Trump Signs Executive Order Targeting University Accreditors
Wall Street Journal
By Sara Randazzo and Meridith McGraw
Updated April 23, 2025 6:27 pm ET
President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to shake up the arcane but pivotal world of college accreditation, a move Trump has called his “secret weapon” in his bid to remake higher education.
The order aims to use the accrediting system to combat what Trump views as discriminatory practices and “ideological overreach” on college campuses, the White House said. The order intends to put a greater focus on intellectual diversity among faculty and student success.
It also would make it easier for schools to switch accreditors and for new accreditors to gain federal approval.
“Instead of pushing schools to adopt a divisive DEI ideology, accreditors should be focused on helping schools improve graduation rates and graduates’ performance in the labor market,” said Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
Trump signed a number of other education-related executive orders Wednesday, including ones looking at artificial intelligence and discipline policies in K-12 schools, one supporting historically Black colleges and universities, one on increasing apprenticeships and creating job pipelines, and another reinforcing rules universities must follow when reporting foreign funds.
Accreditors play a role largely unseen to the public but crucial for universities, setting standards that must be met to access federal financial aid. The federal government gave $120.8 billion in loans, grants and work-study funds to more than 9.9 million students in the year ended last September. To earn an accreditor’s seal of approval, higher-education institutions must prove they meet wide-ranging standards covering everything from their mission and admissions policies to the quality of their faculty and programming.
Few schools ever lose their accreditation, even ones with low graduation and job-placement rates.
Trump and other Republicans have long criticized the accreditation process, calling it a cartel that stifles competition and doesn’t help police colleges and universities with poor student outcomes. Accreditors, which must be approved by the federal government, argue they help maintain the integrity of schools and work with those that are struggling.
On the campaign trail, Trump dubbed accreditation a “secret weapon” to influence colleges and universities. In an interview earlier this month, McMahon said the current batch of accreditors is “too finite a group, and it should be expanded.”
Accreditation has rarely become a political talking point, those in the industry say.
Trump has moved swiftly to reshape higher education since coming into office. Proposed cuts to National Institutes of Health funding, currently being fought over in court, have caused universities to freeze hiring, rescind graduate student offers and pause research. The White House has targeted several Ivy League schools, including Columbia, Harvard, Princeton and Brown, with federal grant cuts or freezes, citing antisemitism concerns.
Changes to the accreditation process could have a broad reach.
“Revoking accreditation is an existential threat for these universities,” said Andrew Gillen, a research fellow at the Cato Institute. “If you lose Pell grants and lose student loans, for most colleges that means you’re done.”
During Trump’s first administration, he eliminated geographic restrictions that had given some accreditors control over specific regions in the country. Now, universities are free to choose their oversight body, though few have switched since the rule changed in 2019.
Florida and North Carolina, meanwhile, passed laws requiring public institutions to change accreditors during each approximately 10-year cycle, after some Republicans disagreed with actions by the primary accreditor for southern states.
Some conservatives have called for stronger changes to the watchdog function of higher education, including proposals to make schools accountable for the federal loans their students take out. Right now, schools aren’t penalized if graduates default on loans.
A so-called skin-in-the-game approach “would give them a very strong incentive to up their standards,” said George Leef with the conservative-leaning James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
Others have suggested making states solely responsible for accreditation, or relying more heavily on student outcomes.
Right now there are around 60 accreditors approved by the Education Department. New accreditors seeking federal approval currently must undergo a yearslong process. In early April, the Education Department told existing accreditors that their regular review process would be simplified, which could free up staff to handle more new accreditor applications.
Some accreditors have pushed back on the notion that they force universities to adopt diversity, equity and inclusion measures, saying they leave it up to schools to implement their own missions.
There have already been some dust-ups between the Trump administration and accreditors over diversity requirements.
The American Bar Association’s law school accrediting arm said in February it would pause enforcement of a standard that requires schools to consider diversity in hiring and admissions, which was in the process of being revised. Attorney General Pam Bondi sent the accreditor a letter demanding the requirement be permanently scrapped, and the ABA responded that it wouldn’t revisit the rule again before May.
Accreditors gained prominence as a watchdog in the 1950s, when the federal government wanted to ensure that veterans using GI Bill funds to go to college weren’t getting swindled. To keep accreditation, schools must answer extensive questions and undergo site visits every five to 10 years, a time-consuming and expensive process.
Even those unhappy with the current accreditation system agree that some guardrails are needed against degree mills and fly-by-night schools trying to take students’ money.
“This should not be a political fight,” said Michael Poliakoff, a critic of the current accreditation system who sits on the federal committee that approves the accreditors themselves. “Things like graduation rates, return on investment for a college degree, job placement rates and loan repayment, these shouldn’t be partisan issues, these affect everybody.”
OP Note: and he knows more than anyone else when it comes to higher education. Remember Trump University?
