On June 4, 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed a presidential proclamation restricting the entry of foreign nationals from 19 countries into the United States, citing national security, public safety and immigration enforcement concerns. This order was issued pursuant to section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the president to suspend the entry of any class of foreign nationals whose presence in the United States would be detrimental to the national interest. The new rules take effect on June 9, 2025, and impose two types of travel restrictions: full entry suspensions and partial entry suspensions.

Full Suspension on Entry

A full suspension applies to both immigrant and nonimmigrant visa categories and prohibits virtually all nationals from the affected countries from entering the United States. This includes visitors, students, workers and individuals seeking permanent residence through an immigrant visa:

Twelve countries are subject to full entry suspensions:

• Afghanistan
• Burma (Myanmar)
• Chad
• Republic of the Congo
• Equatorial Guinea
• Eritrea
• Haiti
• Iran
• Libya
• Somalia
• Sudan
• Yemen

The administration cited a range of concerns for these countries, including terrorism, lack of reliable identity documentation, absence of cooperation in repatriating deportees and high visa overstay rates. For example, Equatorial Guinea had a student and exchange visa overstay rate exceeding 70%, while Chad had a combined overstay rate above 50%, according to the order. In other cases, such as Iran and Afghanistan, the cited reasons included state-sponsored terrorism and the lack of a functioning government capable of ensuring security vetting.

Partial Suspension on Entry

In contrast to the full suspension, a partial suspension blocks specific visa categories, most notably immigrant visas, tourist and business visitor visas (B-1/B-2), and student and exchange visitor visas (F, M and J), while leaving open the possibility of entry through other nonimmigrant visa types, such as certain employment-based or diplomatic categories. However, even in cases of partial suspension, consular officers are instructed to limit the validity period of any visas that are still issued.

Seven countries are subject to partial entry suspensions:

• Burundi
• Cuba
• Laos
• Sierra Leone
• Togo
• Turkmenistan
• Venezuela

The Proclamation Does Not Make Anyone Currently in the United States Deportable

Importantly, the entry restrictions apply only to foreign nationals from the listed countries who are outside the United States as of June 9, 2025, and do not already have valid visas. Foreign nationals lawfully present in the United States on valid visas or valid status (such as F-1 students, H-1B employees or green card holders) are not affected in terms of deportability solely because of this proclamation. They may continue living and working in the United States in accordance with the terms of their existing status.

Individuals with Valid Visas Should Avoid International Travel

Even though the proclamation states that it applies only to individuals who are outside the United States and do not have a valid visa as of June 9, 2025, individuals from the listed countries should avoid international travel. Reentry to the U.S. is not guaranteed, even with a previously valid visa, because the use of that visa after June 9 may trigger a new entry determination under INA § 212(f). Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers may interpret the proclamation as grounds to deny admission based on visa category or national security concerns. Consular officers may also restrict or cancel visa validity in light of the proclamation. Individuals risk being denied boarding, refused entry at the port of entry or having to qualify for an exception or waiver to return. Employers, students and other affected individuals should consult immigration counsel before departing the United States.

Change and Adjustment of Status

Additionally, the proclamation does not bar the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) from processing change of status or adjustment of status applications for individuals who are already lawfully present in the United States. Because the proclamation is issued under INA § 212(f), which governs admission into the United States from abroad, it does not directly apply to internal immigration benefits adjudicated by USCIS. A change of status (e.g., from F-1 to H-1B) or an adjustment of status to permanent residence (green card) does not involve a new entry and is therefore outside the scope of the proclamation’s restrictions. While USCIS retains general discretion in adjudicating such requests, it cannot deny an application solely on the basis of the proclamation or the applicant’s nationality. However, individuals who change status within the United States may face barriers to reentry if they travel abroad, as the proclamation would then apply at the visa issuance or inspection stage.

Exceptions

While the proclamation imposes sweeping restrictions, it also includes limited exceptions. These include lawful permanent residents (green card holders), dual nationals traveling on passports from non-restricted countries, diplomats, certain family-based immigrant visa applicants with strong documentation, adoptions, U.S. government employees and their families under special visa programs, Afghan special immigrant visas and individuals seeking entry for national interest or humanitarian reasons. Notably, the proclamation does not apply to refugees already admitted to the United States or to those granted asylum, nor does it preclude new asylum or humanitarian claims filed in accordance with U.S. and international law.

Exception for Athletes and Sports-Related Entrants

The proclamation also allows for case-by-case exceptions for professional athletes and essential personnel traveling to the United States to participate in major sporting events, as determined by the Secretary of State. This exception may include players, coaches, medical staff, other critical team members – and their immediate relatives – who are competing under the auspices of recognized leagues, tournaments or international governing bodies. Applicants must demonstrate the significance of the event and the necessity of their presence, and any exception is subject to consular or CBP discretion. Affected individuals should coordinate closely with sponsoring organizations and immigration counsel to ensure timely and well-documented requests.

Future Developments

The proclamation directs an initial review period of 90 days during which the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security and Director of National Intelligence, must identify measurable steps that each listed country can take to improve its information-sharing practices and security protocols. This 90-day window is intended to allow the listed governments to engage with the United States and potentially qualify for waivers or modifications of the restrictions based on their response.

Following the initial review, the proclamation mandates a formal reassessment of the list every 180 days. Countries may be removed if they demonstrate meaningful progress in areas such as identity verification, cooperation in repatriation, sharing of criminal or terrorist information and reliability of travel documents. Conversely, other countries may be added to the list if they are found to have deficient vetting practices or pose similar security concerns. The Secretary of State is also instructed to maintain ongoing diplomatic engagement with listed countries to provide guidance and support for compliance with U.S. vetting standards.

Conclusion

This proclamation demonstrates a renewed emphasis on country-specific entry restrictions and enhanced pre-screening procedures in U.S. immigration policy. Foreign nationals from the listed countries, along with U.S. petitioners and sponsors, should seek immediate legal counsel to determine whether existing petitions or visa applications will be affected and whether any exemptions or waiver processes may apply.

