Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.
A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.
For political reasons, the scenario faced by the University of the Arts is likely to become more common. Since the late 1800s accreditation has been the backbone of U.S. higher education: It is the process that ensures academic legitimacy, maintains quality, and grants institutions access to state and federal funds, including student aid. The process is complex, and even the abbreviations accreditors tend to go by, such as HLC, SACSCOC, NWCCU, and WSCUC, may sound unfamiliar to faculty members.
Every eight to 10 years colleges go through a thorough internal and external review of all aspects of their operations, finances, and student success and achievement. In between those detailed reviews, institutions provide annual reporting along with midterm reviews. Before 2019, geographically designated regional accreditors assessed institutions serving the vast majority of students; the remaining institutions were accredited by national faith-related or career-related accreditors. In 2019, Betsy DeVos, then the secretary of education, allowed colleges the flexibility to choose any federally recognized agency — including newly formed ones with ideological goals. Under the new Trump administration, the further politicization of this system now looms.
Critiques of accreditation are not new. Colleges — particularly small, tuition-dependent ones — have long grappled with the costs and administrative burdens of compliance. Reform advocates across the political spectrum have pushed for modernization, arguing that the system is too bureaucratic and slow to adapt. Perhaps the most persistent critique of accreditation is that it prioritizes institutional inputs over actual student outcomes.
In recent years, conservative policymakers have ratcheted up calls for accreditation reform. Organizations such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the Cato Institute, and the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, along with conservative lawmakers, argue that accrediting agencies reinforce progressive ideologies, stifle innovation, and impose excessive oversight on institutions. Others, such as State Rep. Terri Leo-Wilson, a Republican of Texas, have gone further, pushing for alternatives such as a state-level accreditation commission that would evaluate accreditation agencies (if an agency didn’t meet their requirements, the state commission could force colleges to seek accreditation from a different agency, thus weakening traditional accreditors).
Trump has called accreditation his “secret weapon,” framing it as a tool to reshape higher education by replacing existing accreditors with those aligned with his vision. Project 2025 proposes “attacking the accreditation cartel.” Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, have pushed legislation to limit accreditors’ regulatory power, particularly over public colleges in conservative states. The recently confirmed education secretary, Linda McMahon, has echoed these concerns.
Republican-led states have started to take aggressive steps to reshape accreditation at the state level. Institutions now have the ability to, either independently or through state mandates, seek accreditation from any federally recognized body. This could soon include newly created accreditors with specific ideological agendas. Conservatives pushing for accreditation reform have also sought to expand opportunities for for-profit educational enterprises. These efforts aim to increase competition in postsecondary education by creating more career-focused, competency-based programs that offer credentials and training certificates outside of the traditional system. (Current accreditors have heavily restricted for-profits’ access to federal financial aid, citing concerns about academic quality, high student-loan-default rates, and lack of accountability.) Florida and North Carolina have passed laws forcing public institutions to change accreditors every cycle, creating a constant state of flux. Other Republican-controlled states are poised to follow suit. Currently, conservative-led states oversee more than 1,800 higher-education institutions and more than 9.3 million students.
If colleges do not act, accreditation may no longer be about quality; it will be about politics.
For colleges, the financial fallout would be severe. Government sources account for 40-45 percent of revenue at public and private nonprofit institutions, and over 90 percent at private for-profit colleges. Smaller private institutions would face existential threats if federal aid were suddenly out of reach. Only those with significant alternative revenue sources — such as large endowments, extensive donor networks, or lucrative research funding — would be able to weather these cuts. The vast majority, however, would be forced to comply with any new accreditation mandates necessary to maintain access to Title IV funding.
For colleges, accreditation instability would compound other recent financial stresses — the 15-percent cap on indirect-cost reimbursements from the National Institutes of Health, widespread threats of federal-grant suspension, and the looming possibility of an endowment tax. Columbia University’s potential loss of $400 million in federal grants would pale in comparison to a loss of Title IV funding: Columbia receives approximately $1 billion in federal financial aid.
For students — particularly those from low- and middle-income backgrounds — the impact would be catastrophic. If federal aid disappeared, students would be forced to turn to private loans, which come with higher interest rates and fewer repayment protections. This could lead to increased loan defaults, deeper financial distress for graduates, and a widening gap in access to higher education.
Ultimately, institutions unable to offset the loss of Title IV funding would be left with few options. Without federal aid, colleges would be forced to make deep budget cuts, eliminate academic programs, and, in many cases, shut down altogether. The ripple effects would extend beyond campuses, affecting local economies, work-force development, and social mobility for future generations. In short, the stakes of accreditation instability are existential.
If the Department of Education is eliminated, states could gain full authority over accreditation, allowing them to create their own accrediting bodies with ideological priorities. This shift is not just theoretical — the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal has actively advocated for states to take control of accreditation, arguing that new state-based accreditors could “reduce duplication of efforts” and eliminate what they view as the overreach of federal agencies.
