For decades, accreditation has operated quietly in the background of American higher education. Few students understand it. Most faculty tolerate it. Administrators dread it.
Now, it’s at the center of a political battle.
Nicholas Kent, the under secretary of education charged with carrying out the Trump administration’s higher-ed agenda, has declared that the accreditation system is “failing institutions, students, and taxpayers.” The administration is preparing sweeping regulatory changes, with rulemaking sessions scheduled for this spring.
On the surface, the argument sounds reasonable: rising tuition, mounting student-loan debt, and uneven graduation rates demand accountability. Who could object to better student outcomes?
But look closer. This isn’t just reform. It’s a redefinition of what accreditation is — and who controls it.
From Quality Assurance to Political Lever
Accreditation has traditionally been a peer-review process. Private nonprofit agencies evaluate whether colleges meet standards related to curriculum, faculty, student support, and institutional stability. The federal government recognizes accreditors so that institutions can access Pell Grants and federal loans — but historically, it hasn’t dictated the substance of their standards.
That line now appears to be shifting.
President Trump previously described accreditation as a “secret weapon” to bring colleges into alignment with federal priorities. The current proposals would:
- Make it easier to create new accrediting agencies
- Increase competition among accreditors
- Require accreditors to certify institutional compliance with civil-rights and First Amendment laws
- Discourage or prohibit standards tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts
Framed as deregulation, these proposals simultaneously expand federal influence over what accreditors can and cannot prioritize.
This is not just bureaucratic housekeeping. It’s structural change.
The Competition Argument — And Its Risks
The administration argues that more competition among accreditors will lower costs and improve quality. In theory, competition can drive innovation.
In practice, it can also trigger a race to the bottom.
If colleges can shop for the least demanding accreditor, the incentive shifts from improving quality to finding the easiest pathway to federal eligibility. Accreditation only works if standards are trusted and rigorous. Diluting that credibility could erode the very “quality assurance” system the administration claims to strengthen.
There is also a deeper irony: while calling for deregulation, the department is proposing new mandates that would require accreditors to police compliance with a broader range of laws. That expands their enforcement role — even as it narrows the scope of standards they can adopt independently.
Deregulation on paper. Recalibration of power in practice.
DEI at the Center of the Fight
Perhaps the most controversial proposal is the effort to steer accreditors away from standards related to governance and racial equity or inclusion.
The administration argues that accreditors should not “impose ideology.” Critics counter that ensuring a welcoming and nondiscriminatory campus environment is not ideology — it is central to educational quality and student success.
This tension reveals a deeper philosophical divide:
- Is accreditation about measurable outputs only — graduation rates, debt ratios, employment?
- Or does it also encompass the broader conditions that shape whether students can thrive?
Reducing accreditation to metrics alone risks ignoring the structural factors that influence those very outcomes.
Accreditors Agree on Reform — But Not Control
Notably, accreditation leaders themselves acknowledge that reform is overdue. The process can be bureaucratic. It can be slow. It can burden institutions with paperwork rather than focus on impact.
There is common ground around simplifying processes and improving credit transfer. Few would argue against helping students move more easily between institutions.
But accreditors are also signaling caution. Their independence — and the peer-review model itself — could be compromised if federal authorities begin dictating which standards are permissible.
Accreditation was designed as a buffer between the government and academic institutions. Weakening that buffer changes the balance of governance in American higher education.
What’s Really at Stake
This debate isn’t just about regulatory language. It’s about control.
If accreditation becomes primarily a federal compliance tool, colleges may face a system that is less about improvement and more about enforcement. If competition is poorly structured, quality assurance could fragment. And if standards are narrowed too aggressively, accreditation may lose its ability to reflect the complexity of education itself.
At the same time, ignoring legitimate public concerns about cost and outcomes is not an option. Higher education must demonstrate value — clearly and credibly.
The real challenge is not choosing between accountability and autonomy.
It is designing a system that strengthens both.
As rulemaking begins this spring, one thing is certain: accreditation is no longer an obscure administrative process. It is a frontline battleground over the future of American higher education.
And the outcome will shape who defines quality — colleges, accreditors, or Washington.