If you have questions about how this proclamation may impact your case or your organization, please contact our immigration practice for individualized guidance.

On April 24, 2025, two U.S. District Courts issued Orders finding the U.S. Department of Education (DOE)’s Feb. 14, 2025 “Dear Colleague” Letter (DCL) to be unlawful and narrowly restricting the DOE’s enforcement of the DCL. The DOE’s ability to enforce the DCL is in a holding pattern, and it will likely face additional challenges. This is a developing issue that will not have a clear resolution any time soon.

The New Hampshire Preliminary Injunction

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire granted a request for a preliminary injunction in National Education Association, et al. v. United States Department of Education, effectively preventing DOE from enforcing its Feb. 14, 2025 DCL against the “[P]laintiffs, their members, and any entity that employs, contracts with, or works with one or more [P]laintiffs or one or more of [P]laintiffs’ members.” 

The DCL, which was issued pursuant to the Jan. 21, 2025 Executive Order “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” asserts that many educational institutions have “embrace[d] … pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences and other forms of racial discrimination” in “every facet” of their operations, and have “toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced discriminatory policies and practices under the banner of [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] DEI .” The DCL makes clear that institutions that continue to advance “illegal DEI,” (which is not defined in the DCL or the Executive Order)” will jeopardize their receipt of federal funding, including federal financial aid.   

In March of 2025, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) — joined by the NEA-New Hampshire, the ACLU affiliates of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and the Center for Black Educator Development (collectively the “Plaintiffs”)—filed a lawsuit in federal court requesting preliminary injunctive relief to prevent the DOE’s enforcement of this policy while the case is litigated. In this Order, the Court found that the Plaintiffs had shown that the DCL was so vague that it denied due process, suppressed legitimate speech in violation of the First Amendment, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by not following the notice and comment process for rulemaking, which findings were sufficient for the Court to grant a preliminary  injunction. 

However, the Court, noting that nationwide injunctions, particularly nationwide preliminary injunctions, have recently received sharp criticism, including from members of the U.S. Supreme Court, did not issue a nationwide injunction, as the Plaintiffs had argued, but also did not limit the injunction to the Plaintiffs as requested by the government, as noted above. While this Order does not prevent the DOE from enforcing the DCL upon any institution or entity outside of this limited scope, it could very well serve as the template for similar orders across the country. On May 13, 2025, the parties agreed to a briefing schedule regarding competing motions to dismiss. Assuming it is adopted, motions to dismiss will be fully briefed by the end of July 2025. 

The Maryland Temporary Stay

On the very same day as the New Hampshire decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued a “temporary stay” in a substantively similar case brought by the American Federation of Teachers and its Maryland affiliate, as well as the American Sociological Association, and a Eugene, Oregon School District. American Federation of Teachers, et al., v. Department of Education, et al. This temporary stay will prevent the DOE from enforcing the objectionable provisions of the DCL and its implementing FAQs that go beyond existing law so as to “preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings,” without precluding the DOE from enforcing any policy within its existing legal authority. While the Maryland Court’s temporary stay is broader than the New Hampshire Court’s injunction in that it applies nationwide, it recognizes that during the litigation the DOE may undertake enforcement actions in accordance with existing law.  As with the New Hampshire case, the parties recently agreed to a briefing schedule to file competing motions to dismiss. The Court adopted the joint proposal, and the motions are scheduled to be fully briefed by the end of July 2025. 

Takeaways

While these grants of temporary relief are a setback for the DOE, which has not appealed these decisions, the DOE will certainly continue to enforce its agenda wherever it can. Even if the courts ultimately strike down most or all of the DCL and its implementation, the DOE could move to clarify the regulations via notice and comment rulemaking, which typically takes months or even years to complete. All of this means the path forward in this area is still uncertain, which makes consultation with legal counsel to assess the impact of these developments on your particular institution imperative. 

Bond attorneys are following these, and related legal developments, closely. If your institution would like further guidance, please reach out to an attorney in our higher education practice or the Bond attorney with whom you are regularly in contact.

On May 5, 2025, the Department of Education (ED) released a “Request for Institutions to Provide Repayment Information to Former Students to Prevent Defaults” (GEN-25-19). Noting that “only 38% of Direct Loan and Department-held Federal Family Education Loan Program borrowers are in repayment and current on their student loans,” ED estimates that “almost 25% of the entire portfolio is either in default or a late stage of delinquency.” Although the Department paused its requirement that students make payments on their defaulted federal student loan debt in March of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, ED resumed collection of defaulted student loans on Monday, May 5, 2025, and is asking institutions whose students have incurred federal student loan debt to contact those students who have student loan debt, particularly those who are in default. These communications must be made in the next few weeks: the Secretary has set a deadline of June 30, 2025.

Communications to Students

ED is tasking institutions with “providing clear and accurate information about repayment to borrowers through entrance and exit counseling,” and states that colleges and universities are responsible for “disclosing annual tuition and fees and the net price to students and their families on the costs of a postsecondary education.” Conceding that higher education institutions have provided “direct advice and counsel to students regarding their borrowing,” ED warns that “institutions must refocus and expand these efforts as pandemic flexibilities come to an end.”

The Secretary is directing institutions to provide the following information to all borrowers who have not been enrolled at the institution since Jan. 1, 2020, and for whom they have contact information: 

• Remind the borrower that he or she is obligated to repay any federal student loans that have not been repaid and are not in deferment or forbearance;
• Suggest that the borrower review information on StudentAid.gov about repayment options; and 
• Request that the borrower log into StudentAid.gov using their StudentAid.gov username and password to update their profile with current contact information and ensure that their loans are in good standing. 

ED requires that institutions include all three of the bulleted information statements above in the institution’s notice to borrowers.

The Department expects this outreach be performed no later than June 30, 2025 and suggests that institutions “focus their initial outreach on students who are delinquent on one or more of their loans in order to prevent defaults.” A future communication from ED will provide assistance to institutions on how to identify and communicate with those borrowers.

