Trump Reforms Accreditation

[Armando Ramos]

President Donald J. Trump Reforms Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education
The White House
April 23, 2025

HOLDING ACCREDITORS ACCOUNTABLE: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order to overhaul the higher education accreditation system, ensuring colleges and universities deliver high-quality, high-value education free from unlawful discrimination and ideological overreach.

• The Order directs the Secretary of Education to hold higher education “accreditors” accountable, including through denial, monitoring, suspension, or termination of accreditation recognition, for accreditors’ poor performance or violations of federal civil rights law.
  

• It directs the Attorney General and Secretary of Education to investigate and take action to terminate unlawful discrimination by American higher education institutions, including law schools and medical schools.
  

• The Order mandates the Secretary of Education realign accreditation with student-focused principles by:
  • Resuming recognition of new accreditors to foster competition.
    
  • Requiring institutions use program-level student outcome data to improve results, without reference to race, ethnicity, or sex.
    
  • Requiring high-quality, high-value academic programs.
    
  • Prioritizing intellectual diversity among faculty in order to advance academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning.
    
  • Launching an experimental site to test innovative quality assurance pathways.
    
  • Increasing the consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of the accreditor recognition review process.
    
  • Streamlining accreditor recognition and institutional transitions between accreditors.
    
  
  

ENSURING AMERICAN STUDENTS RECEIVE A HIGH-QUALITY EDUCATION: President Trump is tackling the broken accreditation system that has left students with soaring debt, low graduation rates, and degrees of questionable value.

• Accreditors—the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities can access over $100 billion in annual Federal student loans and Pell Grants—have routinely approved low-quality institutions, ultimately failing students, families, and American taxpayers.
  

• Accreditors have failed to ensure quality, with a national six-year undergraduate graduation rate of just 64% in 2020.
  

• Nearly 25% of bachelor’s degrees and over 40% of master’s degrees offer a negative return on investment, burdening students with debt and limited earning potential.
  

• Accreditors have also abused their authority by imposing discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-based standards, violating Federal law.
  • The American Bar Association’s (ABA) accreditation standards for law schools require unlawful race-based preferences, which the Attorney General recently reminded the ABA are illegal.
    
  • The Liaison Committee on Medical Education and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education imposes similar discriminatory requirements, prioritizing ideology over quality medical training.
    
  
  
• These practices have diverted focus from student success to ideological conformity, undermining academic integrity and student achievement.
  

RESTORING TRUST IN HIGHER EDUCATION: President Trump is protecting American students, families, and taxpayers from exploitative and unlawful practices in higher education.

• In his first term, President Trump took historic steps to promote school choice, expand apprenticeship programs, and increase transparency in college costs.
  

• This Executive Order builds on that legacy by reforming the accreditation system to prioritize student outcomes, eliminate unlawful discrimination, promote academic freedom and intellectual inquiry, and restore accountability.
  

• These reforms will rebuild public trust in higher education, empowering students and families to make informed choices.
  

[Albert Hidel]

The Consumer Mindset Undermines Colleges
A nation of student-consumers, rather than student leaders and thinkers, cannot sustain itself.
May 1, 2025 Jovan Tripkovic

A recent Inside Higher Ed Student Voice survey found that over 60 percent of college students view themselves as customers, an alarming sign for anyone concerned about the integrity and future of American higher education. This growing trend, increasingly normalized by both students and institutions, undermines the university’s original mission of educating informed citizens and upholding academic excellence.

Traditionally, universities have provided education, conducted research, and advanced knowledge, all while engaging with the broader community. From the beginning, colleges and universities have served as cornerstones of the American republic, preparing future leaders, educators, and public servants.

In post–World War II America, a mix of factors—including a demographic boom and a surge in government funding—gradually pulled colleges and universities away from their original mission. Flush with G.I. Bill dollars and enrollees, institutions began broadening and democratizing their offerings, a shift that eventually led to today’s near-total emphasis on job training. Today, rather than cultivating civic and moral character or encouraging intellectual curiosity, many institutions have become little more than diploma mills and hedge funds with campuses.

The findings of Inside Higher Ed’s survey are alarming, though hardly surprising. Russell Kirk warned of this trend back in his 1978 book Decadence and Renewal in the Higher Learning. As early as the 1950s, Kirk was already describing colleges as expensive social clubs for the young and criticizing university presidents for turning institutions into little more than real-estate ventures.

