In recent years, the demand for trauma-informed care and advanced EMDR training has grown rapidly. With this growth, an unfortunate side effect has emerged:
Widespread confusion about who regulates EMDR training (EMDRIA?), what counts as “full” training (only EMDRIA-approved trainings?), and what pathways clinicians may legally pursue.
This confusion does not stem from malice. Instead, it often grows from word-of-mouth assumptions, ambiguous marketing language, and misunderstandings that spread over time. Yet the consequences are real:
- clinicians worry they may not be “allowed” to practice EMDR after completing high-quality training outside EMDRIA’s specific approval system
- trainers are pressured to adopt language that suggests EMDRIA has regulatory authority where none exists
- major institutions and purchasers may misunderstand the actual governance of the therapy
- qualified providers experience unwarranted barriers in a marketplace that should be open, fair, and evidence-based
The purpose of this article is simple: to provide clarity.
Who Regulates Psychotherapy and EMDR Practice?
In the United States, the only entities authorized to regulate the practice of psychotherapy are:
- State licensing boards, and
- in certain contexts, entities that the government gives limited and contained authority to, such as APA, ASWB, NBCC, etc. (Notably, EMDRIA is not included in this list, nor are other professional organizations such as ACBS, Linehan Institute, etc.)
No private professional association — regardless of size, sophistication, or longevity — has independent regulatory authority over who may practice a psychotherapy modality.
This is true across the board, for many different types of psychotherapies:
- CBT
- ACT
- DBT
- EMDR
- IFS
- Somatic therapies
- Trauma-focused modalities
Training organizations may set their own internal standards, but they cannot regulate the field.
This is an essential distinction for protecting clinician autonomy and ensuring consumers have honest, accurate information.
What Does It Mean to Be “Fully Trained” in EMDR?
The phrase “fully trained” is widely used across many modalities, but it has no universal legal or regulatory definition. In EMDR specifically:
- “Full training” simply means the clinician has completed the training that teaches the standard EMDR protocol and prepares them to apply it ethically within their scope of practice.
Various organizations, such as EMDRIA, may use different labels, and may even declare that only trainings approved by them count as being “fully trained”:
- “Level 1” and “Level 2”
- “Part 1” and “Part 2”
- “Basic training”
- “Foundational training”
But none of these labels are tied to legal authority or licensure. They are internal training structures, not regulatory thresholds.
If a clinician completes a legitimate, evidence-based EMDR training that covers the standard protocol — and they remain licensed and practicing within their scope — they are trained to use EMDR.
“Fully trained” does not depend on approval by any specific private professional association.
Why Marketplace Clarity Matters
When clinicians receive mixed messages about who can or cannot train them, or what “fully trained” entails, the consequences reach far beyond branding:
Clients can suffer.
If clinicians delay trauma-focused care because they’re uncertain about whether they are “allowed” to use a modality, clients may go without treatment they urgently need. Suggesting that only one private organization can determine who is “fully trained” can also confuse or mislead clients—sometimes unintentionally—depending on how these statements appear in public-facing advertisements.
Clinicians may be misled.
Unclear marketing language can create unnecessary fear or shame for clinicians who completed excellent training but were told it “doesn’t count” or wasn’t “full training.”
Training providers face uneven playing fields.
If purchasers or healthcare systems mistakenly believe a private association has regulatory authority, they may exclude qualified training providers based on incorrect assumptions.
Innovation can slow.
Healthy competition fosters innovation. Misunderstandings about authority restrict that competition and undermine the field.
Our shared goal — regardless of modality or training organization — should be accurate information, transparency, and fair access to education.
How Clinicians Can Protect Themselves From Misinformation
Here are practical steps to ensure clinicians are making decisions based on facts:
Check your state licensing board
Ask: Does my board require approval from any private association to practice EMDR?
(Spoiler: none do.)
Evaluate training content, not just logos
Ask: Does this course teach the EMDR protocol clearly, thoroughly, and ethically? What do reviews say about this course?
Beware of statements that imply regulatory authority
Phrases like:
- “governing body”
- “official approval required”
- “only our program counts”
…should raise red flags.
Review multiple training options
Clinicians benefit from having diverse pathways and perspectives available.
Remember: education is a marketplace
You are not obligated to train with any specific private entity unless a government agency explicitly requires it.
A Call for Accuracy Across the Field
The EMDR community, including trainers, associations, clinicians, and institutions, shares a common mission: To alleviate suffering and promote healing.
To achieve that, we need:
- honesty in marketing
- accuracy in describing authority
- transparency in defining training levels
- respect for clinician autonomy
- clarity about who regulates psychotherapy (state boards, not private groups)
This article is not about criticizing any organization. It’s about elevating the standard of communication across the entire field.
A healthier field is one where clinicians understand:
- who regulates them
- what constitutes legitimate training
- what their options are
- and how to navigate a complex professional landscape with confidence and accuracy
EMDR is too important — and clients’ needs are too great — for anything less.
Closing Thoughts
Clarity protects clinicians.
Clarity protects consumers.
Clarity protects the integrity of the field.
When we ensure that training pathways are described accurately and without overstatement, we strengthen the entire trauma-treatment community.
If we all work together to promote transparency, EMDR continues to grow as a science-informed, accessible, and ethically grounded modality, and clinicians can focus on what matters most: Helping clients heal.
