Four Takeaways From Recent Policy Research
In the midst of the February flurry of research in DC, here are some updates on what to expect in 2026 and beyond
Phil Hill
February 23, 2026
Reminder: prices for On EdTech+ subscriptions change on March 1st. Monthly subscribers can lock in today’s pricing by switching to an annual plan.
Was this forwarded to you by a friend? Sign up, and get your own copy of the news that matters sent to your inbox every week. Sign up for the On EdTech newsletter. Interested in additional analysis? Upgrade to the On EdTech+ newsletter.
Like last year, I attended the CSPEN policy summit in Washington, DC this month, which I have augmented with additional research. CSPEN’s February Summit is a remarkable event, bringing in key policymakers and analysts into the most information-dense meeting in all of higher ed, with just over 100 people in attendance. This year, that included congressional leaders from the House, several Department of Ed (ED) leaders, a reunion of quite a few committee members from recently negotiated rulemaking committees, a researcher from the Urban Institute, government relations insiders including from ACE and AACC, and of course CSPEN itself.
There is a fairly clear picture that emerges on not just what policies are next in play (e.g., the AIM committee on accreditation reform) but more importantly how policymakers think about these issues.
Below are four takeaways from this research and what that likely means for higher education leaders.
Context
First, I would like to share a graphic I created last April to capture my thoughts at the time. The organizing points:
The Trump Administration has a chaotic side on the left that tends to suck a lot of oxygen out of the room and cause continual over-reaction from higher ed observers. While that chaos is there and important, there is also significant negotiations and policy work underway on the right.
The governing themes that animate administration work (and Republican congressional efforts through OBBB) are the general anti-woke category but also shifting power to the states, transparency on pricing and outcomes, a focus on sector-neutral outcomes, and pushing to integrate higher education and workforce initiatives.
If you focus on the chaos, at least don’t miss that there is always a Step 2; everything is a negotiation, with initial positions designed to elicit reactions.
This view of the Trump Administration higher education policy work has remained quite accurate in my opinion. But higher education at large still over-indexes on the chaos while not preparing for the policy implementation, and the importance of “sector-neutral outcomes” is not fully understood.
1. ED Wants Durable Policy
Too many observers, on both sides of the political spectrum, still view the second Trump Administration like the first, and even that is distorted by stereotypes. What animates the current administration (White House, ED, congressional leadership) is not deregulation per se or protection of favored constituencies such as the for-profit sector. Far more important is the idea that all education providers should play by the same set of rules, and that focus should be on outcomes. Hence sector-neutral outcomes.
One way that plays out is that ED wants simplified, consistent benchmarks for the earnings premium. The rationale is for the rules to stick long-term, they need to be simple—same age comparisons across all undergraduate credential types, minimal nuance in definitions. Adding nuance begs for policy editing by future administrations.
