ACE and Higher Education Groups Push for Clarity and Stability as Department Launches Negotiated Rulemaking

​The Department of Education (ED) officially opened its 2025-26 negotiated rulemaking process on April 29 with two days of public hearings, signaling the start of what could be one of the most consequential regulatory cycles in years for colleges and universities.In response to a call for comments on the proposed rulemaking topics, ACE and a group of other higher education associations sent a joint letter to the department on May 8, urging it to prioritize regulatory stability, clarity, and the best interests of students as ED shapes future policy.

The groups welcomed the department's stated intent to focus on risk-based oversight and minimize unnecessary burden. However, they also flagged serious concerns about several proposed rulemaking topics and urged caution in areas where recent regulatory changes have already introduced confusion and cost.

"We're focused on ensuring new regulations are clear, lawful, and practical," said ACE President Ted Mitchell, who signed the letter on behalf of ACE and five other associations. "Institutions are still navigating overlapping challenges around enrollment, public trust, and shifting federal expectations. This rulemaking process should be used to reduce-not compound-those pressures."

The letter outlines detailed feedback on multiple high-impact areas, including:

• Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF): The letter expresses concern over the potential politicization of eligibility criteria under the March 7 executive order, warning against efforts to disqualify nonprofit employees based on their organizations' viewpoints.
• Foreign Gift Reporting (Section 117): Institutions support a negotiated rulemaking to clarify complex reporting requirements and ensure a transparent, functional process.
• Gainful Employment and Financial Value Transparency (GE/FVT): While the administration has delayed implementation deadlines, the groups urge a full reexamination of the rule's scope and burden.
• Bundled Services and Third-Party Servicers: The letter encourages codifying longstanding guidance into regulation to preserve institutional flexibility and innovation.
• Financial Responsibility Standards: The current framework, the groups contend, penalizes sound financial practices and creates barriers to institutional mergers and acquisitions.
• Distance Education and State Authorization: New certification procedures risk undermining reciprocity agreements and expanding federal authority in ways that could hinder online learning.

The associations emphasized the need for a balanced, consistent regulatory approach that supports student success without imposing unnecessary complexity or cost on institutions.

A full copy of the letter is available here.