Issue Briefs

About

NAICU has long been a proponent of the current accreditation model, which is an effective non-governmental means for assessing academic quality that respects individual institutions, their missions, and their autonomy.

Although accreditation long predates the enactment of the Higher Education Act (HEA), it is now an integral part of establishing institutional eligibility to participate in federal student aid programs. Thus, it is appropriate that accreditors must meet certain federal requirements in order to be recognized under the HEA. However, NAICU has long opposed turning accrediting agencies into surrogate government enforcement agencies or imposing uniformity on institutions in the name of accountability.

Maintaining an appropriate balance among institutions, accreditors, and the federal government has always been challenging. These challenges have grown as policymakers have envisioned more robust roles for accreditation in dealing with fraudulent institutions, assessing new education services and providers, and measuring student and institutional achievement. It is critical that policymakers seek an appropriate balance between assuring federal accountability and preserving distinctive institutional missions and approaches. Policymakers should also avoid assigning to accreditors responsibilities that they are neither designed nor equipped to handle.

History

Since its enactment in 1965, the HEA has required institutions to be accredited by a recognized accreditor in order to participate in federal student aid programs. Over time, policymakers have sought to impose new accreditation requirements in an effort to adapt to new educational models or address perceived deficiencies in higher education. While some of these reforms have been welcomed, others are more problematic.

For example, in the early 2000s, the Department of Education (ED) attempted to use the accreditation process to require colleges and universities to adopt “bright-line” measures of student achievement. This effort prompted a strong response from the leadership of the six major educational associations, who concluded the efforts of ED would fundamentally change the relationship among accreditors, institutions, and the federal government. Congress responded by including a provision in the 2008 Higher Education Opportunity Act that prohibits ED from regulating student achievement standards. However, the effort to establish bright-line accreditation standards continues to this day.

Subsequently, concern about fraud and abuse in the student aid programs led to the issuance of regulations that included a federal definition of a “credit hour” and assigned enforcement of the definition to accrediting agencies. Many policymakers continue to push accreditors to play a central role in combating fraud and abuse. Similarly, the role of accreditation in the evaluation of non-traditional education providers has been the subject of wide-ranging discussions by policy analysts and lawmakers.

Recent Developments

In recent years, members of Congress and presidential administrations on both sides of the aisle have continued to press for accreditation reform, believing that the current system of accreditation is insufficiently focused on outcomes. This view has been reflected in legislation proposed by both Republicans and Democrats. Although the parties’ approaches vary considerably in many respects, many of these bills share an emphasis on requiring accreditors to focus on student outcomes. More controversially, Republican lawmakers have advocated for more radical changes to accreditation, such as approving states or businesses as accreditors.

Accreditation requirements have also been the subject of regulatory action. For example, in 2019, the Trump Administration published final regulations that revised requirements governing the federal recognition of accreditation agencies. Among other things, the rules allowed more flexibility for accreditors and institutions to innovate, reemphasized the importance of institutional mission, and allowed regional accreditors to consider applications from outside their traditional regions. In 2024, the Biden Administration established a negotiated rulemaking committee to once again amend the accreditation regulations, but that effort ultimately stalled, and the regulations remained unchanged.

Since taking office for a second term, President Trump has made accreditation a top priority. Among other things, the Administration issued an Executive Order (EO) to increase competition in accreditation by facilitating the ability of new accreditors to gain recognition and of institutions to switch accreditors. The EO also focused on improving program-level student outcomes in accreditation, reducing barriers to innovation, prioritizing intellectual diversity among faculty, and eliminating “unlawful discrimination” in the guise of accreditor-driven diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

To implement the EO, the ED lifted the Biden Administration’s moratorium on accepting applications for new accreditors, issued new guidance that will streamline the process for institutions seeking to switch accreditors or add additional accrediting agencies, and published guidance to shorten the process for approving new accreditors.

In early 2026, the Trump Administration announced that it would establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to revise the regulations governing accreditation in accordance with the priorities outlined in President Trump’s EO. Ultimately, negotiators reached consensus on regulatory amendments that will bring substantial changes to the Title IV accreditation process, including new requirements on transfer of credit, major changes to accreditation standards, provisions to increase competition among accreditors, and a new focus on civil rights compliance, free speech, and viewpoint diversity. Proposed regulations reflecting the consensus draft were published on August 20, 2026, with comments due by September 21. ED has stated that it intends to publish final rules by November 1, 2026, with an effective date of July 1, 2027.