, that’s one of the reasons, I think, you may see lots of comments or lots of thoughts about this effort when it gets going, but the Unified Agenda proposes or states that the initial notice that triggers the start of it, not the actual negotiations, Joe, but the request for nominations and things like that will come out this month.

So, we’ve talked to the Department of Ed and they will not get to putting out that notice to initiate that until sometime in 2026. I don’t think it’ll get too hot in 2026 before it comes out. I think I would predict spring or maybe even late winter, depending on your view of when winter ends, depending on when a listener is listening from one area of the country here. But I don’t think it’ll be summer by the time it comes out, but look for that to come out. That’s a major priority for the US Department of Education. The second view from that Unified Agenda is they have teed up a Title IV eligibility negotiated rulemaking. Now, from the words that are in the notice, it’s just two sentences.

There’s very little detail when the agenda comes out. It seems like it’s one focused on setting rules around what happens when you have a change in control at an institution, i.e. a sale, a merger, and things like that. That is often an issue for not-for-profit and for-profit institutions and not typically an issue for public institutions, but also they raise in that same thing whether or not they will be looking at regulations pertaining to financial responsibility, administrative capability, and things like that. Interestingly enough, those are issues that the Biden administration regulated on before they left office through negotiated rulemaking. So, part of that makes me think they will be looking to roll back some of those regulations.

But Joe, we’ve heard from the department that one, that is also a 2026 effort and it is behind accreditation. So, think accreditation first and Title IV eligibility second. But we’ve also heard from the department that it may be a bit of a catch-all negotiated rulemaking. So, before they put out this notice, which again might be the summer of 2026, they may add other topics that are not listed, right? This is just a projection. The Unified Agenda doesn’t bind the administration if they don’t… Like I mentioned, I think that the notice on Title IV eligibility says administrative capability.

If they don’t include administrative capability, they’re not violating anything by not doing that. But look for them to think about what other issues might come up in the next 9, 10 months, if I’m right about the timing of when this might come out to add. So, think, “Huh, what issues might be percolating with them?” Accreditation is very clear. Title IV eligibility, I think, is a bit of a catch-all now, but again, that Unified Agenda, if folks haven’t found that, it’s a super useful thing to look at and understand where an administration is going. Joe, not just for the Department of Ed, but any federal agency that regulates.

Joe Brenckle:
Thank you, Alex. Great. We always appreciate your insightful facts and knowledge. A lot of things to watch. Great job today.

Alex Nock:
Thank you, Joe.