President Donald Trump, Republican politicians, and far-right activists have made no secret about their disdain for higher education, and they’ve zeroed in on what they see as a key to gaining control of the nation’s colleges and universities: accreditation. On the campaign trail, President Trump said he would “fire the radical left accreditors” and regain control from what he termed the “Marxist maniacs and lunatics” who run these institutions.
Over the last two years, thanks to the president himself and high-profile politicians like Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, accreditation—a relatively obscure topic even to most academics and administrators—has been catapulted onto the national political stage.
Accrediting agencies are independent nonprofit organizations, which, alongside states and the federal government, serve as gatekeepers to federal student grants and loans. A higher education institution must be approved by an accreditor before its students can access federal aid to pay for college. Accreditors set standards and evaluate colleges on everything from the curriculum, the faculty, and fiscal and administrative capacity to student success, student support services, institutional governance, and recruiting and admissions.
In an executive order on reforming accreditation, the Trump administration claimed to be seeking to improve institutional quality, pointing to low graduation rates, high debt, and low graduate earnings as evidence that accreditors have failed in their responsibility to determine which institutions provide a high-quality education. But the steps outlined in the order and the actions taken to date reveal a much more sinister purpose, one that has little to do with quality. The real goal is to reshape American higher education and to replace the independent accreditation process with a structure that enables the government to dictate everything from what is taught in the classroom to faculty appointments. This effort not only threatens fundamental values of higher education like academic freedom; it also risks creating a higher education system that, in the name of innovation, is further vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse, which accreditation is supposed to prevent by ensuring educational quality.
Critics seeking to wield accreditation as a weapon claim that nongovernmental accrediting agencies have immense unchecked power over institutions. But this view misses the fact that accreditors are organizations made up of their members—institutions themselves. Faculty members and administrators, along with commissioners representing the public, sit on the governing and decision-making boards of accrediting agencies. They serve on the peer-review teams that assess whether colleges are meeting standards, and they inform, set, and assess the standards, policies, and procedures that accrediting agencies use in decision-making. In this way, accreditation is a reflection of shared academic values and professional norms—not a faceless, all-powerful regulator. An attack that undermines accreditation is an attack on independence in higher education.
College and university faculty members and administrators have the power to determine whether accrediting agencies are used as a weapon to control colleges or as a tool to assess and improve quality for students. In order for accreditation to serve its purpose, it must be independent and resist efforts at the state and federal levels to exert governmental control. And holding the line starts with faculty engagement.
The History of Accreditation
Today, accreditation is one of three seals of approval needed by a college or university before it can access any of the over $120 billion in federal student grants and loans the Department of Education doles out every year, with the other two approvals coming from states and the department itself. This three-party oversight system, known as the Program Integrity Triad, originates from requirements in the 1965 Higher Education Act and is meant to ensure that colleges and universities meet minimum standards for access to federal aid by delegating distinct responsibilities to the oversight entities best positioned to evaluate their performance in different areas: states for legal authorization and consumer protection, the Department of Education for financial and administrative compliance, and accreditors for academic quality.
But accreditation and many of the agencies themselves long predate the advent of the federal student aid programs. The first accrediting agencies appeared in the late 1800s and were created by colleges and universities as voluntary membership associations to establish basic standards across institutions through a process of peer review. At the time, colleges and universities had different admissions requirements, varied curricula for the same educational programs, and different requirements for length of study to earn a degree. Varying standards made it difficult to determine if a student had the education necessary for enrollment and complicated issues like the transfer of credits when a student switched colleges. The initial accrediting agencies were voluntary and made up of representatives from member institutions who established standards and conducted peer reviews. Approval by an accreditor was a signal to other institutions that the education provided and degrees granted were aligned with their own. For decades, accreditation remained a separate and voluntary process rooted in professional judgment and peer accountability. Governmental entities were uninvolved.
That all began to change when the federal government created the first program that provided aid to students to cover the cost of college: the 1944 Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, or the GI Bill. Initially, the only requirement for an institution or program to be eligible was state approval. State agencies proved to be an insufficient check on quality, however. In the five years following the GI Bill’s passage, nearly six thousand new for-profit institutions were created to take advantage of the new funds. Many were established by people with no educational background or experience, charged excessive fees, faked records, manipulated state agencies and officials, and offered training in fields with little to no opportunity for employment.