By Sara Randazzo and Meridith McGraw
Updated April 23, 2025 6:27 pm ET
President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to shake up the arcane but pivotal world of college accreditation, a move Trump has called his “secret weapon” in his bid to remake higher education.
The order aims to use the accrediting system to combat what Trump views as discriminatory practices and “ideological overreach” on college campuses, the White House said. The order intends to put a greater focus on intellectual diversity among faculty and student success.
It also would make it easier for schools to switch accreditors and for new accreditors to gain federal approval.
“Instead of pushing schools to adopt a divisive DEI ideology, accreditors should be focused on helping schools improve graduation rates and graduates’ performance in the labor market,” said Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
Trump signed a number of other education-related executive orders Wednesday, including ones looking at artificial intelligence and discipline policies in K-12 schools, one supporting historically Black colleges and universities, one on increasing apprenticeships and creating job pipelines, and another reinforcing rules universities must follow when reporting foreign funds.
Accreditors play a role largely unseen to the public but crucial for universities, setting standards that must be met to access federal financial aid. The federal government gave $120.8 billion in loans, grants and work-study funds to more than 9.9 million students in the year ended last September. To earn an accreditor’s seal of approval, higher-education institutions must prove they meet wide-ranging standards covering everything from their mission and admissions policies to the quality of their faculty and programming.
Few schools ever lose their accreditation, even ones with low graduation and job-placement rates.
Trump and other Republicans have long criticized the accreditation process, calling it a cartel that stifles competition and doesn’t help police colleges and universities with poor student outcomes. Accreditors, which must be approved by the federal government, argue they help maintain the integrity of schools and work with those that are struggling.
On the campaign trail, Trump dubbed accreditation a “secret weapon” to influence colleges and universities. In an interview earlier this month, McMahon said the current batch of accreditors is “too finite a group, and it should be expanded.”
Accreditation has rarely become a political talking point, those in the industry say.
Trump has moved swiftly to reshape higher education since coming into office. Proposed cuts to National Institutes of Health funding, currently being fought over in court, have caused universities to freeze hiring, rescind graduate student offers and pause research. The White House has targeted several Ivy League schools, including Columbia, Harvard, Princeton and Brown, with federal grant cuts or freezes, citing antisemitism concerns.
Changes to the accreditation process could have a broad reach.
“Revoking accreditation is an existential threat for these universities,” said Andrew Gillen, a research fellow at the Cato Institute. “If you lose Pell grants and lose student loans, for most colleges that means you’re done.”
During Trump’s first administration, he eliminated geographic restrictions that had given some accreditors control over specific regions in the country. Now, universities are free to choose their oversight body, though few have switched since the rule changed in 2019.
Florida and North Carolina, meanwhile, passed laws requiring public institutions to change accreditors during each approximately 10-year cycle, after some Republicans disagreed with actions by the primary accreditor for southern states.
Some conservatives have called for stronger changes to the watchdog function of higher education, including proposals to make schools accountable for the federal loans their students take out. Right now, schools aren’t penalized if graduates default on loans.
A so-called skin-in-the-game approach “would give them a very strong incentive to up their standards,” said George Leef with the conservative-leaning James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal.
Others have suggested making states solely responsible for accreditation, or relying more heavily on student outcomes.
Right now there are around 60 accreditors approved by the Education Department. New accreditors seeking federal approval currently must undergo a yearslong process. In early April, the Education Department told existing accreditors that their regular review process would be simplified, which could free up staff to handle more new accreditor applications.
Some accreditors have pushed back on the notion that they force universities to adopt diversity, equity and inclusion measures, saying they leave it up to schools to implement their own missions.
There have already been some dust-ups between the Trump administration and accreditors over diversity requirements.
The American Bar Association’s law school accrediting arm said in February it would pause enforcement of a standard that requires schools to consider diversity in hiring and admissions, which was in the process of being revised. Attorney General Pam Bondi sent the accreditor a letter demanding the requirement be permanently scrapped, and the ABA responded that it wouldn’t revisit the rule again before May.
Accreditors gained prominence as a watchdog in the 1950s, when the federal government wanted to ensure that veterans using GI Bill funds to go to college weren’t getting swindled. To keep accreditation, schools must answer extensive questions and undergo site visits every five to 10 years, a time-consuming and expensive process.
Even those unhappy with the current accreditation system agree that some guardrails are needed against degree mills and fly-by-night schools trying to take students’ money.
“This should not be a political fight,” said Michael Poliakoff, a critic of the current accreditation system who sits on the federal committee that approves the accreditors themselves. “Things like graduation rates, return on investment for a college degree, job placement rates and loan repayment, these shouldn’t be partisan issues, these affect everybody.”
OP Note: and he knows more than anyone else when it comes to higher education. Remember Trump University?