A press release posted on April 21, 2025 stated: “There will not be any mass loan forgiveness.” It also stated that “Later this summer, ED will send required notices beginning administrative wage garnishment” for those borrowers in default.

Impact of Cohort Default Rates (CDR)

ED’s announcement reminds colleges and universities that Section 435 of the Higher Education Act, which governs federal student aid programs, provides that institutions “will lose eligibility for federal student assistance, including Pell Grants and federal student loans, if their CDR exceeds 40% for a single year or 30% for three consecutive years.” Because the repayment pause on student loans ended in Oct. 2023, “CDRs published in 2026 will include borrowers who entered repayment in 2023 and defaulted in 2023, 2024 or 2025.” Furthermore, says ED, “those borrowers whose delinquency or default status was reset in Sept. 2024 could enter technical default status / be delinquent on their loans for more than 270 days beginning in June and default this summer.” Therefore, it is in the institutions’ interest to contact former students in order to minimize the college or university’s cohort default rate in order to avoid being barred from the federal student assistance program.

Publication of an Institution’s Student Loan Default Rate

The May 5th communication reminds institutions that ED has data on the repayment status of each borrower as well as that borrower’s institution(s) attended. The Department will calculate non-repayment rates for every college and university that participates in the federal student aid program and will publish this information later in May on the Federal Student Aid Data Center website.

ED has promised to announce further requirements and information for institutions participating in the federal student assistance program. Bond will provide updates as this additional information is released by ED. Please contact a Bond attorney in the higher education practice or the Bond attorney with whom you normally work, for questions, concerns and tailored consultation.

On April 23, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order, “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education.” This Executive Order would require agencies that currently accredit colleges and universities to overhaul their missions, their processes, and their areas of focus in order to meet the requirements of this most recent Executive Order. It would also provide for the creation of new accrediting organizations that would compete with them.

For decades, the federal government has relied upon certain private associations to determine whether colleges and universities that participate in the federal government’s Title IV student financial aid programs—and that includes virtually every institution of higher education in the United States—meet certain standards of quality. The Higher Education Act,[1] a federal law, provides that certain accreditation agencies may be relied upon to certify that a college or university is approved to participate in the federal student assistance program, and that its students who qualify may receive federal grants or loans. The law requires the Secretary of Education to publish a list of approved accrediting agencies. General accrediting associations review an institution as a whole, and are commonly grouped into six individual organizations that evaluate colleges and universities in a particular geographic area. Specialized accrediting agencies typically accredit specific programs at institutions of higher education, such as medical schools, graduate programs in clinical psychology, or law schools. Many states also have accreditation requirements for certain professions that require licensure, such as medicine, nursing, or law. Institutions that do not meet the accrediting agency’s standards may become ineligible for participation in the federal student aid program.

In prior years, both general and specialized accrediting associations have incorporated requirements that institutions promote diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in their curriculum and institutional policies. Until recently, institutions that sought accreditation, either for the institution as a whole or for an academic program, were required to comply with the accrediting agency’s DEI standards. That may be about to change.

Summary of the Executive Order[2]

The Executive Order accuses accreditors of failing to ensure high quality education by routinely approving “low-quality institutions,” resulting in low undergraduate graduation rates, increased student loan debt, and degrees that have little economic value. It further states that some accreditors have abused their authority and violated nondiscrimination laws by conditioning higher education institutions’ access to federal funds on the adoption of “DEI-based standards of accreditation.”

In an effort to “[hold] accreditors accountable for unlawful actions,” the Executive Order directs the Secretary of Education to monitor, deny, suspend, or terminate the accreditation recognition of accreditors that require institutions seeking accreditation “to engage in unlawful discrimination in accreditation-related activity under the guise of [DEI] initiatives.”

The Executive Order further directs the Secretary of Education and the Attorney General to investigate and take action to terminate unlawful discrimination by law schools and medical schools that engage in such practices, advanced by the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (Council), the sole federally recognized accreditor for law degree programs, and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (Committee), the sole federally recognized accreditor of Doctor of Medicine degree programs. Following the investigation, the Secretary of Education must determine whether to suspend or terminate the Council’s and Committee’s federal accreditation status.

The Executive Order sets forth the following principles that the Secretary of Education must assess in evaluating accreditors:

1. Higher education institutions must provide high quality, high value academic programs free from unlawful discrimination;
2. Barriers are reduced that limit institutions from adopting practices that advance credential and degree completion and encourage new models of education;
3. Accreditors must ensure that institutions support and prioritize intellectual diversity among faculty to advance academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning;
4. Accreditors cannot use their roles under Federal Law to force institutions to violate State laws unless those laws violate the Constitution or Federal law; and
5. Accreditors cannot engage in practices that lead to credential inflation and unnecessary additional costs for students.

To advance the stated principles, the Secretary of Education is tasked with:

1. Recognizing new accreditors to increase competition and accountability “in promoting high-quality, high-value academic programs focused on student outcomes;”
2. Mandating that institutions use program-level student outcome data that improves results, without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex;
3. Providing accreditors with noncompliance findings from investigations of member institutions by the Office for Civil Rights under Title VI or Title IX;
4. Launching an experimental site to accelerate innovation and improve accountability “by establishing new flexible and streamlined quality assurance pathways for higher education institutions that provide high-quality, high-value academic programs;”[3]
5. Enhancing the accreditor recognition review process using technology;
6. Streamlining the process for institutions to change accreditors; and
7. Updating the accreditation handbook  to ensure that the reauthorization and recognition process is transparent and efficient.

