The Department of Education (ED) showed no sign of compromise during the first week of its Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking committee, despite significant pushback from negotiators on its sweeping proposed changes to accreditation standards. The week's discussions were based on a 151-page discussion draft ED released earlier in April. By Friday, negotiators had worked through only 97 of those pages. While the department made some amendments in response to committee concerns, the changes reportedly were largely structural, not substantive.
What's in the Draft
The proposed regulations would make some of the most significant changes to accreditation in decades. Among the key provisions:
New federal expectations for accreditor standards. Accreditors would be required to incorporate measures related to "intellectual diversity" and student outcomes, including potential minimum thresholds tied to return on investment.
Federal direction on academic policy decisions. One proposal would require institutions to accept transfer credits toward general education requirements—an area traditionally governed by institutional judgment.
Limits on DEI-related standards. The proposal continues the administration's push to eliminate references to diversity in accreditation standards, tying them more directly to the administration's interpretation of federal civil rights law.
Easier pathway for new accreditors. ED would streamline recognition of new accrediting agencies, lowering barriers and accelerating the process for new entrants.
ACE and other higher education stakeholders have raised serious concerns about many of these proposals. Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent set the tone for the week in his opening remarks, telling the committee that while ED was "open to new ideas," the goal of the reforms was explicitly to "upend higher education," according to Inside Higher Ed.
Jon Fansmith, ACE's senior vice president for government relations, said the department's approach made its intentions clear.
"Starting the negotiations by having a political appointee tell the committee that the outcome is predetermined and that their views will be ignored unless they agree with the department says everything you need to know about how they're ignoring both the spirit and the letter of the law," Fansmith told Inside Higher Ed. "Add in their other actions, like excluding major stakeholders from primary roles, and it's clear the department never intended to solicit, much less incorporate, the concerns of the public, students, accreditors or schools in pushing their politicized agenda."
Committee members representing students, colleges, accreditors, and ED's own accreditation advisory board raised concerns throughout the week, including that several provisions exceed the department's statutory authority and threaten the peer-review model that has long underpinned accreditation.
The committee's makeup also gives the Trump administration more leverage than in previous rulemaking sessions. If the committee cannot reach consensus, ED would be free to finalize the regulations as written.
A second and final week of negotiations is scheduled for May 18–22.