NACAC Advocacy and Policy Updates for September 29, 2026
By: Sean Robins
Welcome to this issue of the Advocacy Update. As September comes to a close and many of us prepare to gather in Minneapolis for NACAC Conference, the policy landscape surrounding college access and admission continues to move quickly. We are just 35 days from Election Day, when voters will make decisions at the federal, state, and local levels that will help shape education policy in the years ahead.
Over the past several weeks, changes involving the U.S. Department of Education, federal funding, financial aid, admissions, civil rights, and college affordability have reshaped the environment students and the professionals who support them must navigate. While each carries its own implications, together they point to a broader period of uncertainty about how federal education programs will be administered, how institutions will respond, and what these changes ultimately mean for students.
Policy & Legislative Updates
The federal education policy landscape continues to shift, with significant changes underway at the U.S. Department of Education. The Trump administration has been clear about its goal of closing the department and shifting responsibility for federal education programs elsewhere. As part of that effort, the administration has reduced the department’s workforce and continues to shift programs, responsibilities, and staff to other federal agencies through interagency agreements. Employees working in areas including special education and civil rights have been relocated to other agencies, while responsibility for administering some education programs is increasingly being shared with agencies such as the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Education Department retains statutory responsibility for programs Congress has assigned to it, creating significant questions about how these programs will function as the administration continues its effort to dismantle the department.
For NACAC members, these changes are more than a restructuring of the federal agency. Federal programs administered by the department touch nearly every part of the student journey, including K-12 education, college access, financial aid, civil rights protections, special education, and programs supporting schools and institutions. Education Department employees have raised concerns that other agencies’ grant systems were not designed for education programs and that shifting responsibilities has made it more difficult to administer funding. Attempts to move some major grants to new systems have already encountered technical and implementation challenges. As responsibilities become fragmented across agencies, students, families, counselors, schools, and colleges may have to navigate new systems, changing guidance, and different points of contact to access programs and support. The question is therefore not simply where federal education programs are housed, but whether students and the professionals serving them can continue to access those programs effectively during this transition.
Beyond the structural changes underway at the department, the Education Department is proposing significant changes to the rules governing federal grants. Proposed revisions to the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) would allow officials to terminate competitive grants “for convenience,” reconsider continued funding based on previous grantee activity, delay or provide funding in installments, and require recipients of formula grants to comply with presidential executive orders. Higher education and K-12 organizations have warned that the proposal could make federal education funding less stable and predictable, particularly when schools, colleges, researchers, and community organizations have already hired staff or launched programs based on multiyear federal awards.
Recent experience illustrates why those concerns matter. The department has terminated or withheld grants supporting school mental health services, community schools, research, and other programs, forcing some states and districts to identify replacement funding, reduce services, or eliminate positions. School leaders have warned that expanding the department’s ability to cancel funding could also discourage districts — particularly rural and under-resourced schools with limited administrative capacity — from applying for federal grants in the first place.
Similar questions about federal authority are emerging elsewhere. Just days before the end of the fiscal year, the Trump administration moved to cancel $810 million in congressionally appropriated funding through a “pocket rescission,” including approximately $95 million for education programs. The proposed cuts include $24.9 million from Special Programs for Migrant Students and $69.6 million — nearly all FY26 funding — from International Education and Foreign Language domestic programs. The Government Accountability Office has concluded that pocket rescissions violate the Impoundment Control Act, and Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins similarly characterized the administration’s action as a violation of the law.
The Education Department has redirected $235 million previously intended for minority-serving institution programs, providing more than $174 million to historically Black colleges and universities and $61 million to tribal colleges. The funding comes from programs supporting Hispanic-serving institutions and other MSIs, including programs focused on STEM education and transfer pathways. The move comes after Congress specifically blocked the department from defunding MSI programs, raising additional questions about congressional authority and the administration’s ability to redirect funding appropriated for particular institutions and purposes.
Courts are increasingly being asked to weigh in on these questions. Recent federal decisions have limited efforts to impose new conditions on previously awarded grants, including a case involving California education funding and a separate appellate ruling involving grants administered by other federal agencies. Another federal court found that the Office of Management and Budget unlawfully conditioned congressionally appropriated education research funding on compliance with administration executive orders. While the cases involve different programs and legal questions, they underscore an increasingly important issue for education: when Congress appropriates funding under established conditions, how much authority does the executive branch have to subsequently change those conditions, withhold the money, or redirect it?
