With the national student debt crisis looming larger than ever and public frustration with tuition prices reaching a boiling point, Washington lawmakers are turning their full attention to the complex and contentious world of higher education policy. After a turbulent 2025 marked by legislative distractions and dramatic executive actions, Congress now faces a compressed timeline to address core issues of college affordability and institutional accountability. As the 2026 midterm elections cast a long shadow over the Capitol, both Republicans and Democrats are preparing for a series of high-stakes debates that could fundamentally reshape the landscape of American postsecondary education, with college costs and the accreditation system squarely in the crosshairs.
A Review of 2025: Legislative Hurdles and a Singular Success
A Challenging Political Climate
The Republican majority’s ambitious higher education agenda for 2025 was largely sidelined by a series of demanding national crises that consumed the legislative calendar and depleted political capital. Lawmakers’ attention was almost entirely monopolized by the successful passage of a landmark tax reform bill and a subsequent, deeply divisive federal budget impasse. This budgetary standoff culminated in a record-breaking 43-day government shutdown, bringing much of Washington to a standstill and pushing other policy priorities, including college affordability, to the back burner. This challenging environment created a sense of mounting urgency within the party to deliver tangible results before facing voters in the midterms. Rick Hess, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), observed that Republicans were “very conscious that it may be on the clock,” fueling a desire to “move rapidly and get things done.”
This drive for legislative action, however, ran into significant headwinds within Congress itself. The practical realities of governing with a “narrow and fractious House majority” made building consensus a constant struggle, while the Senate remained bogged down by protracted budget negotiations and the confirmation of judicial appointments. These internal and external pressures combined to create a legislative bottleneck, preventing the advancement of all but the most critical bills. This left a host of unresolved higher education issues on the table, setting the stage for the intense focus that is now defining the 2026 session. The limited bandwidth of 2025 has effectively forced a year’s worth of policy debates into a few short months, raising the stakes for every proposal under consideration.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA)
Despite the difficult political landscape, the Republican-led Congress managed to secure one major legislative victory in the form of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA). Pushed through the complex reconciliation process and signed into law by President Trump on July 4, 2025, the act was hailed by many as the most significant overhaul of higher education policy in more than a decade. The legislation introduced several transformative provisions designed to re-engineer federal student aid and university finance. Among its key components, OBBBA expanded eligibility for federal financial aid to students in nontraditional, short-term job training programs, a long-standing conservative goal aimed at bolstering workforce development. Furthermore, the act established new caps on the amount graduate students could borrow and consolidated the government’s complex web of student loan repayment plans into a more simplified system. Finally, it included a controversial measure that increased the tax on the endowments of wealthy private colleges, aiming to compel these institutions to invest more in student affordability.
The passage of OBBBA was met with a deeply polarized response that reflected the nation’s ideological divide on higher education. Conservative analysts like Hess praised the legislation as “a much-needed and positive set of changes,” arguing it moved the system in a “substantially better direction.” Conversely, progressive policy experts voiced strong opposition. Jared Bass of the Center for American Progress (CAP) remarked that “‘Accomplishments’ is not really the word I would use,” contending that Congress had failed to address the core issue of affordability. He argued that the bill, by limiting student borrowing without mandating lower tuition, “made resources less available” and shifted the financial burden back onto students and their families. This debate highlighted a fundamental disagreement over economic theory, with Republicans believing that restricting access to loans would force institutions to lower costs, a premise that progressives argued was unproven and potentially harmful.
Executive Power and Party Responses
The Administration’s Dominant Role
While Congress struggled to advance its agenda, the most significant and disruptive changes to higher education policy in 2025 were driven almost entirely by the executive branch. Rick Hess of AEI noted that, “The story of 2025 in higher ed is a big, dramatic one, but it’s almost entirely one of executive branch activity.” This observation underscores a major power shift in which the Trump administration, rather than lawmakers, became the primary agent of change. Following through on a 2024 campaign promise, the administration embarked on a systematic campaign to dismantle the Department of Education. Without seeking congressional approval, the White House initiated a series of aggressive actions, including laying off nearly half of the department’s staff and issuing an executive order that directed the Secretary of Education to close the agency “to the maximum extent appropriate.”