Implications of the Executive Order for Institutions of Higher Education

Colleges and universities typically undergo review by either institutional or special accrediting bodies (or both) periodically, and preparation for reaccreditation campus visits may take years. Should those accrediting agencies be replaced with other agencies with different agendas and new requirements, these changes could require alterations in the programs offered by the college, its emphasis on and resources devoted to student persistence and graduation rates, and its focus on enhancing diversity and inclusion. For example, the Executive Order has already identified several specialized accrediting agencies that it states have maintained their emphasis on DEI, which the Trump Administration maintains is unlawful discrimination. It seems likely that a result of the Executive Order will be the creation of new accrediting agencies with agendas that differ from those of the traditional focus of the general accrediting agencies; it is also possible that some of the general agencies will be derecognized, resulting in the potential loss of Title IV funds by colleges they have accredited unless the college finds a new accreditor and is able to comply with its requirements promptly. Colleges will need to monitor the status of their traditional accreditors and be flexible in identifying and complying with new standards. Given the Executive Order’s focus on the return on investment of the college’s academic programs and its emphasis on raising institutions’ graduation rates, shifts in an institution’s curricular priorities may be considered necessary in order to meet new accreditation standards.

At this very early point, it is unclear how much change this new Executive Order will require institutions of higher education to make, or whether some will lose access to Title IV student aid funds, which would have a devastating effect on many institutions and their students. Bond attorneys are watching these developments closely and will continue to provide advice as the implications of this Executive Order become more clear.

[1] Higher Education Act of 1965 and its amendments, 20 U.S.C. secs. 11070 et seq.

[2] The White House, Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education (Apr. 2025):https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/reforming-accreditation-to-strengthen-higher-education/?utm_campaign=10294803-Policy%20Alerts&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=358408225&utm_content=358408225&utm_source=hs_email; See also The White House, Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Reforms Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education (Apr. 2025): https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-reforms-accreditation-to-strengthen-higher-education/.

[3] The Higher Education Act provides that “The Secretary is authorized to select institutions for voluntary participation in a Quality Assurance Program that provides participating institutions with an alternative management approach through which individual schools develop and implement their own comprehensive systems, related to processing and disbursement of student financial aid, verification of student financial aid application data, and entrance and exit interviews, thereby enhancing program integrity within the student aid delivery system. 20 U.S.C. 1094a(b)

On April 9, 2025, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued guidance stating that it will begin considering individuals’ antisemitic activity on social media and the physical harassment of Jewish individuals as grounds for denying immigration benefit requests.  According to the news release, “[t]his will immediately affect aliens applying for lawful permanent resident status, foreign students and aliens affiliated with educational institutions linked to antisemitic activity.”

Under this guidance, USCIS will consider social media content that indicates that a non-citizen endorses, espouses, promotes or supports antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity as a negative factor in any USCIS discretionary analysis when adjudicating immigration benefits. This guidance took effect immediately on April 9.

This guidance stems from President Trump’s executive orders on Combatting Anti-Semitism (issued in 2019), Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism and Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorist and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats (both issued in 2025).  To effectuate the directives of these executive orders, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has stated that it will enforce the existing “relevant immigration laws to the maximum degree, to protect the homeland from extremists and terrorist aliens, including those who support antisemitic terrorism, violent antisemitic ideologies and antisemitic terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Ansar Allah aka: ‘the Houthis.’”  Hamas and Hezbollah were designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. Department of State (DOS) in 1997, Palestinian Islamic Jihad in 2014 and the Houthis in March 2025.

Under U.S. immigration law, both the USCIS and DOS have the authority to deny immigration benefits, including the issuance of a visa, entry into the United States, and permanent resident status, if a foreign national applicant has engaged in, among other things, various types of unlawful conduct or crimes or is a member of, or has assisted, any terrorist or other armed organization or is otherwise suspected of intending to do, or, having done, those things.  For decades, any foreign national who has completed a visa application or a permanent residence application is asked many questions concerning their past, present and future activities, including whether they are terrorists and/or are members of, or have provided or intend to aid terrorist organizations.  For example, the Form DS-160, the nonimmigrant visa application form used by foreign nationals to apply for a visa to enter the United States, includes the following questions:

• Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?
• Have you ever or do you intend to provide financial assistance or other support to terrorists or terrorist organizations?
• Have you ever committed, ordered, incited, assisted or otherwise participated in extrajudicial killings, political killings or other acts of violence? 

Although affirmative answers (without sufficient ameliorating explanation(s)) will likely result in denial of the immigration benefit being sought or requested, lying about such activities will also result in denial or revocation of the benefit.

For the past decade, starting with a 2015 pilot program, USCIS has monitored and screened applicants’ social media accounts in connection with their applications for immigration benefits.  In 2016, President Obama established the Social Media Division within the Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate of USCIS, which is responsible for identifying, reviewing, vetting and adjudicating cases involving national security concerns.  The Social Media Division conducts social media screenings of applicants for immigration benefits to identify security risks and to detect fraud.  Presumably, the Social Media Division will also be tasked with monitoring the activities described in this April 9th guidance issued by the USCIS.

Takeaways

Scrutiny of social media accounts for national security purposes, including the identification of terrorists and support for terrorist activity, has been a part of the visa application and immigration benefits vetting process since the Obama Administration.  The issuance of this guidance is a reminder that such monitoring occurs and that negative determinations on immigration applications may occur if social media accounts and posts reveal support for antisemitic terrorism, violent antisemitic ideologies or antisemitic terrorist organizations.

Please contact your Bond immigration attorney if you have any questions related to this information memo.

On April 11, 2025, a new rule went into effect in which the United States government will start to strictly enforce the requirement that foreign nationals register their presence with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and be fingerprinted if they remain in the United States for 30 days or longer.

Since the 1940s, U.S. immigration law has required all aliens 14 years of age or older (with certain limited exceptions) who remain in the United States for 30 days or longer to register their presence in the United States and to be fingerprinted, if they were not already fingerprinted when applying for a U.S. visa.[1]  Most foreign nationals who visit the United States have complied with this requirement through the visa application process, the permanent residence application process, or the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) entry process. USCIS will now start enforcing this requirement for those individuals who have not gone through these registration processes. The two main groups who have not gone through these registration processes and are primarily affected by the new rule are:  (1) Canadians who enter through land ports-of-entry and are not required to obtain visas to enter the United States; and (2) foreign nationals who entered the United States before they turned 14 and who have remained in the United States after turning 14.

