ED Shifts Additional Key Programs to Other Agencies: What States, Districts, and IHEs Need to Know
On February 23, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced two new interagency agreements (IAAs) with the U.S. Departments of State (State) and Health and Human Services (HHS). These agreements follow the same structural model as the previously announced IAAs and reflect ED’s continued reliance on interagency agreements to shift significant operational responsibilities to other agencies, a development we analyzed in our prior post on the Department’s proposed realignment of federal education functions. At this point, ED has entered into nine IAAs that shift 118 federal education programs into other agencies (Education Week has an excellent tool to see which specific programs are moving where).
Below is a closer look at each agreement.
Foreign Gift and Contract Reporting under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act
The IAA between ED and State, signed on February 20, 2026, delegates to State a broad range of administrative and enforcement support functions relating to the foreign gift and contract reporting requirements of Section 117 of the Higher Education Act.
Under Section 117, colleges and universities must report to the Secretary of Education foreign gifts and contracts from a foreign source that altogether total $250,000 or more in a calendar year. By statute, the Secretary is responsible for administration and enforcement of Section 117’s requirements. However, under the IAA, State will perform a broad range of services “in coordination with and at the direction of ED,” including administering the reporting process, providing technical assistance regarding the Section 117 reporting portal, and enforcing Section 117’s requirements through the initiation of civil investigations. The IAA states that the Department will carry out “management and leadership” of disclosure reporting and enforcement responsibilities; review and analyze disclosure reports; and provide leadership for compliance resolution processes, including initiation of compliance reviews and civil investigations.
The expressed purpose of this arrangement is to “enhance capabilities to improve the accuracy and timeliness of Section 117 disclosures. . .,” resulting in “enhanced capabilities by implementing efficiencies to streamline information collection by harmonizing disclosure reporting [and] reducing the administrative burden on reporting IHEs. . .” But the IAA creates an entire new layer of responsibility for Section 117 that is not statutorily authorized and then blurs the lines of responsibility as between ED and State. Coupled with the drastic reductions in ED staff, it is difficult to see how the IAA will enhance capabilities, implement efficiencies, streamline reporting, or reduce administrative burden. Rather, the IAA heightens uncertainty and introduces new questions for colleges and universities about how Section 117 will be administered.
On the heels of recent efforts by ED to clarify reporting requirements and make reporting more efficient and accessible for institutions, including the January 2, 2026, launch of a new reporting portal, the IAA threatens to add unnecessary complexity. This underscores the importance of having comprehensive, institution-wide Section 117 policies and procedures in place, ensuring that dedicated personnel throughout the institution are well-trained in section 117’s requirements, holding periodic refresher training for those involved in Section 117 reporting, and ensuring that new policy developments, guidance changes, or agency interpretations are incorporated into the institution’s policies and procedures. In particular, any changes in implementation emerging from the IAA between ED and State should be reflected in the institution’s policies and procedures.
The ED-State IAA on Section 117 is available here. A fact sheet about the IAA is available here.
Family Engagement and School Support Grant Programs
The IAA between ED and HHS, also signed on February 20, 2026, creates a partnership between ED and HHS’s Administration for Children and Families and indicates that the intent is to keep “students, teachers, and administrators safe and secure” through a “unified federal strategy focused on school support and related issues.”
Under the IAA, HHS will take over provision of services for the following programs that are currently administered by ED’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education:
School Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV)
School Safety National Activities (SSNA)
Ready to Learn Programming,
Full-Service Community Schools
Promise Neighborhoods, and
Statewide Family Engagement Centers
HHS services will include assistance in managing and coordinating grants and contracts, monitoring grantee compliance, and providing technical assistance to ED staff on interagency grant policies and procedures. ED’s responsibilities under the IAA include management and leadership of school safety programs, coordinating with HHS and obtaining HHS concurrence on activities and grant awardees selected by ED, coordinating clearance of policy guidance documents, and developing program notices for grant competitions. ED will transfer funds to HHS to support these functions.
The fact sheet about the ED-HHS partnership states specifically that HHS, with ED oversight, will “manage competitions, provide technical assistance, and integrate ED’s programs with the larger suite of early childhood, community support, disaster preparedness and response programs HHS already administers. ED will maintain all statutory responsibilities and will continue its oversight of these programs.”
By statute, the Secretary of Education is responsible for administering the programs that the IAA transfers to HHS. The IAA therefore directly contravenes each of the program statutes and applicable regulations. And rather than furthering ED’s stated (and clearly pretextual) goal of “returning education to the states,” this arrangement with HHS creates new layers of federal bureaucracy that states and school districts must navigate to seek and receive program funds. There is no requirement that ED obtain HHS concurrence on activities and grant awardees selected by ED, but the IAA introduces this step in the grant administration process – a step that is in stark contrast to language in the IAA stating that ED will have responsibility for “management and leadership of school safety programs.”
States and districts apply for funds under the school safety and mental health programs carried out under the SSNA authority to address critical, urgent needs of students and schools with the objective of improving the school climate and providing students with safe, responsive environments for learning. The IAA creates inefficiencies in all aspects of program administration that threaten the ability of states and districts to respond meaningfully to the needs of the students, teachers, and administrators they serve. Coordination between the agencies on key decisions, including final grant slates, is almost certain to introduce delay that could be especially problematic for programs such as Project SERV. Project SERV is a unique program designed to address emergency situations in which a traumatic event has disrupted the learning environment. Funds are awarded for the purpose of restoring the learning environment as quickly as possible. A thorough understanding of the program, familiarity in interacting with state departments of education, school districts, and colleges and universities, and careful but expeditious decision-making are essential to implementing Project SERV. The IAA does not contemplate the infrastructure necessary to meaningful administration of Project SERV or any of the other SSNA or family engagement programs consistent with the intent with which Congress authorized them.
Finally, it is concerning that the SSNA programs being transferred to HHS bear some relation to the Title IV, Part A formula program (Student Support and Academic Enrichment) being transferred to DOL. State and district officials and staff often work on multiple, related federal education programs, so, for instance, a program director may well work on both Title IV, Part A (formula) and the School-Based Mental Health Services program (competitive program under SSNA). Instead of looking to one agency that awards funding for these related programs, provides technical assistance, and monitors performance, that program director will now need to look to three separate agencies, which will also entail having to learn and navigate new procedures and systems.
The ED-HHS IAA on Family Engagement and School Support Grants is available here. The fact sheet is available here.
How Sligo Law Group Can Help
These two IAAs are internally contradictory and appear to exceed ED’s authority. And ED has provided no reasonable explanation as to how they result in a “return of education to the states.” Sligo Law Group is closely monitoring each of these IAAs and their potential impact on Section 117 reporting and enforcement and school safety and family engagement program administration. As former senior attorneys at the U.S. Department of Education with specific and deep experience in these areas, our team can assist states, school districts, higher education institutions, nonprofits, and other stakeholders with:
Assessing how the proposed changes may affect specific programs and Section 117 administration
Evaluating compliance risks and developing mitigation strategies
Interpreting statutory and regulatory requirements in a shifting landscape
Preparing comments, inquiries, or formal responses to federal agencies
Supporting grantees as they navigate new administrative structures
We will continue to track developments and provide updates as more information becomes available.
For questions or assistance, please contact contact@sligolawgroup.com.