View this email in your browser [ [link removed] ] .

American Dental Education Association


Volume 3, No. 80, May 8, 2025

Trump Administration Releases a FY 2026 “Skinny” Budget
 
The Trump Administration released the broad outlines [ [link removed] ] of its fiscal year (FY) 2026 federal budget on May 2. It represents a reduction of 23% in domestic discretionary program support and an increase of 13% in defense-related discretionary spending. The full budget is expected later this month.
 
The transmittal letter from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) outlines several of the items first reported in the leaked OMB “passback” to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):
 • The budget proposes to consolidate within the new Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) a variety of programs that were formerly part of the Health Resources and Services Administration, including the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program activities that do not focus on core health care and support services directly to patients, and multiple Health Workforce Programs (total funding of $1 billion, which includes the $43.7 million for Oral Health Training Programs) that the administration states “provide scholarships and support for individuals to enter high-paying medical careers.”
 • The National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget for FY 2026 is reduced by $17.9 billion, leaving a requested level of $27 billion. The current FY 2025 funding is $48.6 billion, and ADEA has supported a FY 2026 request of $51.3 billion request for NIH. As noted in the OMB “passback” document, the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research is folded into a new Institute.
 • At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the budget proposes to eliminate duplicative “or simply unnecessary” programs, which included the Division of Oral Health currently funded at $20.5 million in FY 2025.
 • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency receives a requested increase of $9 million as part of its “critical drinking water mission…protecting Americans, and especially children, from unsafe or contaminated water.”

More details will be available once the FY 2026 President's budget has been submitted to Congress, possibly this week. That submission should include detailed budget justification.
 
Many of the proposed reductions across the budget are justified, at least in part, by stating that the function or program is best carried out by the states. Some states, including states with governors of the same political party as the President, have raised objections or concerns about some of those proposals. Congress will make the final decision on the allocation of federal funding.

House Education Committee Advances Sweeping Higher Ed Reconciliation Bill
 
U.S. House of Representative Republicans have initiated their reconciliation package process, with the House Education and Workforce Committee advancing their portion of the bill that significantly restructures Department of Education (ED) programs. The reconciliation bill, titled the Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan [ [link removed] ] , was marked up April 29. During the markup, Committee members were required to identify over $330 billion in education spending cuts over the next decade. The legislation advanced along party lines in a 21-14 vote, highlighting the deep partisan divide over the proposal. Republicans touted the bill as a means to simplify student loan repayment and enforce fiscal responsibility, while Democrats condemned it as a threat to college accessibility for millions of Americans.
 
The markup session was contentious, with Democrats offering over two dozen amendments [ [link removed] ] —all of which were rejected by the Republican majority. Lawmakers are working under a tentative goal of finalizing the bill by July 4, though that deadline may shift depending on legislative progress.
 
Bill provisions of concern are as follows:
 • The bill caps the total amount of federal student aid a student can receive annually at the “median cost of college,” defined as the median cost of attendance for students enrolled in the same program of study nationally and calculated by the Secretary of Education using data from the previous award year.
 • Grad PLUS and subsidized loans for undergraduate students are eliminated on or after July 1, 2026. This includes a three-year exception for students who were enrolled in a program of study as of June 30, 2026, and had received such loans for said programs.
 • New aggregate loan caps would be established on unsubsidized loan amounts disbursed on or after July 1, 2026, to the median cost of students’ program of study, and would limit aggregate amounts to $50,000 for undergraduates, $100,000 for graduate students and $150,000 for professional degrees. There are no exceptions to the loan cap for health professions.
 • Students must fully use their unsubsidized loans before parents can use Parent PLUS to cover their remaining cost of attendance. It also establishes an aggregate limit for Parent PLUS loans of $50,000 for parents on behalf of their dependent child. This includes a three-year exception for students who were enrolled in a program of study as of June 30, 2026, and had received such loans for such program.
 • The bill creates “skin-in-the-game” accountability for colleges and universities by amending the terms of the Direct Loan program participation agreement to require institutions to reimburse the ED Secretary for a percentage of the non-repayment balance associated with loans disbursed on or after July 1, 2027. The reimbursement percentage will be calculated based on the total price the institution charges students for a program of study and the value-added earnings of students after they graduate or, in the case of students who do not graduate, the completion rate of the institution or program.
 • The elimination of Grad PLUS loans could impact eligibility to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program for graduate and professional students.
 • The bill targets existing regulations from the Biden administration by eliminating the 90/10 rule for for-profit colleges.
 • The bill also repeals the gainful employment rule, which mandates career education programs prove that graduates earn sufficient incomes to repay student debt.