On March 12, 2025, pursuant to President Trump’s January 20, 2025 Protecting the American People Against Invasion executive order directing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to ensure compliance with the alien registration requirement, DHS issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR)[2] that (1) requires all aliens 14 or over in the U.S. for 30 days or longer to register their physical presence in the U.S. and provide their fingerprints (if they have not already done so), (2) creates a new online registration system and (3) establishes significant penalties for failure to register. These new requirements and systems went into effect on April 11, 2025. 

This article discusses who is and who is not affected by this IFR, how to comply with the IFR, and the consequences of failing to do so.

Who Does Not Need to Register?

Most nonimmigrant and immigrant visa holders are not required to undertake this physical presence registration process and be fingerprinted under the IFR because they have already complied with these requirements through the visa application and ESTA travel authorization process. The groups of individuals who are not required to register include the following:

• Foreign nationals staying in the United States fewer than 30 days;
• Lawful permanent residents;
• Nonimmigrants who were admitted to the United States and were issued a Form I-94 (electronic or paper) or Form I-94W;
• Any non-citizen who has been issued an employment authorization document;
• Any non-citizen who has applied for U.S. permanent residence and has attended a biometrics appointment;
• A and G visa holders;
• American Indians born in Canada who possess at least 50% blood of the American Indian race and who are present in the U.S. under the authority of 8 United States Code Section 1359[RPA4] [GD5];
• Visitors admitted under ESTA; and
• Any non-citizen issued a border crossing card.

Who Must Register?

Those who must register under the IFR include all foreign nationals who remain in the U.S. for more than 30 days who have not gone through a registration and fingerprinting process in connection with an application for a nonimmigrant visa, employment authorization, permanent residence or admission into the U.S. through ESTA. These groups include the following:

• Foreign nationals remaining in the U.S. 30 days or more who enter the United States without a visa or who don’t receive a Form I-94 record (paper or electronic);
• Foreign nationals who enter the U.S. without inspection and who have not been fingerprinted in connection with any immigration application;
• Non-US citizen children under the age of 14 who have not previously registered and will remain in the U.S. for 30 days or more. Minor children will be issued proof of registration but are not required to be fingerprinted until they turn 14; and
• All non-U.S. citizen children, regardless of previous registration, who turn 14 years old in the U.S., must update their registration and be fingerprinted within 30 days after their 14th birthday, including:
  • Permanent residents who obtained their green cards when below age 14 are required to register and complete fingerprinting by submitting a Form I-90 once they reach 14 years old.
  • Non immigrant children who turn 14 while they are in the United States. Once the child turns 14, they will need to comply with the new requirement within 30 days of their birthday, even if they have previously received a Form I-94 admission record.

Registration Procedure

Those who need to register must use the Form G-325R, which must be submitted online through an individual USCIS account. The procedure is as follows:

1. Create a USCIS account in the “myUSCIS” online platform by going to the following website: https://www.uscis.gov/file-online/how-to-create-a-uscis-online-account.
2. Select “File a Form Online” and then choose “Form G-325R” from the dropdown menu.
3. Follow the instructions to complete the Form G-325R, upload any supporting evidence. and submit the completed form once ready.
4. USCIS will issue a receipt notice once the Form G-325R has been submitted, which should be retained as proof of registration
5. Completing the Form G-325R registration will initiate the scheduling of a biometrics appointment.
6. Attend the biometrics appointment, bringing the appointment notice and a photo identification to the appointment.
7. Upon completion of the biometrics, retain the biometrics appointment notice which has been endorsed by USCIS as proof of having completed the fingerprinting.

Evidence of Registration and Penalties

The new rules require that all non-U.S. citizens over the age of 18 carry proof their registration.  For those who register under the process described above, the G-325R receipt notice and the endorsed biometrics appointment notice would constitute such evidence. For others who are not required to register under that process it might be their Form I-94, a permanent resident card or other documentation that the individual has received from USCIS.

Failure to register and/or to present valid proof may result in civil penalties of up to $5,000, imprisonment of up to 6 months, or both. Parents and/or guardians who fail to register minor children may also be held liable and subject to these same penalties.

Takeaways

Canadian citizens who enter the United States by land and who remain in the United States for more than 30 days should be cognizant of these registration requirements and make sure that they are in compliance. Similarly, parents of non-citizen children who will turn 14 should make sure to timely register their minor children’s presence in the United States in accordance with the procedures discussed above using the USCIS online account system.

Finally, as a reminder, it is important to understand that undergoing and/or completing this registration process does not confer lawful immigration status or the right to remain in the United States, nor do the documents issued as part of this registration process provide the right to remain in the United States, employment authorization to work in the United States, or any other right or benefit under the U.S. immigration laws. These documents are only proof that the individual has complied with the physical registration requirements.

Please contact your Bond, Schoeneck King, PLLC Immigration attorney if you have any questions regarding registration requirements and the registration process.

[1] The current law, Section 262 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1302), was enacted in 1952.

[2]https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/12/2025-03944/alien-registration-form-and-evidence-of-registration#:~:text=DATES%3A-,Effective%20date%3A%20This%20IFR%20is%20effective%20April%2011%2C%202025.,received%20by%20April%2011%2C%202025

On Feb. 21, 2025, the federal district court for the District of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction partially enjoining two of President Trump’s executive orders: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Jan. 20, 2025)(J20 Order) and Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025)(J21 Order).

The Court’s ruling focused on three provisions of the executive orders:

• The “Termination Provision” of the J20 Order directing federal agencies to terminate “equity-related” grants and contracts;
• The “Certification Provision” of the J21 Order directing federal agencies to require federal contractors and grantees to certify under penalty of the False Claims Act that they do not operate programs promoting DEI that violate discrimination laws; and
• The “Enforcement Threat Provision” of the J21 Order directing the Attorney General to take actions to “deter DEI programs or principles . . . that constitute illegal discrimination or preferences,” including drafting a report recommending actions and identifying corporations, higher education institutions or certain other entities for “civil compliance investigations.”