The administration’s efforts extended beyond staffing to include fundamental changes to the department’s mission and funding. The White House repeatedly attempted to slash federal education spending, proposed redirecting grant funding to align with its priorities, and strategically used the government shutdown as an opportunity to lay off even more federal employees. Perhaps most consequentially, the administration executed a series of interagency agreements that reallocated many of the Department of Education’s core responsibilities—from student loan servicing to civil rights enforcement—to other federal agencies. This executive-led reorganization effectively bypassed Congress, creating a new reality on the ground that lawmakers were forced to react to, rather than shape, and cementing the White House’s dominance in setting the direction of federal education policy.
Democrats on Defense
Faced with an executive branch determined to remake the federal role in education, congressional Democrats found themselves in a reactive posture throughout 2025. Representative Bobby Scott, the ranking member of the House education committee, aptly described his party’s work as “trying to keep it together” against what they viewed as a full-scale assault on the nation’s education system. Lacking the votes to block the administration’s agenda legislatively, Democrats relied on public pressure campaigns, using press conferences, town halls, and demonstrations to protest the White House’s actions. They framed the administration’s agenda as a “detrimental” attack that threatened to undermine access and equity for millions of students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds and marginalized communities.
Despite their minority status, Democrats managed to secure a few modest but important victories. Senator Patty Murray, a key voice on the Senate education committee, pointed to successful efforts to restore some funding that the administration had targeted for elimination. In one notable instance, Democrats successfully fought back against a draft funding bill that included a proposed 50% cut to Pell Grants, a cornerstone federal aid program. Critically, the deep unease with the administration’s approach was not limited to the left. Even a conservative-aligned analyst like Rick Hess offered a sharp critique of “Hill Republicans,” accusing them of failing in their constitutional oversight responsibilities by “marching in lockstep to what the White House asks.” This rare instance of cross-ideological criticism highlighted the extraordinary nature of the executive branch’s actions and the perceived abdication of congressional authority.
Laying the Groundwork for 2026
Committee Priorities Signal Future Debates
Though the legislative output in 2025 was limited, the numerous hearings held by congressional education committees provided a clear roadmap for the priorities that will dominate the 2026 session. A consistent theme emerging from these sessions was the Republican majority’s intense focus on institutional accountability, particularly regarding students’ return on investment. Lawmakers repeatedly explored ways to compel colleges and universities to demonstrate the value of their degrees in the job market. The hearings also delved deeply into methods for improving the transparency of financial aid offers, tracking the specific skills students acquire during their studies, and re-evaluating the federal government’s role in collecting and disseminating data on student outcomes. These discussions signaled a growing desire to shift the policy focus from simply providing access to higher education to ensuring the quality and value of that education.
Beyond these pragmatic concerns, the committee hearings also became a forum for addressing more ideologically charged issues. Republican members frequently raised questions about what they described as illegal DEI practices on campuses and probed allegations of pervasive liberal bias within academic programs and curricula. This dual focus on both economic outcomes and cultural issues revealed a multifaceted agenda. Furthermore, a notable difference in style emerged between the two chambers. In the House, Representative Tim Walberg, the new chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, pursued a “slightly more aggressive agenda,” holding more hearings on “hard-punching issues” such as campus antisemitism. In contrast, the Senate HELP Committee, under the new leadership of Senator Bill Cassidy, was perceived as taking a more collaborative approach, working “a bit more quietly” with stakeholder groups to craft “influential” legislation, a tactic praised by industry groups like the American Council on Education.
A Mandate Forged in Political Urgency
The confluence of legislative inaction, executive assertiveness, and growing public pressure in 2025 ultimately set the stage for the pivotal policy battles of the current year. The Republican party’s single major legislative win, the OBBBA, proved insufficient to satisfy a base demanding more decisive action on college affordability. Meanwhile, the administration’s aggressive dismantling of the Department of Education, while celebrated by some, alienated others and left congressional Democrats galvanized in their opposition. The committee hearings throughout the past year did more than just signal future priorities; they drew the ideological lines for the impending conflicts over accreditation and accountability. The upcoming midterm elections served as the final, critical catalyst, transforming abstract policy debates into urgent political imperatives. This intense pressure forced both parties to sharpen their arguments and prepare for a legislative session where the future of federal higher education policy would be fiercely contested, with voters positioned to deliver the ultimate judgment on their efforts.