That same debate over the federal role is extending into accreditation. The Education Department has proposed an overhaul that would require accreditors to take on new responsibilities related to student outcomes, intellectual diversity, academic freedom, civil rights compliance, institutional spending, and other areas. Higher education and accreditation organizations have supported some goals of the proposal, including greater attention to student outcomes and reducing unnecessary regulatory burden, while raising concerns that other provisions could expand the federal role in accreditation, constrain accreditor independence, increase institutional costs, and conflict with limits established under the Higher Education Act. Because accreditation is tied directly to institutional eligibility for federal student aid, changes to the system could have significant implications for institutions and students.
Financial aid policy is changing as well. There is welcome news with the early launch of the 2027-28 FAFSA, giving students and families additional time to complete the federal aid application. At the same time, advance coordination remains important. State agencies were not notified in advance of the early launch, and many states and counselors had planned around Oct. 1 when communicating FAFSA timelines to students. As we have shared with Federal Student Aid and the Education Department, earlier access is valuable, but coordination with states and the professionals helping students navigate financial aid is essential.
Students already enrolled in college are beginning to encounter challenges associated with new federal student loan limits. Some students who expected to remain under previous borrowing limits have faced unexpected eligibility changes, leaving gaps between the federal financing they anticipated and what is now available to complete their degrees. Financial aid offices are simultaneously navigating evolving federal guidance and complex implementation requirements. These challenges reinforce a basic concern about affordability: policy changes do not occur in isolation, and students who made enrollment and financial decisions under one set of expectations may have limited options when those rules change during their education.
New research on “free tuition” programs provides another perspective on affordability. Brookings found that many lower-income students eligible for these programs already receive enough grant aid to cover tuition, meaning the programs may not always substantially increase the aid students receive. Their value, however, may lie in communicating affordability more clearly. Students still face significant expenses beyond tuition — including housing, food, books, and transportation — but a straightforward affordability guarantee may encourage students to consider institutions they otherwise assumed were financially out of reach.
Affordability is only one part of the enrollment equation. Institutions are reconsidering how they reach and engage prospective students. Colleges are investing more heavily in campus visits, personalizing tours, connecting prospective students with faculty and current students, and in some cases helping with travel costs or offering scholarships and fee waivers tied to visits. Direct admissions is another strategy gaining momentum as states and institutions look for ways to reduce barriers between students and college opportunities. Together, these strategies reflect a broader effort to simplify the path into higher education and help students see themselves at institutions before they ever submit a traditional application.
States are experimenting with the pathways available to students. California recently enacted legislation expanding the ability of community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees, including programs connected to local workforce needs. The new laws remove a previous prohibition on community colleges offering bachelor’s programs already available within the state’s public university systems, although late amendments also created new limits and opportunities for four-year institutions to object. The development reflects a broader national conversation about how two- and four-year institutions can respond to workforce demand while expanding postsecondary options for students.
Other state actions are moving in the opposite direction for some students. Florida has expanded restrictions affecting undocumented students’ access to public higher education, adding to a rapidly changing national landscape for tuition equity and college access. Meanwhile federal litigation is challenging in-state tuition policies for undocumented students across the country. For counselors working with undocumented students and families, these changes make it increasingly important to understand not only whether a student can be admitted, but whether they can enroll, access in-state tuition, and realistically afford to attend.
Admission practices themselves remain under significant scrutiny. The Justice Department continues to investigate institutional admissions practices, including a recent finding involving the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine that the university disputes. At the same time, new research shows that legacy preferences have declined considerably across higher education. Fewer than one-quarter of four-year colleges considered legacy status in 2024, down from nearly half in 2015, and only 7 percent of all postsecondary institutions used the practice. Yet legacy consideration remains much more common among highly selective colleges, with 57 percent of institutions admitting fewer than one-quarter of applicants continuing to consider it.
Federal policy developments extend beyond admissions. A Treasury and IRS proposal could put the tax-exempt status of private nonprofit colleges at risk over certain race-based programs and practices. Moody’s has warned that losing tax-exempt status could have substantial financial consequences, including reduced philanthropic giving and higher borrowing costs, although it considers widespread loss of tax-exempt status unlikely. Even institutions seeking to comply could face additional legal and administrative costs.
Civil rights enforcement is changing at the K-12 level as well. The Justice Department has ended its role in more than 50 longstanding school desegregation cases, most of them in Southern states. Department officials argue that the decades-old consent decrees no longer reflect conditions in affected districts and impose unnecessary costs. Civil rights advocates counter that these orders can address more than the racial composition of classrooms, including disparities in funding, facilities, and access to advanced coursework. The shift comes as research shows that school segregation has increased in recent years, following decades of progress after Brown v. Board of Education. Ending federal oversight therefore comes at a moment when questions about equal educational opportunity and access remain very much unresolved.