The plaintiffs in the case are the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on their claims that the J20 and J21 executive orders suffered from an unconstitutional vagueness and that they abridge freedom of speech, among other infirmities. The Court also found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated that the plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed if the executive orders were to be implemented while further judicial proceedings are held to ultimately determine the legality of the executive orders. The Court went on to find that a nationwide injunction was appropriate.

Therefore, the Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing federal agencies from:

• Freezing, terminating or changing the terms of any existing grants or contracts, on the basis of the Termination Provision in the J20 Order;
• Requiring any grantee or contractor to make any “certification” or other representation pursuant to the Certification Provision; and
• Bringing any “False Claims Act enforcement action, or other enforcement action,” pursuant to the Enforcement Threat Provision.

Notably, the scope of the injunction issued by the Court was not as all-encompassing as the plaintiffs had requested. The Court expressly declined to enjoin the Attorney General from preparing a report of recommendations on strategic steps to “encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI” or from engaging in investigations of potential violations federal anti-discrimination laws pursuant to the Enforcement Threat Provision.

As a result of the Court’s ruling, there is less immediate concern that federal grants or contracts will be interrupted on the basis that they fund “equity-related” activities or that a grantee or contractor will be subject to the threat of the False Claims Act for engaging in DEI programs or policies. On its face, the scope of the Court’s ruling is quite broad, as it prevents not only False Claims Act actions but also “any other enforcement action.”

The ruling is not a final ruling and could be reversed on appeal or altered by the court itself, in whole or in part, as the matter proceeds. Thus, issues raised by the J20 and J21 executive orders are worth reviewing, although some of the immediacy is removed at this time.

In addition, one should not assume that the Court’s injunction addresses all legal concerns with respect to DEI programs and policies currently in place. As a general matter, an entity engages in unlawful discrimination when it makes decisions based on an individual’s race, color, ethnicity, sex or various other protected characteristics. Despite the Court’s preliminary injunction, there remains the risk of liability based on illegal discrimination, even if the illegal discrimination resulted from well-intentioned efforts to increase diversity. Stated another way, some programs and policies may have had compliance issues before the J20 and J21 executive orders and those issues are not affected by the preliminary injunction and should be assessed and addressed if warranted. Additionally, there remains uncertainty about the interplay between the issued injunction with the Feb. 14, 2025 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) from the Department of Education. While the DCL is largely based on principles that are articulated in the now hobbled J20 and J21 executive orders, it is not clear that the Court’s injunction extends to all aspects of the recent DCL.

As before this latest development, DEI programs, policies and initiatives should be reviewed to ensure their compliance with existing anti-discrimination law. Close attention should also be paid to the rapidly occurring developments against the backdrop of enforcement actions by both federal and state officials, funding and reimbursement implications of the programs and the possibility of private litigation.

Bond continues to follow these and related developments closely. Please contact a Bond attorney in the higher education practice or the Bond attorney with whom you normally work, for questions, concerns and tailored consultation.

On Jan. 21, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO), “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” Broadly speaking, the EO purported to prohibit what it characterized as unlawful “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” programs (a term it did not explicitly define). Among other things, the EO encouraged enforcement action against organizations or institutions sponsoring such programs, and directed the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education to issue guidance to institutions of higher education that receive federal grants or participate in Title IV FSA programs regarding measures and practices required to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA).

On Feb. 14, 2025, some initial guidance was issued, in the form of a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) from the federal Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. The February 14 DCL provides a statement of the position of the Department of Education (Department) on the “nondiscrimination obligations of schools and other entities that receive federal financial assistance from the Department.” The DCL “explains and reiterates” the Department’s view of “existing legal requirements under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other relevant authorities.”

The DCL states that discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin has been and will continue to be illegal. The DCL discusses the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA and states that, although the decision addressed college admissions, the holding of SFFA applies more broadly, “If an educational institution treats a person of one race differently than another person because of that person’s race, the educational institution violates the law.”

The DCL expands upon the Department’s view of this principle:

Federal law thus prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life. Put simply, educational institutions may neither separate or segregate students based on race, nor distribute benefits or burdens based on race.

The DCL takes a position on several issues that may have been features of some post-SFFA DEI programs. For example, the DCL states that a “school may not use students’ personal essays, writing samples, participation in extracurriculars, or other cues as a means of determining or predicting a student’s race and favoring or disfavoring such students.” This statement references the SFFA decision which states that “universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.” In this regard, the use of these items in ways that do not predict an applicant’s race or favor or disfavor an applicant based on race does not appear to violate the Department’s interpretation of SFFA.

The DCL also states that “relying on non-racial information as a proxy for race and making decisions based on that information, violates the law.” Again, the facts would seem to matter greatly here as to what is a proxy for protected characteristics versus what criteria are lawful.

The DCL states that “It would, for instance, be unlawful for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.” Elimination of criteria not tied to race – for instance, not using standardized tests post-pandemic after proceeding without them during the pandemic years – should remain permissible under the DCL unless tied to achieving certain demographic results.

The DCL also calls into question DEI program features that:

[P]reference certain racial groups and teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not. Such programs stigmatize students who belong to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes. Consequently, they deny students the ability to participate fully in the life of a school.

The DCL concludes with the following summary of the Department’s position:

The Department intends to take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations based on the understanding embodied in this letter beginning no later than 14 days from today’s date, including antidiscrimination requirements that are a condition of receiving federal funding.

All educational institutions are advised to: (1) ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law; (2) cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends; and (3) cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race. Institutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding.

The DCL requires immediate analysis by educational institutions. The first area noted in the advice section – ensuring that polices comply with the existing civil rights laws – should be undertaken if such an analysis has not been conducted recently. The SFFA decision, the Trump Administration executive orders, and this DCL letter should all be considered and taken into account in that analysis. The second area noted – use of proxies for race – is simple to state but more nuanced and complicated to analyze, as the law has shifted for higher education institutions based on Supreme Court interpretations and institutional approaches and rationales have also likely shifted over time. The third area – use of third parties – is less clear as to scope and the Department’s interpretation, and its impact on current practices. This will require a case-by-case assessment of the program features and their history and usage, as well as consideration of the DCL’s positions and the underlying law.