A further summary of the bill can be found here. [ [link removed] ] ADEA does not support this bill in its current form and is actively working with the higher education community to oppose the bill.

President Trump Issues New Executive Orders Impacting Higher Education
 
On April 23, President Trump signed seven executive orders, with four directly impacting higher education; two of the four are very consequential.
 
 
 
Stricter Oversight of Accrediting Agencies and New Accreditation Outlines
 
The first order, Holding Accreditors Accountable for Unlawful Actions [ [link removed] ] , aims to enforce stricter oversight of accrediting agencies in higher education, particularly targeting those that promote what the administration deems as unlawful discrimination under the guise of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The order makes it clear that accreditors found in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws will risk losing federal recognition. While the order applies broadly, it specifically targets accrediting bodies for law and medical schools, instructing the Secretary of Education and the Attorney General to investigate and take action against institutions or accrediting organizations that impose DEI-related requirements seen as unlawful.
 
The order empowers the Secretary of Education to use tools such as denial, suspension or termination of recognition to hold accreditors accountable. It explicitly names the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, as well as the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, for special scrutiny. These bodies face possible investigations and possible loss of federal approval if they are found to be enforcing accreditation standards that the administration interprets as violating federal anti-discrimination laws.
 
Additionally, the order introduces a new framework, New Principles of Student-Oriented Accreditation, that outlines criteria for how accreditation should function moving forward. These criteria include promoting intellectual diversity, prohibiting credential inflation that burdens students with additional unnecessary costs and ensuring academic programs are free from unlawful discrimination under the guise of accreditation standards. The Secretary of Education is directed to recognize new accreditors to increase competition; encourage institutions to focus on program-level student outcomes (without considering race, ethnicity or sex); and streamline the process for institutions to switch accreditors. The order also calls for updates to the Accreditation Handbook and the launch of an experimental site to foster innovation and improve quality assurance mechanisms in higher education.
 
Eliminating the Use of Disparate-impact Liability Across Agencies
 
The second order, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy [ [link removed] ] , aims to eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability across federal agencies. This legal doctrine, often used in civil rights enforcement, focuses on the effects of a policy rather than its intent—holding that a seemingly neutral policy may still be discriminatory if it disproportionately affects a protected group based on race, sex, religion or other traits. However, under this executive order, the administration changes its interpretation of the disparate-impact liability. Under this new interpretation, the focus is not on the discriminatory outcome, but rather on whether the intent was discriminatory.
 
The executive order instructs all federal agencies to deprioritize enforcement of regulations that involve disparate-impact liability. It directs the Attorney General to re-evaluate ongoing investigations or cases involving this legal theory for possible dismissal in accordance with the administration’s new interpretation. Additionally, it mandates a review of federal civil rights laws to ensure compliance with the order’s new policy direction and includes a provision to assess whether any federal statutes preempt state laws that impose disparate-impact liability. Overall, the executive order represents a broad policy shift away from outcome-based civil rights enforcement toward a stricter focus on intentional discrimination.
 
The order also directs the Attorney General and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to issue guidance for fair hiring practices that do not rely on college degree requirements. While this guidance has not yet been released, it signals an effort to encourage merit-based hiring that values experience or skills over formal education credentials.
 
Finally, executive orders cannot override or violate federal laws. Only Congress has the power to create, amend or repeal federal laws. If an executive order contradicts or violates the Constitution or federal laws, it can be struck down by the courts. Because this executive order attempts to override settled interpretations of the law, it will likely be challenged in court.
 
Orders Addressing HBCUs and Foreign Influence at American Universities
 
The remaining two orders of interest to the higher education community are the White House Initiative to Promote Excellence and Innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) [ [link removed] ] and the Transparency Regarding Foreign Influence at American Universities. [ [link removed] ] The HBCU executive order promotes aims to enhance the capacity of HBCUs to provide high quality education and to foster innovation within these institutions. Among other things, the order establishes a White House Initiative on HBCUs, housed in the Executive Office of the President and establishes the President’s Board of Advisors on HBCUs within ED, comprising leaders from philanthropy, education, business, finance, entrepreneurship, innovation, private foundations and current HBCU presidents.
 
The Transparency executive order’s purpose is to “end the secrecy surrounding foreign funds in American educational institutions, protect the marketplace of ideas from propaganda sponsored by foreign governments, and safeguard America’s students and research from foreign exploitation,” according to order.
 
This order reenforces the already required reporting requirements of Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, which requires higher education institutions to report any gifts received from and contracts with a foreign source that, alone or combined, are valued at $250,000 or more in a calendar year. Universities must submit these reports semiannually to ED.