The National Association of Scholars has also proposed a model “Accreditation Autonomy Resolution” to accelerate this process, calling on states to “found their own accrediting organization” as a way to bypass traditional accreditors, which NAS argues impose unnecessary bureaucratic and social-justice requirements. In the Martin Center’s support of this effort, its president, Jenna A. Robinson, cited David Randall, director of research at NAS: “Now is a particularly good time to do so because the public realizes just how badly the accreditation cartel has served the public, and they want decisive and effective action to restore high standards and depoliticization to higher education.”
If these efforts succeed, the resulting fragmented system could lead to unrecognized degrees, limited credit transferability, and a divided education landscape. Employers and graduate programs might reject degrees from politically motivated accreditors, further disadvantaging students in affected states. Without federal oversight and consistency in standards, institutions in states with weak accreditation policies could see declining academic quality, further degrading public trust in higher education.
A Republican administration could introduce new conservative-aligned accrediting agencies, pressuring traditional bodies like the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) to adapt or risk losing federal recognition. Institutions that refuse to switch to these new agencies might face funding penalties, making accreditation decisions increasingly politicized.
How would this process work? New accrediting agencies must apply for federal recognition through the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), the advisory body that reviews accreditation applications and makes recommendations to the Department of Education on which agencies should be recognized. Recognition by NACIQI is a prerequisite for accreditors to serve as gatekeepers for federal student aid under Title IV funding. Without this approval, institutions accredited by these new agencies would be ineligible for federal financial aid, making NACIQI’s role pivotal in any efforts to reshape accreditation.
If a state or coalition of like-minded states were to establish a new accreditor — a “state accreditor” or a “new regional” accreditor — it would have to navigate this recognition process. In addition to seeking recognition from the Department of Education via NACIQI, accreditors may also pursue approval from organizations like the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. However, CHEA and NACIQI operate under different standards, with CHEA focused on academic quality and institutional improvement whereas the Department of Education prioritizes compliance with federal financial-aid requirements. As a result, an accrediting body could be recognized by one but not the other, further complicating the credibility and legitimacy of politically driven accreditors.
The result would likely be a bifurcated accreditation system, where institutions aligned with traditional accreditors maintain credibility while those accredited by new, politically driven agencies face skepticism. Employer confidence in degrees could erode, and student protections could weaken as accreditation standards become more flexible to accommodate ideological mandates.
Elite institutions with expansive endowments — primarily in Democratic-controlled states — could retain accreditation through legacy agencies and mitigate the financial impact of federal funding loss. Meanwhile, regional colleges, smaller private institutions, and for-profits might be forced into alternative accreditors with lower credibility.
This would create deep inequities in educational outcomes, where students from less-recognized institutions struggle to transfer credits, gain graduate-school admission, or secure competitive jobs. The result could be a permanently stratified higher-education system, reinforcing socioeconomic divides.
If colleges do not act, accreditation may no longer be about quality; it will be about politics. Institutions that lose accreditation or shift to unrecognized accreditors could forfeit Title IV aid, devastating their enrollment and budgets. Widespread institutional closures could result. Students attending institutions accredited by politically aligned agencies may find their credits unrecognized by traditional institutions, limiting their ability to transfer or pursue graduate education. In short, things could devolve quite quickly.
What warning signs should we look for? One of the earliest indicators would be the appointment of more conservative leaders to NACIQI and key roles within the Department of Education, signaling a shift toward accreditation policies that emphasize ideological realignment rather than institutional quality. If Congress moves to reduce or restructure Title IV funding, tighten eligibility requirements, or impose new restrictions on institutions accessing federal financial aid, this would mark a dramatic departure from the existing framework.
State-level developments could provide another strong indicator. The expansion of laws requiring institutions to regularly switch accreditors — following Florida and North Carolina’s model — would suggest growing political control over accreditation. If these mandates begin extending beyond public institutions to include private colleges, that would indicate a broader systemic overhaul. The creation and recognition of new accreditors that align with specific ideological or economic agendas would also demonstrate a coming overhaul.
In the meantime, institutions should be proactive. Advocacy for accreditation stability and transparency is crucial and requires colleges to engage policymakers and oppose policies that undermine institutional credibility. At the same time, they must strengthen institutional autonomy and academic freedom by resisting state-imposed accreditation mandates that conflict with their mission. Preparing for policy changes via contingency planning is also essential. Ensuring stability will require alternative revenue sources such as grants, endowments, and public-private partnerships to safeguard financial health and institutional independence.
The future of higher education will not be decided in classrooms or campus buildings, but in Washington and statehouses. If institutions do not fight for accreditation integrity now, they may not survive long enough to correct course later.