We anticipate that some of the interpretations of current law as set forth in this DCL may be subject to legal challenge. This DCL arrives in the same week that several states’ Attorneys General asserted a different interpretation of what is permitted by federal law than that articulated in the Executive Order underlying the DCL. Given the flurry of activity, we recommend prompt consultation with legal counsel to assess the impact of these developments on your institution.

Bond attorneys are following these, and related legal developments, closely. If your institution would like further guidance, please reach out to an attorney in our higher education practice or the Bond attorney with whom you are regularly in contact.

On Feb. 5, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.”  The Executive Order states that “[i]n recent years, many educational institutions and athletic associations have allowed men to compete in women’s sports,” a situation that the Order states has denied women and girls equal athletic opportunity.

The Executive Order states:

“Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities, which results in the endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of women and girls and deprives them of privacy. It shall also be the policy of the United States to oppose male competitive participation in women’s sports more broadly, as a matter of safety, fairness, dignity, and truth.”

This Executive Order follows another order signed by the President on Jan. 20, 2025, “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government,” which sets more broadly the federal government’s position that there are two immutable biological binary sexes, male and female, and that the Executive Branch will enforce all sex-protective laws accordingly.

Effective Feb. 5, 2025, the Executive Order directs the Secretary of Education to:

• Enforce Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to “affirmatively protect all-female athletic opportunities and all-female locker rooms,” including through regulations and policy guidance; and
• Prioritize Title IX enforcement actions against educational institutions and athletic institutions composed of or governed by educational institutions that deny women an equal opportunity to participate in athletics by “requiring them, in the women’s category, to compete with or against or to appear unclothed before males.”

The Executive Order also directs all executive departments and agencies to review grants and educational programs and “where appropriate” to “rescind funding to programs that fail to comply with the policy established in this order.”

The Executive Order may be challenging for educational institutions, particularly those with transgender female students currently participating on girls and women’s teams. Additionally, in jurisdictions with state or local laws, including the State of New York, that extend rights based on gender identity, the Executive Order conditions federal funding on actions that may be inconsistent with state and local laws. College and university leadership should consult with legal counsel about the impact of this Executive Order on their athletic programs.

Bond attorneys are following these, and related legal developments, closely. If your institution would like further guidance, please reach out to an attorney in our higher education practice or the Bond attorney with whom you are regularly in contact.

On Jan. 9, 2025, the Eastern District of Kentucky held in State of Tennessee, et al. v. Miguel Cardona, et al. that the U.S. Department of Education’s 2024 Final Rule implementing Title IX is “unlawful.” This court decision applies nationwide.

This is not the first time the 2024 Final Rule has been successfully challenged. Even before yesterday’s ruling, several courts had issued injunctions, resulting in the 2024 regulations having no effect in 26 states and at a multitude of additional individual colleges and universities across the country.

The court determined in State of Tennessee that the Final Rule suffered from several legally fatal defects, including that the Final Rule went farther than permitted by Title IX in its definition of sex to include gender identity, its definition of sex-based harassment, and the scope of the Rule’s jurisdictional application. According to the Eastern District of Kentucky, the Final Rule impeded individuals’ First Amendment rights, violated the Spending Clause, and is “arbitrary and capricious.”

The fact that the 2024 Final Rule has been struck down is not necessarily a surprise. The 2024 Final Rule was part of the Biden administration’s Title IX agenda which the incoming Trump administration was expected to revisit and reverse. The timing of the change – coming prior to the administration taking office and without the notice associated with the rule making process – adds a layer of confusion and complexity for impacted institutions.

As of today, those colleges and universities that had been operating pursuant to the 2024 Final Rule will need to revert to a practice that is compliant with the 2020 regulations. This does not necessarily mean that all aspects of an institution’s 2024 Title IX policy and procedures must be discarded. For example, some institutions opted to retain a live hearing model with cross-examination under the 2024 Title IX regulations, and this is the required adjudication process pursuant to the 2020 regulations. Similarly, the 2024 Title IX regulations provided for increased protections and accommodations for pregnant students and, while those aspects of the regulations are no longer subject to enforcement, they do not necessarily contravene the 2020 regulations.

There are intricacies that will need to be considered well beyond these examples, and it is possible that the Department will appeal this decision and/or issue interim guidance. In a particular case – particularly a pending case – the question of how an institution should react to the State of Tennessee decision is a nuanced topic to be discussed with the institution’s legal counsel.

Bond’s Higher Education Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and assess the implications of this significant decision. If you have any questions, please contact E. Katherine Hajjar, Laura H. Harsharger, any attorney in the firm’s higher education practice or the Bond attorney with whom you have regular contact. 

On July 1, 2024, revised regulations governing federal student financial assistance programs became effective. The regulations, which can be found at 34 C.F.R. 668.23(d), require institutions that participate in the federal student assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act to provide annual financial reports to the U.S. Department of Education (ED or the Department). Additional guidance was released on Oct. 31, 2024 by Federal Student Aid, an office of the ED.[1]

One requirement of the revised regulation that may be relevant to certain institutions of higher education is the disclosure of all “related parties,”[2] including the relevant identifying information of such related parties, as defined by the FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 850, in their reports to ED.

ASC 850 defines a “related party” as follows:

a. Affiliates of the entity.

b. Entities for which investments in their equity securities would be required, absent the election of the fair value option under the Fair Value Option Subsection of Section 825-10-15, to be accounted for by the equity method by the investing entity.

c. Trusts for the benefit of employees, such as pension and profit-sharing trusts that are managed by or under the trusteeship of management.

d. Principal owners of the entity and members of their immediate families.

e. Management of the entity and members of their immediate families.

f. Other parties with which the entity may deal if one party controls or can significantly influence the management or operating policies of the other to an extent that one of the transacting parties might be prevented from fully pursuing its own separate interests.

g. Other parties that can significantly influence the management or operating policies of the transacting parties or that have an ownership interest in one of the transacting parties and can significantly influence the other to an extent that one or more of the transacting parties might be prevented from fully pursuing its own separate interests.

