Government Relations in Higher Education: A Strategic Imperative for Colleges and Universities

Government Relations in Higher Education: A Strategic Imperative for Colleges and Universities
Colorful Tulips with United States Capitol Building in Spring Washington DC
Capacity Building/Training Competitive Intelligence & Appropriations Featured Federal Agency & Foundation Engagement Government Relations Grants Strategy Higher Education Small & Mid-Sized Colleges & Universities Uncategorized August 11, 2026
Picture of Frank Boyd

Frank Boyd

Frank Boyd is Vice President of the Higher Education Practice at McAllister & Quinn. Frank brings 26 years of experience in higher education as a faculty member and academic administrator.

Why Government Relations Is Essential for Higher Education Institutions Facing Federal Funding and Policy Change

The importance of government relations for institutions of higher education (IHEs) has skyrocketed in recent years, and schools are responding. Historically, government relations was primarily the purview of larger research institutions, who maintained offices to coordinate relationships with federal, state, and local government officials. Smaller institutions, especially those focused on undergraduate education, concentrated their efforts primarily on state and local relationships. Today’s external environment demands that colleges and universities of all sizes elevate government relations as an essential function, and those who ignore these important relationships do so at their own peril.

What has triggered this rapid shift? Broadly speaking, the external environment for IHEs has changed, and I briefly review three recent events that had a significant effect on institutions in every sector: the historical level of support provided to higher education during the COVID pandemic; the return of earmarks to the federal appropriations process; and, the cascading regulatory changes for higher education that commenced in January of 2025.

Three Dimensions of “The Great Awakening”

The COVID-19 pandemic represented a very serious threat to higher education, arriving at a time when the sector already faced a variety of external pressures, including: the looming demographic cliff, decreasing revenue with increasing operational costs, and the expanding demand for student support services. When the scope of the pandemic became clear in the spring of 2020, institutional leaders (myself among them in a previous role) had to pivot in a matter of weeks to implement what became colloquially known as “COVID School.” More than 80% of college students in the United States reported that all or part of their instruction shifted to an online platform like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, etc., requiring investments in instructional technology and other infrastructure that were not anticipated or budgeted. Students simultaneously were sent home en masse, leading to a dramatic drop in auxiliary revenue and further loss of revenue from the attrition of students who decided to pause their college education.

The federal government responded with a bipartisan effort to disburse support through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF). Collectively, these and other programs provided tens of billions of dollars to colleges and universities to address lost revenue, and billions more were disbursed directly to students. It is widely understood that this support forestalled an existential crisis for many individual schools and for the sector as a whole.

This federal response produced a “Road to Damascus” moment for some leaders in higher education. Some schools like Hillsdale College and Grove City College had long rejected any federal support, even rejecting federally subsidized loans and grants for their students. Until COVID, many more institutions resisted seeking federal support beyond student financial aid, often due to fears that government regulations would include requirements that were counter to their institutional mission. The federal support received during the pandemic convinced many institutions to begin exploring opportunities to compete for federal investments in their strategic priorities.

Why Higher Education Institutions Need a Government Relations Strategy for Earmarks and Federal Appropriations

This epiphany came at an auspicious time, when Congress implemented major changes in the appropriations process to exercise more direct “power of the purse.” After a decade-long moratorium on including member-submitted earmark requests in appropriations bills, the 117th Congress reintroduced the practice with new names in the House (Community Project Funding or CPF) and in the Senate (Congressionally Directed Spending or CDS). Along with the fancy new moniker came new transparency requirements, public disclosure rules, and conflict-of-interest certifications. These reforms distinguish the new process from the old one and also address concerns that led to the 2011 moratorium.

Since then, higher education has received significant investments for projects that both advance institutional initiatives and are consistent with the funding priorities of their congressional delegation. In 2026 alone, approximately 800 projects worth $2b from IHEs received federal funding. My colleague, Brad Middleton, who came to McAllister & Quinn from the U.S. Department of Education and Capitol Hill, observed, “Earmarks provide an opportunity for institutions of higher education to apply for federal funding directly to their Members of Congress, who are often positioned to know best the needs of local organizations and communities.  With the right strategy, earmarks can be a valuable source of federal support outside of traditional competitive federal grant funding.”

Unlike the process for securing CARES and HEERF funding—which was straightforward by federal government standards—the process for securing earmark funding requires a government relations strategy that is informed by a deep understanding of federal appropriations.  An effective institutional strategy begins with the meaningful engagement of the member and their staff, keeping them abreast of the impact the college or university has on the community, state, and country, and identifying opportunities to invite them to campus. It also requires understanding the member’s legislative priorities. Are they concentrating on workforce development? Healthcare? AI? Projects will not be supported that aren’t aligned with the priorities of the member or don’t have clear benefits for their constituents.

