U.S. Department of Education Accreditation Reform: Simplifying Processes and Removing DEI Standards

Understanding the Roots of the U.S. Department of Education Accreditation Reform

The U.S. Department of Education's recent push for accreditation overhaul marks a pivotal moment for American higher education. On January 27, 2026, the department announced plans to launch the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking committee. This initiative stems from long-standing criticisms that the current system burdens colleges and universities with excessive bureaucracy while failing to prioritize student success. Accreditation serves as the gateway for institutions to access over $100 billion in annual federal student aid through Title IV programs, including Pell Grants and loans. Without it, universities risk losing eligibility, which could devastate enrollment and operations.

Currently, around 5,800 postsecondary institutions participate in Title IV, down slightly from previous years due to closures and consolidations. Regional and national accrediting agencies, recognized by the Secretary of Education, evaluate these schools on standards ranging from governance to student learning outcomes. However, stakeholders argue the process has grown overly complex, with duplicative requirements and influences from trade associations slowing innovation. The Trump administration views this as an opportunity to refocus on merit-based, outcome-driven quality assurance.

Executive Order 14279: Laying the Groundwork for Change

Issued on April 23, 2025, Executive Order 14279, titled "Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education," directed the Secretary of Education to overhaul the system. The order highlights low six-year graduation rates—around 64% nationally—and questions the value of many degrees, noting that 25% of bachelor's and over 40% of master's programs yield negative returns on investment. It accuses some accreditors of imposing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) standards that mandate demographic targets for students and faculty, potentially violating federal civil rights laws post the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

The directive calls for denying recognition to accreditors promoting unlawful discrimination, resuming reviews for new agencies, and mandating program-level data on student outcomes without demographic breakdowns. It also urges streamlining switches between accreditors and updating the Accreditation Handbook for efficiency. Since then, the department has lifted a Biden-era moratorium on new accreditors and awarded $14.5 million in grants to seed emerging ones, signaling swift action.

Breaking Down the AIM Negotiated Rulemaking Process

Negotiated rulemaking, required under Section 492 of the Higher Education Act (HEA), involves assembling diverse stakeholders—including college presidents, accreditor reps, and policy experts—to draft consensus regulations. Nominations for the AIM committee close February 26, 2026, with sessions planned for April and May. If consensus is reached, those proposals form the basis of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; otherwise, the department proceeds independently.

Key negotiation issues include deregulating entry barriers for new accreditors, enforcing standards that cut costs, shifting to data-driven outcomes over DEI metrics, ensuring civil rights compliance, and reforming transfer credits to avoid redundant coursework. Under Secretary Nicholas Kent described accreditation as higher education's "central nervous system," flawed by protectionism, cost inflation, and ideological biases. Learn more from the official announcement.

Simplifying Recognition: Ushering in New Accreditors

One core reform targets the cumbersome recognition process, which demands agencies operate for two years with accredited institutions before federal approval. The proposal aims to fast-track compliant newcomers, fostering competition. This could benefit universities seeking accreditors aligned with workforce-focused models over traditional ones.

Proponents argue fewer than 100 recognized accreditors stifle innovation; new entrants might emphasize employability metrics. Examples include Florida's planned Commission for Public Higher Education, backed by Southern public systems, to prioritize state priorities. However, critics like the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) warn of diluted peer review if standards vary widely.

Targeting DEI Standards: A Divisive Shift

The push to excise DEI—diversity, equity, and inclusion—from accreditation criteria addresses accusations that agencies like the American Bar Association (ABA) require race- and gender-based hiring or admissions goals. The ABA imposed a moratorium on such mandates for law schools amid pressure, while states like Texas and Florida dropped ABA exclusivity for bar eligibility.

Supporters, including conservative policymakers, claim DEI diverts from merit, citing EO 14279's mandate for race-neutral outcome data. Opponents, such as left-leaning think tanks, argue it undermines equal opportunity. Medical accreditors face scrutiny too, with directives to end demographic quotas in residency programs. For universities, this could mean revising policies without risking federal aid loss.

• Prohibits standards facilitating discrimination on immutable characteristics.
• Requires civil rights compliance in accreditation reviews.
• Aims to promote intellectual diversity and academic freedom.

Emphasizing Data-Driven Student Outcomes

A major pivot refocuses evaluations on measurable results: graduation rates, job placement, earnings, and loan repayment. Accreditors must use program-level data sans demographic filters, potentially pressuring low-performing majors at research universities.

For instance, congressional Republicans propose benchmarks tying aid to outcomes. This aligns with broader HEA reauthorization talks. Community colleges and smaller universities might thrive if transfers improve, reducing debt from repeated credits. Inside Higher Ed covers expert reactions.

Potential Impacts on Universities and Colleges

Research universities like Harvard and Columbia already face scrutiny—Columbia paid $221 million after civil rights probes tied to accreditation alerts. Smaller liberal arts colleges could switch to nimbler accreditors for cost savings, but risk aid disruptions during transitions.

Benefits include reduced admin bloat and innovation in short-term credentials eligible for Workforce Pell Grants. Risks: Fragmented standards eroding degree portability. A survey found 80% of leaders have no switch plans yet, but Florida's law mandating rotations shows state-level momentum.

Explore higher ed jobs amid these shifts.

Stakeholder Reactions: A Balanced View

CHEA's Nasser Paydar urges respecting peer review and autonomy. NASFAA and ACE advocate holistic quality measures beyond outcomes. Conservatives hail ending "woke" mandates; progressives fear quality drops.

• American Council of Trustees and Alumni: Supports but notes statutory limits.
• Third Way: Push explicit improvement benchmarks.
• State leaders like Ron DeSantis: Criticize accreditor overreach.

Case Studies: Institutions Navigating Change

Western Association of Schools and Colleges reconsidered DEI language under duress. Florida's public universities eye new accreditors for accountability. Grants fund 10 emerging agencies, potentially diversifying options for R1 and HBCUs alike.

Timeline, Challenges, and Future Outlook

Post-May sessions, draft rules emerge summer 2026, with finalization by fall. Challenges: Consensus rarity, legal hurdles without Congress. Outlook: More competition could lower costs 10-20% long-term, boost completions, but requires vigilant oversight.

For faculty, check Rate My Professor; students, career advice. Institutions, post openings on faculty jobs.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

What This Means for the Higher Education Landscape

These reforms could transform universities from compliance machines to outcome powerhouses, benefiting students with valuable credentials. While debates rage, the focus on affordability and merit offers constructive paths forward. Stay informed via university jobs and academic CV tips. Explore opportunities at post a job.