Although ED’s guidance issued in conjunction with the revised regulations states that “the related party disclosure requirement put into the regulations is not an expanded requirement, it has been the Department’s practice of requiring the level of detail now specified in the regulations,”[3] many institutions may not have been aware of such requirements. Federal Student Aid further clarified that the “the new regulations require institutions to include specific information on related party disclosures to clearly identify the related party being disclosed that had previously only been identified as possible information to include in the disclosure.” (emphasis added).

The institution must provide information that “include[s], but is not limited to, the name, location and a description of the related entity including the nature and amount of any transactions between the related party and the institution, financial or otherwise, regardless of when they occurred” (34 C.F.R. 668.23(d)(1)). With respect to higher education institutions, the ASC 850 definition of a “related party” could include a trustee, a high level administrator,[4] an immediate family member of such trustee or administrator, an affiliated entity or other parties (e.g., financial institution, insurance provider, contractor, professional service provider, etc.) with which the institution may deal depending on the level of control, influence or ownership between the parties. Additionally, if there are no related party transactions during the audited fiscal year or related party outstanding balances reported in the financial statements, a note must be added to the institution’s financial statements to disclose this fact.

The Department has provided a FAQ document that clarifies who might be a “related party” and provides examples of under what circumstances a report would be required.[5] For example, the guidance states:

Question: The institution’s president’s spouse established an endowment fund of $500,000 five years before the reporting year-end. The donor's relationship to the president and the president's relationship with the institution has not changed. Even though an endowment is a perpetual gift, there would be no related party disclosure in the current fiscal year because the contribution was made five years ago, correct?

Answer: It depends on whether the donor maintains any level of control over the endowment/donation/gift. For any period where control exists, it remains a related party transaction and must be reported.

Question: A trustee promises to give $700,000 over three years in the current reporting year. Under GAAP, nonprofit institutions recognize contribution revenue, with a time restriction (three-year promise) and a pledge receivable. In the current reporting period, the $700,000 promise will be disclosed: pledge receivable and restricted revenue. In subsequent reporting years the institution would report cash receipts on the pledge and the reduced receivable balance. In other words, the institution reports the reduced receivable balance and the cash receipts every reporting year until the pledge is fulfilled. Correct?

Answer: Yes. This would be reported in all three years as a related party transaction, as indicated in the example.

Question: Clarification is needed on the phrase found in 34 CFR 668.23(d)(1), “regardless of when the (related party) transaction occurred” and how it applies in the following example:

The provost’s adult daughter is the CEO of a financial institution that provided a line of credit to the college three years ago. The line of credit is a $1,000,000 liquidity facility that has not been drawn upon, but it is still available. The provost resigned last year, before the reporting period/fiscal year began. Is it correct that for the current reporting period, there is no related party disclosure because the provost is no longer employed by the college?

Answer: Yes, to the extent that the former provost has no association with the institution.

Question: If the provost was still employed by the college, the off-balance sheet line of credit facility would be disclosed along with the name and location of the related party (the provost’s adult daughter), correct?

Answer: Yes.

Despite the language of the ED guidance, it appears that the Department’s decision and subsequent FAQ document has at least made more explicit its requirement that institutions report any transactions between a trustee, administrator or the family members of a trustee or administrator, as well as a financial institution that has provided a current or future source of funds to the institution, as transactions between related parties. Moreover, Federal Student Aid’s guidance reinforces that:

[The Department] expects an institution to have a system of internal controls that is adequate to provide reasonable assurance about an institution’s compliance with the Department’s regulations, including the existence of related party relationships and transactions, as well as being able to identify the related parties. The institution’s internal controls must be sufficiently rigorous to provide for reasonable assurance that, when an institution’s financial statements include that it has disclosed all of its related party transactions or that it has no related party transactions, the disclosure is complete and accurate.

The revised regulations are in effect and will govern annual reports to ED concerning the use of their Title IV funds. Because there is still lingering uncertainty regarding the scope of disclosure, we recommend that institutions review their conflict of interest policies and consult with their accountants and legal counsel to assess current reporting practices and implement any additional procedures to ensure compliance.

If you have any questions or concerns related to disclosure requirements of institutions of higher education please contact Thomas W. Simcoe, Delaney M. R. Knapp or the attorney at the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.

---

[1] Federal Student Aid, Disclosure of Related Party Transactions in Financial Statements (Oct. 31, 2024), available at: https://fsapartners.ed.gov/knowledge-center/library/electronic-announcements/2024-10-31/disclosure-related-party-transactions-financial-statements.

[2] Note that the regulations appear use “related party” and “related entity” interchangeably.

[3] U.S. Department of Education, Financial Responsibility Regulations—Questions and Answers FR-Q20 (Oct. 31, 2023), available at Financial Responsibility Regulations - Questions and Answers | U.S. Department of Education.

[4] ASC 850-10-20 defines “Management” as “Persons who are responsible for achieving the objectives of the entity and who have the authority to establish policies and make decisions by which those objectives are to be pursued. Management normally includes members of the board of directors, the chief executive officer, chief operating officer, vice presidents in charge of principal business functions (such as sales, administration, or finance), and other persons who perform similar policy making functions. Persons without formal titles also may be members of management.”

[5] U.S. Department of Education, Financial Responsibility Regulations—Questions and Answers (Oct. 31, 2023), available at Financial Responsibility Regulations - Questions and Answers | U.S. Department of Education.

New Title IX regulations became effective on August 1, 2024, and contain extensive requirements for colleges and universities that receive federal Title IV funds to provide accommodations for students who are pregnant or who have recently given birth.

Read More >> Accommodations for Pregnant and Parenting Students: New Rules, New Challenges