When university administrators treat their institutions like businesses whose main product is a diploma, it’s no surprise that students begin to see themselves as customers. The spread of the customer-service mentality is a clear sign that many colleges and universities have lost sight of their academic mission, and it reflects a deeper cultural decline.

The damaging effects of the consumer mindset are visible across the higher-education landscape. In an effort to boost enrollment and student satisfaction, many universities have adopted policies that encourage grade inflation. By 2021, the average GPA at Harvard had reached a record 3.8, with 79 percent of students earning grades in the “A” range.

The rise of the customer-service model has shifted universities’ focus from academic excellence to expanding student services, fueling administrative bloat. Yale University is a striking example, recently drawing attention for having more administrators than students, with 5,460 administrators serving a student body of fewer than 5,000.

Hoping to attract more students, universities are now competing over who can offer the flashiest amenities. The race for luxury facilities has reached absurd levels—Louisiana State University’s lazy river, shaped like the school’s initials, has become a symbol of higher education’s wasteful spending.

In addition to becoming bloated with bureaucracy and equipped with luxury amenities, American universities—driven by a customer-service mindset—have shifted their focus from the pursuit of knowledge to virtue-signaling and comfort-seeking. DEI initiatives, safe spaces, and trigger-warning trainings have become standard offerings, all funded by student tuition and fees.

Who’s to blame for the fact that most students now see themselves as customers of their institutions? While student attitudes play a role, the larger responsibility lies with university administrators and outdated accreditation systems that put revenue and student satisfaction ahead of academic quality and institutional mission. Too often, colleges pour more money into recruitment and marketing than into actual instruction. Luxury amenities, DEI initiatives, and inflated tuition only reinforce the consumer mindset.

The student-consumer trend will only continue to grow unless colleges and lawmakers choose to push back. University leaders must start promoting education as a public good, not just a financial transaction. Common-sense reforms that emphasize a return to civics education, the liberal arts, and cost control are gaining traction as policy priorities nationwide.

States can play a major role in pushing back against the customer-service mindset by linking public funding to academic rigor rather than student-satisfaction metrics. Refocusing core curricula on civics education and the Western tradition is another way to challenge the rise of the student-as-consumer mentality.

Utah’s General Education Act and South Carolina’s REACH Act are encouraging steps toward meaningful higher-education reform. The General Education Act seeks to realign the core curriculum at Utah’s public universities with the Western tradition of liberal education, while the REACH Act requires students at South Carolina’s public colleges to complete a course in American history or government. Both measures address urgent gaps in today’s higher-education landscape.

We must rescue American higher education from the grip of the consumer mindset and marketplace mentality. This isn’t just a political or institutional problem—it’s a cultural one. A nation of student-consumers, rather than student leaders and thinkers, cannot sustain itself.

[Armando Ramos]

From Oversight to Monopoly: The Rise of the Accreditation Cartel

06/05/2025 • Mises Wire • Brae F. Sadler

On May 14, 2025, the American Council for Education, backed by over 50 higher education groups, issued a statement titled “A Call to Reforge the Historic Compact Between Higher Education and the Federal Government.” They’re pushing back against the Trump administration’s plan to cut university funding and eliminate DEI programs, claiming the government-university partnership makes American higher education “the envy of the world.”

But does government meddling improve our colleges? Let’s zero in on accreditation—the system that decides which schools get taxpayer funds and enables big institutions to block new competitors. The free market would do a better job of ensuring quality.

Consider the Middle States Commission on Higher Education—one of seven regional accreditors gatekeeping federal funding. It oversees many colleges, claiming to champion quality education, serve students, and wield power responsibly.

Sounds noble, doesn’t it? Yet, Middle States fails on three counts—its standards push progressive ideology over academics, support failing institutions, and fail to protect students’ free speech rights. The Commission reflects broader flaws in accreditation. The long-term solution is clear: reverse government intervention and let the free market drive higher education.

What is Accreditation?

Every year, the federal government doles out over $100 billion to college students through loans, grants, and work-study programs. But how does it decide which schools are worthy? It doesn’t. That job is outsourced to private gatekeepers: the accreditors.

Accreditation is pitched as a quality-control system for higher education. In reality, it’s a government-backed cartel. Seven regional accrediting agencies control access to federal funds. If a school isn’t accredited, its students can’t get federal aid. That’s the kiss of death in modern higher ed.