The second iteration of the GI Bill, passed in 1952, sought to tackle these problems by adding new requirements. This time, in order for an institution or program to be eligible, it had to be accredited. And in order to prevent the emergence of fake or predatory accrediting agencies, Congress charged the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare’s Office of Education—the precursor to what is the Department of Education today—with recognizing which agencies could serve in this gatekeeping role.
While laws and requirements have evolved over time, much of this system still exists today. Accrediting agencies are independent, voluntary membership associations relied on by the federal government and states to establish that an institution meets basic quality standards, thus protecting students and taxpayer funds. The Department of Education evaluates the work of accrediting agencies before it recognizes them, which allows agencies to serve in a gatekeeping role. While both the department and states conduct their own reviews and assessments of colleges and universities, accrediting agencies, with support from faculty members through peer review, are the primary entity responsible for evaluating academic quality. The Department of Education is expressly prohibited under federal law from involvement in the curriculum or faculty appointments.
Accreditation Becomes a Political Weapon
In 2019, the Department of Education under the first Trump administration finalized a sweeping set of new accreditation regulations that laid the groundwork for the undermining of accreditation that is occurring today. The most consequential change in the new regulations was the elimination of the distinction between regional and national accrediting agencies. Historically, seven regional agencies operated across distinct geographic regions and accredited the majority of all public and private nonprofit colleges and universities in their particular region. A handful of national agencies accredited institutions across the country—primarily for-profit and career-training institutions. The Department of Education argued at the time that it wanted to eliminate the “artificial distinction” between the two types of agencies, since all meet the same federal standards; the goal, it claimed, was to encourage competition so that an institution was not beholden to a particular agency based on geography and could choose the agency that best fit its mission. While regional accreditors said they did not intend to expand their scope beyond their typical regions, all have since done so.
Although the change was framed as promoting institutional choice, it also opened the door for political actors to exert pressure on public colleges and universities. While some institutions have chosen to switch their accrediting agency—often for good reason—several right-leaning states saw an opportunity to force changes upon their public institutions. That door was first pushed open in Florida. In 2022, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), the traditional regional accreditor operating in Southern states, opened several inquiries into public universities in Florida following news reports of issues that raised concern about their compliance with SACSCOC’s standards. The move had been used before with institutions of all kinds in many states and was primarily an attempt to gather additional information. The first instance occurred when the University of Florida banned three professors from participating in a lawsuit against the State of Florida regarding a new law that imposed restrictions on voting rights. SACSCOC reviewed whether the university met the agency’s academic freedom standard. The second occurred when SACSCOC requested information from Florida State University regarding potential conflicts of interest in a presidential search. Professors involved in the search committee raised concerns and noted that such conflicts could affect their accreditation.
Though these actions were routine for enforcing accreditation standards, Florida officials saw them as meddling in issues that they believed should be up to the state. Following the public controversy, Florida introduced and passed legislation that forced all public colleges and universities in the state to switch accrediting agencies every evaluation cycle, undermining independence, academic freedom, and accreditation itself. In signing the legislation, Governor Ron DeSantis said that the organizations had “an inordinate amount of power” and expressed hope that the move would bring institutions more in line with state priorities. North Carolina has since passed similar legislation.
The forced switching wasn’t enough. Florida didn’t just want a new accreditor; it wanted no accreditor. And it wanted to be in sole control over the institutions in the state. The state subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Department of Education, arguing that the federal accreditation requirements were unconstitutional and asking that they not be applied to Florida. In announcing the suit, DeSantis made clear that it was about control, stating, “We refuse to bow to unaccountable accreditors who think they should run Florida’s public colleges and universities.” A federal court ruled against Florida.
Since it couldn’t get rid of accreditation through the courts, in its latest effort, Florida, along with university systems in six other conservative states, is launching its own accrediting agency, the Commission for Public Higher Education (CPHE). In announcing the move, DeSantis said that Florida was reclaiming higher education and “breaking the activist-controlled accreditation monopoly.” It is unclear whether the states involved—as of this writing, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas—will force their institutions to be accredited by the new CPHE, eliminating the voluntary nature of accreditation and the choice they once claimed to defend. The CPHE’s business plan notes that the accreditor will be accountable to the states, a move that directly contradicts the federal legislative intent to have three separate and independent oversight entities. In the press conference announcing the CPHE, DeSantis also noted that he was working with the Trump administration to get approval before the presidential term ends. If the effort by the state systems succeeds in establishing an agency that is accountable to the states, it will have achieved DeSantis’s original goal of undoing accreditation as we know it by eliminating the independent nature of accreditation with faculty expertise at its core and allowing state politicians to influence everything from curricula to faculty appointments.