Anti-fluoride Bills Pass Florida Legislature and Louisiana Senate
 
The Florida Senate passed legislation [ [link removed] ] that would prohibit community water systems in the state from adding fluoride to their drinking water. Included in the state’s farm bill is a provision that prohibits the addition of any chemical, additive or substance to a public water system unless it does the following:
 • Meets or surpasses primary or secondary drinking water standards;
 • Prevents, reduces or removes contaminants; or
 • Improves water quality.

The bill will now be sent to Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) for consideration. Both Gov. DeSantis and State Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, M.D., Ph.D., have voiced support [ [link removed] ] for removing fluoride from community water systems.
 
In Louisiana, the state Senate passed a bill [ [link removed] ] that would end the state’s Department of Health water fluoridation program for public water systems with at least 5,000 service connections. The bill would instead prohibit the fluoridation of any public water systems unless 15% of registered voters in the precincts served by the water system sign a petition and a local election is called by the governing authority in which a majority of registered voters approve the fluoridation. The bill will now be sent to the state’s House of Representatives for consideration.
 
Utah [ [link removed] ] became the first state to ban community water fluoridation earlier this year.

Indiana Sends Budget Bill With Higher Ed Policy Provisions to Governor
 
The Indiana General Assembly voted in favor of a budget bill [ [link removed] ] that includes significant changes to higher education policy. The changes include a requirement for faculty to post syllabi online and for faculty to undergo “productivity reviews.”
 
The legislation requires the Board of Trustees of each institution to establish “productivity reviews” that include the following:
 • A review process with regard to department-level promotions and tenure expectations;
 • A post-tenure review process for tenured faculty members that measures productivity and includes:
    ◦ The faculty member's teaching workload,
    ◦ The total number of students who the faculty member teaches at the graduate and undergraduate level,
    ◦ The time spent on instructional assignments and the time spent on overseeing graduate students and
    ◦ The research and creative scholarship productivity of the faculty member.


Beginning July 1, 2025, a tenure agreement entered into or renewed between an institution and a faculty member must comply with the post-tenure review process. Additionally, the process must also include a requirement that the institution place a faculty member on probation, which may result in dismissal of the faculty member, if productivity requirements established are not met.
 
Additionally, as reported by Inside Higher Ed [ [link removed] ] , “the bill would prohibit faculty emeriti from voting in faculty governance organizations, place low-enrolled degree programs at risk of elimination by the Indiana Commission for Higher Education and end alumni elections for three Indiana University Board of Trustees seats by filling them with gubernatorial appointees.” The bill would also allow the governor to remove the currently elected board members before their terms expire.
 
The legislation will be sent to Gov. Mike Braun (R) for consideration.

[[link removed]]


ADEA Advocacy in Action
This appears weekly in the ADEA Advocate to summarize and provide direct links to recent advocacy actions taken by ADEA. Please let us know what you think and how we might improve its usefulness.
 
Issues and Resources
 • ADEA report [ [link removed] ] on teledentistry
 • ADEA report [ [link removed] ] on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on U.S. Dental Schools
 • ADEA policy brief [ [link removed] ] regarding overprescription of antibiotics
 • For a full list of ADEA memos, briefs and letters click here [ [link removed] ] .

Key Federal Issues [ [link removed] ]

ADEA U.S. Interactive Legislative and Regulatory Tracking Map [ [link removed] ]

Key State Issues [ [link removed] ]

The ADEA Advocate [ [link removed] ] is published weekly. Its purpose is to keep ADEA members abreast of federal and state issues and events of interest to the academic dentistry and the dental and research communities.
 
©2025
American Dental Education Association
655 K Street, NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: 202-289-7201
Website: www.adea.org [ [link removed] ]

twitter
[[link removed]]


Subscribe
[link removed][0]&p_colname=p_last_nm&p_varname=p_val_arr[1]&p_colname=p_alias&p_varname=p_val_arr[2]&p_colname=p_login_id&p_varname=p_val_arr[3]&p_colname=p_passwd&p_context=NEWSLETTER&p_success_url=censsaindprofile.section_update%3Fp_profile_ty%3DINDIVIDUAL_PROFILE%26p_skip_confirm_fl%3DY%26p_section_nm%3DNewsletters%26p_format%3D110%26p_msg_txt%3D%26p_cust_id%3D%26p_referrer%3D

Unsubscribe
[link removed]

B. Timothy Leeth, CPA
ADEA Chief Advocacy Officer
 
Bridgette DeHart, J.D.
ADEA Director of Federal Relations and Advocacy
 
Phillip Mauller, M.P.S.
ADEA Senior Director of State Relations and Advocacy
 
Contact Us:
[email protected] [ mailto:[email protected] ]

Powered by Higher Logic [link removed]