Overview
On January 22, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education (the "Department") announced its intent to establish the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization negotiated rulemaking committee (the "Committee") to develop proposed amendments to the regulations governing the Secretary's recognition of accrediting agencies under 34 C.F.R. Part 602.
According to the Department's press release (the "Notice"), the Committee will address the following topics:
- Deregulation: Address regulations concerning the entry of new accreditors, and the requirements that accrediting agencies enforce their standards in ways that minimize the costs and administrative burden on institutions.
- Student Outcomes: Amend the criteria and related regulations used by the Secretary to recognize accrediting agencies, including criteria and standards requirements that focus on student achievement and outcomes, high educational quality, and high-value programs.
- Merit: Revise regulations to ensure that accreditors' standards comply with all federal civil rights laws and prohibit standards or policies that require or facilitate discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics, such as race-based scholarships.
- Integrity: Ensure that accrediting agencies and institutions do not mislead students or the public with misrepresentative labels, such as "regional accreditor;" strengthen requirements to maintain greater separation between accrediting agencies and related trade associations; and improve college affordability.
In addition to these issues, the Notice reflects the Department's interest in reducing barriers created by recognition criteria that may impede the establishment of new recognized accrediting agencies, and, with respect to programmatic accreditors, its interest in reviewing standards governing relationships between accreditors and affiliated trade or membership organizations, including whether existing requirements sufficiently address independence and governance concerns.
What You Need to Know:
- The Committee will include students and borrowers; veterans' groups; taxpayer and employer organizations; legal aid groups; institutional and programmatic accreditors; public, nonprofit, and proprietary institutions; and state officials.
- The Committee will meet in-person at the Department of Education in Washington, D.C. on April 13–17, 2026 and May 18–22, 2026. The public can attend the meetings in-person or watch via livestream.
- Any changes to the regulations would be subject to Master Calendar requirements, with the earliest possible effective date to be July 1, 2027.
Relevant Regulatory Background
Under the Higher Education Act ("HEA"), the Department is required to use negotiated rulemaking to develop proposed regulations (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) for programs authorized under Title IV. This process must be used in order to amend regulations concerning the Secretary's recognition of accrediting agencies.
The Notice is intended to implement President Trump's April Executive Order 14279, "Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education," which set forth certain principles of "student-oriented accreditation." Specifically, the Executive Order directs the Department to ensure that accreditors support and prioritize:
- "High-quality, high-value academic programs that are free from unlawful discrimination and other violations of federal law;"
- "Promoting intellectual diversity and academic freedom;"
- Refraining from "using their authority under federal law to encourage or compel institutions to violate state or federal law or the Constitution – as interpreted by the Administration;" and
- "Promptly provid[ing] to accreditors any noncompliance findings relating to member institutions issued after an investigation conducted by the Office of Civil Rights."
Potential Impacts
These proposed changes to accreditation policy—particularly those emerging from negotiated rulemaking—raise questions about the future role of accreditors.
Even if the Department avoids adopting explicit gainful-employment-style rules, earnings outcomes and student-debt metrics are increasingly creeping into accreditation. Developing and implementing clear, data-driven benchmarks for student achievement may therefore prove challenging.
In addition, emerging expectations would require accreditors to conduct more thorough reviews of each institution's civil rights compliance—an area perhaps outside the typical expertise of many accreditors. In addition, accreditors would need to balance these concerns against academic freedom considerations, which then squarely gets to the issue of institutional autonomy.
More broadly, these developments raise concerns about accreditor independence, particularly with respect to setting and enforcing standards consistent with each accreditor's unique mission. Collectively, these issues are likely to generate significant policy debate.
Turning to recognition requirements, even if revised, institutions would continue to evaluate accreditation options based on mission, scope, and regulatory considerations, while also weighing the costs and administrative burden associated with a change. As a result, with limited exceptions—such as where a change is required under state law—institutions are unlikely to seek to change accreditors.
Accreditation Handbook
Separately, the Department has issued a Request for Information ("RFI") seeking public input on how best to re-envision and update the Accreditation Handbook. The Handbook provides guidance to institutional and programmatic accreditors on complying with the Secretary's Recognition Criteria. Through the RFI, the Department is soliciting feedback on a range of topics, including how accreditation can better encourage innovation, reduce college costs, promote intellectual diversity, and identify appropriate methods for establishing and evaluating assessment benchmarks.
What Your Institution Can Do to Get Ready
Clear next steps for institutions will not emerge until there are final rules, which, as noted, will be well over a year away. But, in the interim, institutions should consider the following.
- Noncompliance with federal anti-discrimination laws may increasingly pose a direct risk to accreditation status. While institutions already have strong incentives to ensure civil rights compliance, they should be mindful that DEI-related initiatives and academic policies may have downstream implications for accreditation. Institutions should anticipate a more explicit role for accreditors in assessing and enforcing civil rights obligations and plan accordingly, recognizing that the accreditation review process operates on a multi-year cycle. Policies and procedures should therefore be developed with this extended timeline in mind.
- If the anticipated changes move forward, institutions may need to more closely monitor costs relative to student outcomes to demonstrate compliance with standards related to student achievement and outcomes data. Institutions may need to develop policies' strategies to articulate and demonstrate the value of programs.
- Accreditors should consider reviewing and updating their standards, policies, and procedures in anticipation of regulatory changes.
- Given accreditors' ongoing monitoring requirements, institutions should begin preparing now by reviewing documentation, internal controls, and evidence related to outcomes, compliance, and program value.
The public has several opportunities to participate in the rulemaking process. Interested parties may submit or support nominations to the Department to serve on the negotiated rulemaking committee. In addition, the public is invited to submit written comments regarding the proposed rule. Finally, members of the public may request a meeting with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, within the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant to Executive Order 12866. An EO 12866 meeting represents the final opportunity to provide input on rulemaking concerns.
The Higher Education Group at Saul Ewing will keep a close eye on developments connected with the Notice, and support colleges and universities as they strive to balance legal compliance, satisfaction of accreditation standards, and meeting student and other constituent expectations, while navigating a changing regulatory landscape. Please do not hesitate to contact the author, or your regular Saul Ewing point(s) of contact, with any questions about the substance of this alert.