Finally, there are the complications of what used to be called “paperwork,” or the forms and information that are required to submit a request to a member of the House or Senate. None of it is uniform. In fact, the process is predictably complicated, with separate forms for each member’s office, a complex system of accounts to which requests must be allocated, and shifting deadlines for submission of requests. Further, changes in control of Congress have brought changes to the rules– sometimes annually–which adds further complexity to the process. The midterm elections will flip the seats from one party to another, and it appears likely that the majority in at least one chamber of Congress could have Democratic leadership Taken as a whole, the process resembles something from a Thomas Pynchon novel.

Brad Middleton, who came to McAllister & Quinn from the U.S. Department of Education and Capitol Hill, observed, “Earmarks provide an opportunity for institutions of higher education to apply for federal funding directly to their Members of Congress, who are often positioned to know best the needs of local organizations and communities.  With the right strategy, earmarks can be a valuable source of federal support outside of traditional competitive federal grant funding.”

Why Higher Education Leaders Need Government Relations Strategies for Federal Regulatory Policy and Compliance

Third and finally, federal regulatory policy has vaulted up the priority list of college and university presidents since January of 2025, when President Trump began a reorientation of the Department of Education (DoED), staffing cuts under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and restructuring of the federal grants landscape. There are also other regulatory issues that have a differential impact on schools, depending on their mission, student body profile, and faculty scholarship, and other characteristics, such as: guidelines on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, issues with international student visas, and federal grant terminations.  These and the additional policy changes discussed below contribute to IHE’s need for a personalized, individual government relations strategy.

For many years higher education experienced incremental changes in regulatory policy, principally through renewals of the Higher Education Reauthorization Act (HEA). This was not a principal concern for most institutional leaders, especially since there have been few major policy and regulatory changes that required dramatic action since the last reauthorization in 2008.

No longer. The executive branch in 2025 pushed through administrative changes that impact a wide array of important campus functions through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), including:

  • Restructuring student loans: Parent PLUS loans are capped; Graduate PLUS loans are eliminated; and graduate borrowing is capped with more generous caps provided for a limited set of programs defined as “professional.”

  • Strengthening institutional accountability: new guidelines for institutions to report on earnings of undergraduate and graduate programs, with sanctions for programs that do not meet thresholds for minimum earnings.

  • Aligning postsecondary programs with workforce outcomes: introducing new Workforce Pell Grants for short-term training programs.

  • Guidance – Navigate more accurately.

These are incredibly complex changes that will require implementation and reporting from IHEs of all types, and these OBBBA changes precede additional regulatory and rule changes for accreditation, public loan forgiveness, and other issues that are forthcoming. My colleague Lena Heier’s more detailed review of the significant regulatory changes catalogues these changes in more detail.  All of it has triggered a response from the legislative branch, where legislation is pending from Republican and Democratic members that would modify or rollback some of these new requirements.

Why Higher Education Institutions Need Tailored Government Relations Beyond Association Advocacy

How can IHEs, many of whom have treated government relations as a peripheral concern, ensure that they are tracking agency and legislative activity? Most institutional leaders have long depended on a corps of advocacy groups for intelligence and counsel on regulatory policy, foremost among them a group that is known as the The Six: American Council on Education, American Association of Community Colleges, Association of Public Land-Grant Universities, American Assocation of State Colleges and Universities, the American Association of Universities, and the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. These organizations provide sector-appropriate information to IHEs and also advocate for rules and legislation germane to their member schools.

However, there is a growing understanding that these associations provide tremendous support to a sector in higher education—e.g. community colleges, public institutions, land grant schools—but they don’t provide tailored strategic intelligence for a specific institution, nor do they provide bespoke guidance on how to secure resources through the appropriations process. For a very recent example, at the UNITE conference earlier this month, government relations professionals from Spelman College, Morehouse College, and Clark Atlanta College, lead a panel discussion entitled, “Governmental Affairs: the strategic infrastructure every HBCU needs.” The same is true for schools from every sector in higher education.

Got Government Relations? (with apologies to the Milk Industry)

The opportunities and challenges that have emerged in the federal policy landscape have led many colleges and universities to the conclusion that they require a government relations strategy to advance institution-specific priorities. The advocacy of broad-based associations remains essential, especially with regard to issues that affect the sector as a whole, such as: federal student aid, research funding, tax policy, and other regulatory interests. Still, these organizations can’t develop institutional strategies to secure federal funding or cultivate congressional relationships on behalf of a single campus.

As a result, many institutions are investing in government relations as an essential element in their strategic infrastructure. At McAllister & Quinn, we have seen an exponential increase in demand for strategic intelligence and government relations, and in response we have expanded our staffing and support in both areas. Colleges and universities that build this capacity will be better positioned to effectively compete for federal resources, shape policy outcomes, and advance long-term strategic goals for their schools.

Discover the McAllister & Quinn Impact

McAllister & Quinn is committed to helping colleges and universities turn Government Relations strategic intelligence into action, ensuring they are prepared to meet today’s challenges and respond with agility. Our team closely monitors legislative actions, executive orders, and regulatory updates so that institutional leaders are equipped with timely insights to inform decision-making. If you are interested in learning more about our Government Relations and upcoming grant opportunities in 2026, please contact us today for a complimentary consultation.

Contact Us