May 2026
Introduction
The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) Policy Watch publication provides accreditation stakeholders and CHEA-eligible institutions with updates on developments affecting accreditation from the White House, the U.S. Department of Education (USDE), the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the federal courts.
U.S. Department of Education
U.S. Department of Education Completes Negotiated Rulemaking to Reform Higher Education Accreditation System
The Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) rulemaking is one of the most significant federal actions affecting accreditation in decades. On January 26, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education announced its intent to establish the AIM negotiated rulemaking committee. The committee was charged with developing proposed regulations to revise the Secretary’s standards for recognizing accrediting agencies under 34 C.F.R. Part 602.
Although the rulemaking focuses directly on federally recognized accrediting agencies, the resulting regulations, if finalized, would have important downstream implications for colleges, universities, and the students they serve.
The Department held public hearings on April 29 and May 1, 2025, to solicit stakeholder input before the committee was established. The AIM committee convened for two one-week sessions in Washington, D.C., April 13–17 and May 18–22, 2026, and reached consensus on May 21, 2026. The Department has stated that the consensus agreement will serve as the basis for a forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or NPRM.
Because negotiators reached consensus, the Department is expected to use the agreement as the basis for proposed regulations. The NPRM will be subject to public comment before any final regulations are issued.
The consensus language, if ultimately adopted through final regulations, would make significant changes to the federal accreditation recognition framework across several major areas.
Key Areas of the Consensus Agreement
Streamlining Transfer of Credit
Under the consensus language, accreditors would be required to ensure that institutions maintain policies presuming that undergraduate credit will be awarded for courses successfully completed at another accredited institution when the content and learning outcomes are comparable. Institutions would also be expected to provide greater transparency regarding transfer decisions and maintain processes for review or appeal, as applicable. This change is intended to lower costs and shorten time to completion for students.
Strengthening Conflict-of-Interest Controls
Under the consensus language, accreditors would be prohibited from sharing certain resources — including personnel, services, equipment, facilities, or information technology — with related, associated, or affiliated trade associations or professional organizations. Accreditors would also be required to prominently disclose these relationships on their websites. These changes are intended to address concerns about trade association influence over accreditor standards, credential inflation, and unnecessary costs.
Opening the Market to New Accreditors
The consensus language would eliminate the two-year minimum operating requirement for new accreditors seeking federal recognition. New accreditors would be permitted to apply for recognition sooner, provided they have accredited at least one institution or program. This change is intended to reduce barriers to entry for emerging accreditors and increase competition within the accreditation system.
Simplifying Changes Between Accreditors
The consensus agreement also includes changes intended to simplify the recognition process for institutions seeking to change between existing accreditors. This provision is intended to provide institutions with greater flexibility while maintaining federal oversight of recognized accrediting agencies.
Reducing Accreditation Cost Burdens
The consensus language would put accreditors on notice that the Department intends to ensure accreditation activities avoid unnecessary financial, compliance, and administrative burdens on institutions. This provision is intended to reduce unnecessary accreditation-related costs and administrative burdens, with potential benefits for students and families.
Emphasizing Student Outcomes
The consensus language would require accreditors to place greater emphasis on meaningful student outcomes. These may include, as appropriate, standardized assessments, licensure or certification results, retention, completion, and graduation rates, post-completion outcomes, and educational and economic returns. This reflects a shift away from accreditation standards that focus primarily on institutional inputs and toward greater attention to outcomes and value after unnecessary costs.
Protecting Academic Freedom and Intellectual Diversity
The consensus language would require accreditors to evaluate whether institutions maintain policies addressing academic freedom, research integrity, civil rights, and, as applicable, First Amendment rights, as well as policies that support intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas among faculty. These provisions are intended to address concerns about academic freedom, research misconduct, unlawful discrimination, and intellectual diversity within higher education.
What Comes Next
Because the AIM committee reached consensus, the Department is expected to use that agreement as the basis for a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which will outline the proposed regulations and accompanying rationale. The NPRM will likely be followed by a public comment period during which institutions, accreditors, students, and other stakeholders may submit written comments directly to the Department. It is worth noting that the Department retains the ability to modify the consensus language in drafting the NPRM, and the final proposed rule may differ in some respects from what was agreed upon by the committee.
After the public comment period closes, the Department is required to review the comments received before publishing final regulations. If final regulations are published before November 1, 2026, they generally would take effect on July 1, 2027, providing institutions and accreditors time to prepare for implementation.
The agreed-upon language also raises broader questions about the balance of responsibilities among the federal government, states, accreditors, and institutions. Institutions and accreditors will need to work through these questions as the NPRM is published, comments are submitted, and final regulations are developed.
Public Comment Opportunity
The NPRM public comment period will be a critical opportunity for institutions, accreditors, and other stakeholders to provide input before regulations are finalized. CHEA will provide guidance on the comment process and timeline when the NPRM is published. For more information on the negotiated rulemaking process and materials, visit the Department’s negotiated rulemaking page
What Institutions Should Know
Although the AIM rulemaking focuses directly on federally recognized accrediting agencies, the downstream effects would be felt by institutions. These changes are not immediate, and no institution’s accreditation status is affected at this time. However, if finalized, the regulations would reshape how accreditors evaluate institutions, what standards apply, and what institutions may need to demonstrate to maintain accreditation.
CHEA encourages member institutions to:
- Monitor publication of the NPRM and prepare to submit public comments when the comment period opens
- Engage with their accreditors about how they are interpreting the consensus language and what changes they anticipate in their standards and procedures
- Review the provisions related to transfer of credit, academic freedom, research integrity, student outcomes, and intellectual diversity to assess potential implications for institutional policy
- Visit chea.org for updates, resources, and guidance throughout the NPRM and public comment process