In a recent Inside Higher Ed article examining high‑stakes policy talks at the U.S. Department of Education, Thompson Coburn partner Aaron Lacey offered insight into how the department’s approach to negotiated rulemaking has changed—and why those changes are drawing concern from higher education leaders and policy experts.
The article details how Education Department officials are advancing proposals that could significantly reshape federal student aid, often entering negotiations with fully developed policy frameworks rather than broad concepts for discussion. That shift, Aaron said, has fundamentally altered the nature of the process.
“Twenty years ago, when you did negotiated rulemaking, the department would [merely] have ideas about what it wanted to workshop with the negotiators,” said Aaron, co‑chair of Thompson Coburn’s Higher Education practice. “That’s not the case anymore.”
He noted that today’s approach places far greater demands on negotiators, who must now respond to detailed proposals under intense time pressure.
“It also puts a much greater burden on the negotiators,” he said. “You’re just working around the clock, drafting, reviewing and justifying proposals. Whereas in years past, it was four o’clock and you were done until the next day started. It’s just a totally different exercise.”
To Aaron, the department was essentially working to “orchestrat[e] a consensus vote” on their plans.
“I don’t know how I feel about that,” he said. “But I have to acknowledge that that’s what they’re doing, and they seem to be doing it very well.”