All of these developments are unfolding as voters prepare to make decisions about education policy this November. Every seat in the U.S. House of Representatives and roughly one-third of the U.S. Senate will be on the ballot, alongside significant state-level elections. Voters in 36 states will elect governors, eight states will elect state superintendents, and nine states and the District of Columbia will elect members of state boards of education. Voters in 16 states will also consider 27 ballot initiatives directly affecting education or its primary funding sources. The outcomes will shape not only control of Congress, but state education budgets and priorities, school governance, college affordability, workforce pathways, and other policies that directly affect students and the professionals who serve them.
NACAC Advocacy
Since our last update, NACAC has continued to elevate the voices of college admission counseling professionals while engaging directly on federal policies affecting students, institutions, and the pathways to and through postsecondary education.
On Sept. 17, NACAC hosted our inaugural Capitol Hill Briefing, bringing members and leaders directly to Congress to discuss how federal policy decisions affect students, families, and communities. NACAC members shared perspectives from school counseling, admission, and enrollment management, highlighting the need for stronger investments in school counselors, continued support for federal college-access programs, greater college affordability, and policies that support international students. The briefing reinforced an important part of our advocacy: policymakers need to hear directly from the professionals who see how policy decisions affect students every day.
NACAC has carried that engagement into several federal regulatory debates. We joined coalition efforts responding to the Education Department’s proposed accreditation overhaul. These efforts support greater attention to student outcomes and opportunities to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens while calling for strong student protections, institutional due process, accreditor independence, and safeguards that preserve accountability and access to federal student aid. For students and families navigating college decisions, a strong accreditation system remains an important measure of institutional quality and consumer protection.
Federal grantmaking has been another focus. NACAC joined the American Council on Education and other higher education associations in urging the Education Department to withdraw proposed changes to EDGAR that could weaken transparent, merit-based grantmaking and introduce new requirements related to admissions and participant selection. We remain focused on ensuring that federal programs established to advance college access and student success can operate through a fair and predictable grantmaking process consistent with their intended purposes.
NACAC continues to advocate for policies that keep the United States accessible and competitive for international students. Most recently, we joined higher education partners in raising concerns about a proposed $103,265 fee on H-1B cap-subject petitions. Although colleges and universities are generally exempt from the proposed fee, post-graduation employment opportunities are an important consideration for international students deciding where to study and whether they can apply their education in the United States after graduation. Maintaining viable pathways between education and employment remains an important part of supporting international student access and the nation’s ability to attract global talent.
Together, these efforts reflect NACAC’s continued focus on ensuring that the perspectives of students and the professionals who serve them are represented as policymakers consider significant changes to federal education policy.
Ways You Can Take Action
Election Day is approaching and now is an important time to make a plan to vote and ensure you have the information you need to participate. Elections at the federal, state, and local levels will help determine who makes decisions on education funding, college access, student aid, and other policies affecting students and the professionals who support them. Take time to learn what will be on your ballot, review your voting options and deadlines, and make a plan for when and how you will cast your ballot.
With final FY 2027 funding decisions still ahead, members can continue urging Congress to support strong federal investments in education, college access, student aid, and student support programs.
Your perspective and experiences matter beyond funding. Continue sharing what you are seeing in your schools, institutions, and communities to help inform NACAC’s advocacy and demonstrate how federal decisions affect students and the professionals who support them. You can also take action today by using the advocacy alerts below to contact your members of Congress on key issues affecting college access and higher education.
- Tell Congress: Preserve Duration of Status
- Tell Congress: Support International Students and Scholars
- Tell Congress: Protect and Support TRIO Programs
- Tell Congress: Oppose Cuts to Student Financial Aid
- Tell Congress: Maintain Support for International Education and Exchange
- Tell Congress: Keep Education Programs at the Department of Education
- Tell Congress: Prioritize Visa Appointments for International Students and Scholars
- Tell Congress to Not Abandon Our National Commitment to Education
- Urge Congress to Protect Disabled Students
- Don’t Flunk the Future Advocacy Toolkit
The decisions being debated today will have implications well beyond the next few weeks or months. Our work requires us to understand those decisions not simply as policy changes, but through the experiences of the students, families, schools, and institutions they affect.
As Mahatma Gandhi once said, “The future depends on what we do in the present.” As we come together in Minneapolis and look ahead to Election Day and the months that follow, there will be much more to discuss, understand, and navigate. I hope we use these opportunities to learn from one another, ask important questions, and continue bringing the experiences of our profession into the conversations shaping the future of education.
Sean Robins is director of advocacy at National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), where he leads federal and state advocacy efforts to advance policies that support college access, affordability, and student success.