Wielding the Secret Weapon
It is becoming increasingly clear how the Trump administration plans to wield its supposed secret weapon of accreditation: Like DeSantis’s government in Florida, its goal is to force its political agenda onto colleges and universities.
When the president released the April executive order detailing his concerns with accreditation, he outlined his administration’s priorities for reform. These included eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion standards; preventing accrediting agencies from evaluating data by race, gender, or class; enforcing “viewpoint diversity”; and opening the door to new accrediting agencies, like the one being spun up by Southern states. Much of what’s prescribed would result in federal overreach, because the Department of Education does not have the authority to force accreditors to adopt standards that are not listed in law, such as viewpoint diversity. The executive order also insinuates that the federal government will aim to gain influence in faculty appointments through accreditors—an area traditionally (and legally) protected from federal intervention.
Several weeks later, the Department of Education issued guidance aligned with the goals of the executive order to make it easier for colleges to switch accrediting agencies. While framed as a technical clarification, the move lays the groundwork for institutions to be forced into new accrediting relationships—either because the Trump administration revokes recognition from existing agencies, as it has threatened, or because states like Florida and North Carolina require them to switch.
The administration has also taken aggressive steps to pressure individual institutions through their accreditors. The Department of Education sent letters announced through press releases to the accreditors of Columbia and Harvard Universities, suggesting that the institutions were out of compliance with each agency’s standards. Both institutions were already embroiled in highly publicized disputes with the Trump administration, and in both cases, the administration cut billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts after finding that the universities violated federal law by allegedly failing to address antisemitism on their campuses. The administration’s demands of the universities went far beyond Title VI enforcement, including calling for changes to governance, faculty appointments, and admissions—areas that are outside the purview of the federal government and would undermine academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
The administration’s letters to accrediting agencies seek to leverage accreditation to threaten eligibility for federal student grants and loans and thereby coerce changes—an unprecedented use of accreditation as a political bludgeon. If the accreditors don’t fall in line, they risk their own recognition as gatekeepers of federal student aid. That is always a high-stakes prospect for an agency, but with both Columbia’s and Harvard’s agencies up for review at a public meeting by the Department of Education in October, the clock is ticking. Since the letters were issued, Columbia’s accreditor placed it on a warning status, which implies the institution must take action if it wants to maintain its accreditation and access to federal student aid. Harvard’s accreditor is conducting a formal review.
These actions are unlikely to be the last. The Trump administration is expected to continue leveraging accrediting agencies to push its political goals; to take action to remove recognition from agencies that don’t play the part; and to fast-track new agencies that are aligned with the administration’s vision for higher education, including the agency being developed by Florida and other conservative states. Through these actions, the administration has the opportunity to radically remake higher education in its image, unless agencies and, by extension, higher education writ large, resist these efforts.
The Opportunity for Pushback
As participants in the voluntary system of accreditation, administrators and faculty members ultimately decide how accrediting agencies operate: what standards they set, how they are applied, and how quality is defined and upheld. They will also be the ones to decide whether agencies use the tools at their disposal to fight back, including pursuing legal action if and when the administration oversteps.
A 2008 AAUP report, Institutional Accreditation: A Call for Greater Faculty Involvement, detailed how faculty members could and should become more involved in the accreditation process. Engaging with accrediting agencies—by participating in reviews, serving on committees, and developing and enforcing standards grounded in academic values—is an opportunity to determine the appropriate role for accreditors in defining institutional quality, as well as the standards to which colleges and universities are held. It’s also an opportunity to shape the future of higher education, defend academic freedom, and resist governmental attacks on the core tenets that have made our higher education system the envy of the world.
This moment demands action. Accrediting agencies exist to promote quality, protect students, and uphold academic integrity—not to carry out the ideological agendas of any presidential administration. If higher education is to remain independent and student-centered, the people who make up the system must take a stand.
Defending accreditation as a system of peer-driven accountability—and resisting efforts to turn it into a political instrument—starts with those who know it best: the faculty members and administrators who shape it from within. Now is the time to act.
Antoinette Flores is director of higher education accountability and quality for New America’s higher education program. Her email address is [email protected].