Negotiated Rulemaking on Accreditation (2026)

May 12, 2026

The U.S. Department of Education is convening negotiated rulemaking sessions in 2026 focused on accreditation through its Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) committee.

These sessions are part of a broader federal effort to reconsider the role of accreditation in higher education, including how it intersects with student outcomes, institutional accountability, and innovation.

These negotiations will directly affect how colleges and universities operate by shaping expectations for accreditation, influencing how student success is measured, and determining the level of flexibility institutions have to fulfill their missions.

Key Dates

  • April 13–17, 2026: First session
  • May 18–22, 2026: Second session
  • Post-Negotiations: Proposed regulations released (NPRM) and open for public comment
  • By November 1, 2026: Final rules issued
  • July 1, 2027: New rules take effect

All sessions will be available for public viewing.

Overview of the AIM Committee
The AIM committee is charged with reviewing and developing proposed regulatory changes related to accreditation and federal oversight of higher education.
Key Issue Areas

  • Accreditation recognition processes
  • Cost of education and affordability
  • Student outcomes and accountability measures
  • The role and influence of third-party organizations and trade associations

What is Negotiated Rulemaking?
Negotiated rulemaking is a process in which the U.S. Department of Education develops proposed regulations in collaboration with representatives of the groups most affected. Through a series of facilitated meetings, these negotiators work with the Department to reach consensus on proposed rules before they are published for public comment as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Federal law generally requires this process for regulations related to Title IV student aid programs.

Why This Matters
This process will have significant implications for campuses—shaping how institutions are evaluated, what is required to demonstrate quality, and how much flexibility they retain in serving their students.

The scope of the current proposals raises important questions about the appropriate role of accreditors and the balance between federal oversight and institutional autonomy. Some proposals suggest expanding expectations for accreditors into areas that have not traditionally been part of accreditation, while others emphasize standardized measures of student outcomes that may not fully reflect institutional mission or context.

For colleges and universities, these developments warrant close attention. Decisions made through this process could redefine long-standing assumptions about how quality is assessed in U.S. higher education.

Active engagement by institutional leaders and other stakeholders will be essential to ensure that any changes strengthen accountability while preserving the diversity, flexibility, and peer-driven nature of accreditation.

CHEA Engagement
CHEA will continue to monitor developments, provide analysis, and engage with policymakers to ensure that any changes support academic quality, respect peer review, and preserve institutional autonomy. If you would like more information about how these developments impact your institution, please contact Jan Friis at [email protected].

Additional Resources:

CHEA

U.S. Department of Education

White House

Related Media Coverage