These accreditors aren’t neutral observers. They’re associations of existing colleges, meaning they have a strong incentive to block or limit competition. Imagine if new airlines had to get permission from Delta and United before taking off.

That wasn’t always the case. In the late 19th century, accreditation was voluntary. Colleges teamed up to set basic standards without government involvement. But in 1965, Congress passed the Higher Education Act and handed accreditors the keys to the federal vault. From that point on, accreditation was no longer optional—it was essential for survival.

Try starting a new college today. You’ll be asking your competitors to let you in. Between 2002 and 2022, fewer than 8 percent of newly-founded schools received regional accreditation. If that sounds like protectionism, that’s because it is.

And the control doesn’t stop there. Want to add graduate programs? Merge with another college? Launch a new curriculum? You’ll need permission from your accreditor. These agencies wield monopoly power, granted and enforced by the government.

Middle States: The Problem in Microcosm

In April 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to reform higher education accreditation. The order directed the Department of Education to investigate accreditor-imposed DEI standards and to fast-track the approval of new accrediting bodies.

The Middle States Commission on Higher Education—which oversees institutions in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, and several US territories—swiftly issued a defensive statement. “We have never abused our authority,” it insisted. “We do not approve low-quality institutions.” But Middle States fails on both counts—and a third: protecting student rights. In all three areas, Middle States illustrates the dangers of state-backed monopoly accreditation.

First, Middle States has openly politicized its standards by elevating DEI ideology to the level of institutional mission. In its Standards for Accreditation and Requirements of Affiliation (14th Edition), DEI is listed as one of the Commission’s 5 guiding principles. Officials at a conservative college I spoke with insisted DEI is only evaluated relative to an institution’s mission. But if that were true, why formalize DEI in the standards?

In reality, codifying DEI empowers progressives within the accreditation system and pressures Christian and conservative colleges to conform. Middle States’s ideological bias isn’t subtle—it signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting race-based admissions at Harvard and UNC Chapel Hill.

In a free market for accreditation, this kind of politicization would invite competition. Institutions that reject progressive ideology would flock to merit-based accreditors, forcing politicized ones to change or become obsolete.

Second, Middle States accredits failing institutions. It offers a binary certification: a school is either accredited or not, whether it’s the University of Pennsylvania or a local community college. Accreditation, in other words, tells you almost nothing about quality. Worse, it gives a veneer of legitimacy to collapsing institutions. Take the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. Despite years of financial decline and plummeting enrollment, it kept its Middle States accreditation until it announced its closure in 2024. Middle States didn’t revoke its accreditation—it waited for the school to fold.

In a competitive market, accreditors would have reputational skin in the game. Endorsing a failing institution would damage their brand and drive away member schools.

Third, Middle States has failed to uphold its own free speech standards. Its guidelines explicitly require member schools to protect academic freedom and free expression under Standard II. Yet, in 2017, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute cracked down on student protests, removed flyers, and enforced vague rules to suppress dissent. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed a formal complaint. Middle States never responded. A similar complaint involving NYU never resulted in meaningful action.

Today, five of Middle States’s accredited schools rank “poor” or “very poor” in FIRE’s free speech rankings. Without market pressure, there’s no incentive to investigate or enforce violations of free speech rights. Since other accreditors are not much better than Middle States, there aren’t competitive pressures to protect free speech.

Middle States is not unique; instead, the Commission is emblematic of accreditation’s problems. It shows what happens when an unaccountable, monopoly accreditor imposes political ideology, certifies failing colleges, and ignores student rights.

The Solution: A Market for Accreditation

Does accreditation improve the quality of higher education? Not when it’s backed by federal power. Government intervention shields accreditors from competition, allowing established institutions to block reform, suppress dissent, and entrench ideology.

It’s a good sign that the Trump administration is moving to reform the system. But the executive order doesn’t go far enough. The real problem is structural: accreditors enjoy monopoly control because they determine access to public funds. As long as the state picks the gatekeepers, accreditors have no reason to innovate, no fear of failure, and no accountability to students.

The solution isn’t better bureaucrats—it’s markets. Sever the link between accreditors and government money. Let institutions choose among competing evaluators. Let accreditors earn their reputation, not inherit it. Real reform means trusting markets, not the state.