Understanding NACIQI's Structure and Mandate

NACIQI consists of 18 members: 12 appointed by Congress on a bipartisan basis (six from the House, six from the Senate) and six by the Secretary of Education. Members serve staggered three-year terms, fostering continuity and diverse perspectives. The committee holds public meetings to review accreditors' compliance with federal criteria, covering aspects like student achievement, governance, and financial responsibility. Step-by-step, the process unfolds as follows: ED staff analyze agency reports; NACIQI deliberates publicly, often hearing from stakeholders; and the committee votes on recommendations to the Secretary, who makes the final call.

Historically nonpartisan, NACIQI has issued policy reports on accreditation's role in rising costs and quality assurance. For instance, its 2018 report highlighted how accreditation contributes to tuition inflation by prioritizing inputs over outcomes. In real-world terms, when NACIQI recommended denying recognition to the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS) in 2016, it affected dozens of for-profit institutions, underscoring the committee's influence.

Recent ED Appointments Signal Reform Agenda

In November 2025, Secretary Linda McMahon—nominated by President Trump—appointed five new members, including Figueira, Jay Greene, Robert Eitel, Steven Taylor, and Emilee Reynolds. These 'reform-minded' picks, as ED described them, reflect the administration's push to overhaul accreditation. Eitel, former ED counsel under Trump 1.0, brings for-profit expertise; Greene, ex-Heritage Foundation, critiques DEI initiatives; Taylor advocates outcome-based metrics. Figueira, with his legal background in compliance and First Amendment issues at BYU-Idaho, seemed aligned until the chair vote.

This influx coincides with broader Trump-era reforms: an executive order accelerating new accreditor approvals, interpretive rules reducing barriers, and negotiated rulemaking for 2026. Statistics show accreditation's gatekeeping power—only about 80 regional and national agencies are recognized, controlling access for 90% of degree-granting colleges.

The Drama of the December 2025 Chair Election

The December 16, 2025, NACIQI meeting turned contentious. Incumbent Vice Chair Zakiya Smith Ellis (Senate Democrat appointee, ex-New Jersey higher ed secretary) faced off against Greene. An initial 8-8 tie broke on revote: 8-7 for Greene after Jennifer Blum (House Republican) abstained. Figueira's no-vote stood out as the lone dissent among ED appointees.

Under Secretary Nicholas Kent kicked off with a fiery speech: 'Buckle up' for accreditation fixes, slamming DEI over student outcomes like graduation rates (national average ~60%) and job placement. He vowed to prioritize accountability amid post-October 7 antisemitism concerns.

Joshua Figueira: From Appointee to Ousted Member

Figueira, deputy general counsel and managing director of compliance at BYU-Idaho since 2017, handled legal affairs including religious freedom cases. Appointed November 2025 with term through 2031, his removal—effective between December and March—was not publicly announced. Federal Register notices confirmed his absence by early March.

• Legal expertise in First Amendment and institutional compliance.
• Sole ED appointee to oppose Greene.
• Declined comment post-removal.

Revelation and Immediate Backlash at March Meeting

At the March 24-25, 2026, meeting, Democratic appointee Bob Shireman spotlighted Figueira's absence: 'It just so happens that the person who is not here is the one who did not vote for you for chair.' He invoked the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), mandating independent judgment. Assistant Secretary David Barker defended ED's 'broad discretion' to align NACIQI with reform priorities, citing failing higher ed metrics—e.g., $1.7 trillion student debt, stagnant completion rates.

The session also debated Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities' DEI standards, foreshadowing tensions.

Legal Framework and Precedents

FACA allows removal for cause but emphasizes independence. ED claims statutory discretion, akin to other agencies. Critics argue this erodes bipartisanship, especially as congressional slots balance parties. No prior public ousters match this timing tied to a vote.

Implications for Accreditation and Institutions

NACIQI's recommendations affect 4,000+ colleges. With Greene chairing and reform allies dominant, expect scrutiny on DEI—Kent already warned MSCHE and CAPTE to rescind race-based standards under Title VI.Kent's letters demand monitoring reports. Institutions like Columbia (MSCHE-accredited) face indirect pressure. Reforms could introduce outcomes-focused accreditors, benefiting workforce-aligned programs but risking politicization.

Stakeholder Perspectives: A Divided Landscape

Conservatives hail reforms: Heritage's Greene pushes school choice analogs for college. Accreditors like MSCHE dispute Title VI claims, suspending DEI pending review. College presidents worry about compliance burdens amid $45M deficits at places like UNT. Democrats fear ideological capture, echoing Shireman's warnings.

Broader Trump Administration Reforms

2026 sees negotiated rulemaking on accreditation, easing new entrants per EO. NACIQI subcommittees on data dashboards, DEI/academic freedom eyed.ED's AIM committee advances Trump vision.

Photo by Rafael Nir on Unsplash

Future Outlook: What Higher Ed Leaders Should Watch

Upcoming NACIQI reviews (e.g., MSCHE fall 2026) could deny renewals over DEI. Institutions should audit standards, track outcomes (e.g., 62% six-year grad rate public four-years). Actionable: Engage in public comments, diversify accreditors. Amid reforms, opportunities for innovative programs arise, but uniformity risks federal overreach.

For faculty and admins navigating uncertainty, resources like career advice can help adapt.Kent's 'buckle up' signals turbulent times.