ED’s New Accreditation Rule Sparks Debate

The Trump administration released a sweeping accreditation proposal on August 26, inviting public comment until September 21. The proposal could reshape how accrediting agencies oversee colleges and universities, potentially opening the market to new entrants and imposing stricter standards on hiring, academic freedom, and student outcomes.

Key Provisions of the Proposal

Under the proposal, the Department of Education (ED) could require accreditors to enforce First Amendment and civil-rights law and set standards related to hiring and intellectual diversity. The plan also calls for new rules that would force accreditors to explain every time a college denies a credit transfer and to evaluate the efficiency of all college spending. These changes would add administrative burdens to both accreditors and institutions, according to experts.

The proposal would also make it easier for new accrediting bodies to gain federal recognition. Currently, only four agencies have been approved since 1999, and the process can take up to two years. ED says the new timeline would shorten that period, though it does not specify the exact duration. In January, at least two new accreditors seeking recognition each received $1 million to fund their launch.

The rule would require accreditors to set “clear expectations” for student achievement, including retention rates, completion rates, grade-point averages, post-graduation outcomes, state licensing results, or standardized-testing results. The language is more prescriptive than current regulations, which allow each accreditor to set its own expectations.

Market Dynamics and New Entrants

ED officials argue that the current system stifles innovation and competition. Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent told the advisory committee that a more dynamic market would incentivize accrediting agencies to differentiate themselves on quality, responsiveness, and alignment with student outcomes and workforce needs. The proposal also includes grant funding to help new accreditors launch, with a focus on agencies that defend free speech, eliminate DEI, promote low-cost or accelerated degrees, and ensure job placement after graduation.

The department acknowledges that it lacks sufficient data to estimate how these changes will affect the accreditation marketplace. The prediction that the number of institutional accrediting agencies will increase remains speculative.

Concerns Over Executive Overreach

Many institutional lobbying groups and left-leaning policy experts argue that the proposal amounts to executive overreach. Under federal law, an accreditor must set “clear expectations” of how it will assess an institution’s success with respect to student achievement in relation to the institution’s mission. The new rule, however, mandates that accreditors establish requirements and minimum expectations that are the same across all member institutions.

The proposal also requires accreditors to evaluate hiring practices and intellectual diversity. It mandates that accreditors ensure a sufficient number of appropriately qualified faculty and maintain academic freedom and First Amendment protections that are “clearly articulated and applied consistently to faculty regardless of appointment classification, race or other immutable characteristics, viewpoint, or ideology.”

Accreditation experts say it remains unclear whether accreditors must conduct a case-by-case evaluation of each college’s fulfillment of these standards or whether institutions can self-evaluate and accreditors must simply verify that the evaluation is done. The rule also recommends a definition of academic freedom that does not explicitly protect faculty’s ability to teach or share views on material not germane to the subject of the course being taught.

Mike Gavin, president and CEO of the Alliance for Higher Education, warned that defining academic freedom is a role the government should not take. He said the section is a tactic to chill inquiry while claiming the administration advocates for intellectual diversity.

Potential Peer Review Overhaul

Another section of the proposed regulation would require many accreditors to rethink major parts of their business model. For generations, accreditation has operated as a system of peer review, with advisers-often faculty or administrators from the institutions being evaluated-forming councils, boards, or commissions. The new rule would alter how these advisers assess institutions, potentially shifting the balance of power within the accreditation process.

The proposal’s emphasis on clarity and uniformity in standards could change the way institutions track student outcomes, a topic also covered in our stats section. It may also influence faculty hiring practices, similar to trends we analyze in the squad data. The new rule’s focus on academic freedom echoes debates highlighted in our injuries database.

The deadline for public comments is September 21. If the administration finalizes the rule by November 1, the changes will take effect next July, according to the proposal.