WASHINGTON — After a tumultuous year for the higher education sector, accreditors — the quality-control bodies that act as gatekeepers to federal student aid for institutions — are taking stock.
This week, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation held its annual conference in Washington, D.C., as the sector tries to chart a path forward amid policy uncertainty, political pressure and wavering support for higher ed.
Here’s a look at some of the big issues that took center stage, including potential regulations for accreditors from the Trump administration and the launch of new accreditation bodies.
A year of policy whiplash, and more to come
Higher education has seen tidal policy shifts under President Donald Trump’s second term, and it’s only been a year.
At this week’s CHEA conference, Jon Fansmith, the American Council on Education’s senior vice president for government relations, said more potential shifts could be coming down the pike, including to the accreditation system.
The administration is “moving away from the individual targeting of institutions to a broader, systematic set of changes that will impact all institutions — and accreditation is the forefront of that effort,” Fansmith said.
He pointed to Trump’s executive order last April mandating accreditors to focus on student outcomes and taking aim at their requirements around diversity, equity and inclusion. Additionally, the president directed the U.S. Department of Education to lift a pause on reviewing new accreditors and to make it easier to bring more into the field.
Fansmith also pointed to the Education Department redistributing grant funding to give nearly $15 million to support creating new institutional and programmatic accreditors and to help institutions switch agencies. More recently, the department said it plans to develop new regulations to make it easier for new accreditors to gain recognition and to curb their DEI standards.
“We are very worried about the independence of accreditation … and this administration’s efforts to bring more political and ideological influence over the accreditation process,” Fansmith said. “We would be concerned about any administration having that authority. That’s not the purpose of accreditation. That is not why accreditation has worked so successfully over time.”
The accreditor-college relationship in turbulent times
Trust between institutions and accreditors plays a crucial role in the higher ed system. But that relationship is under scrutiny, as politicians — especially Republicans — look to shake up accreditation and add new quality control bodies.
One of those is the Commission for Public Higher Education, an accreditor formed last year by six Southern public higher education networks. The body plans to seek federal recognition in fiscal 2027 and has received $1 million in grants from the Education Department to help it get off the ground.
Speaking on a panel, CPHE board chair Mark Becker — who has also served as president of Georgia State University and of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities — said he called the leaders of the systems that launched the accreditor “to make sure that this wasn’t a political boondoggle.”
“Within those systems, they’ve been frustrated with accreditation for a long time,” Becker added, pointing to what he described as “overly intrusive accreditors” getting “in the business of institutions when it wasn’t their job.”
Among CPHE’s founding state systems, Florida’s has come under scrutiny by its accreditor over potential political interference, while the University of North Carolina has faced similar scrutiny over governance in creating a new civic life center. Both states enacted laws mandating their public colleges to seek new accreditors every cycle, though North Carolina lawmakers rolled back that requirement last year.
Becker said the focus of CPHE is to create an accreditor focused on efficiency and transparency, as well as on outcomes over process and bureaucracy.
Positive or negative, the relationship between institution and accreditor is arguably more important than ever. Amid the uncertainty hanging over higher ed, “there has to be trust with the universities and their accreditors,” said Darryll Pines, president of the University of Maryland, College Park. He noted that he was happy with UMD’s accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
For the relationship between quality assurers and institutions to work, Pines said accreditors need to communicate their standards clearly, provide useful examples how to meet those standards, and respect the mission and core values of the institutions they work with.
Do colleges actually want to switch accreditors?
Politicians like Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — who championed the formation of CPHE — have heaped criticism on legacy accreditors and the system writ large. They have also backed the creation of new accreditors and supported making it easier for colleges to change agencies.
Moreover, regulatory changes under the first Trump administration eliminated the geographic boundaries of regional accreditors, opening up more options for colleges.
But do colleges actually want to change?
At the CHEA conference, Cecilia Bibbò, a visiting professor at the University at Albany, discussed a survey she and colleagues conducted examining this question, as well as the practical obstacles to changing accreditors.
They found that 80% of college leaders surveyed had no plans to change accreditors, and only a very small fraction had begun the process to switch. Reasons that could drive a switch include legislation mandating a change, as well as the accreditor being sanctioned or losing federal recognition, which would require the institution to produce excess paperwork or having DEI criteria.
Roughly half of respondents said they were “very satisfied” with their accreditor and another one-third said they were “somewhat satisfied.”
“Accreditor choice has not triggered rapid movement,” Bibbò said.
Surveyed leaders expressed concern over managing the transition between accreditors, with a large majority expecting such a process to bring some level of disruption. They anticipated heavy institutional costs, such as additional staff workload and the expense of maintaining two accreditors until the transition is complete.
Among the anticipated extra administrative tasks was producing new documentation for an accreditor, realigning processes and establishing the relationship.
If college leaders hypothetically had resources to manage the costs of switching, a majority said they were still likely to stick with their current accreditors.
“Responses emphasize stability, familiarity and trust,” Bibbò said. “So many institutions describe their accreditors as collegial, helpful and sensible, and value the longitudinal knowledge the accreditor has developed about their institution over time.”
Institutions try to win back trust
Among the top concerns of higher ed leaders are public and policymakers’ perceptions of the sector’s value.
It’s a topic that came up with some frequency at the CHEA conference, perhaps unsurprisingly, given the role quality assurance bodies play in public perceptions of the sector, not to mention college operations themselves.
“It’s a real problem of public relations. I think it’s our fault,” UMD’s Pines said. “We haven’t done a really good job as leaders in higher education, all of us in this room, of conveying to the general public — and to our own clients and decision-makers for our own respective states — of what is the value of higher education to the citizens of that state.”
For his part, Pines pointed to UMD’s role as a land-grant university, which includes conducting research to benefit its home state. He touted the university’s Grand Challenges Grants program, which launched in 2022 and provided institutional funding to support projects to address pressing issues. It has, among other things, led to a research program that helped reduce gun violence in Baltimore, Pines said.
“All we had to do was show faculty the money, and they come up with great ideas.”
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated how much grant money the Education Department had allotted to support new accreditors and institutions trying to change agencies. The story has been updated to revise that figure and also include additional information about North Carolina’s accreditation laws.