Screenshot of the Education Department Livestream
Screenshot of the Education Department Livestream

The Trump administration's war on university accreditation escalated dramatically Tuesday as Education Under Secretary Nicholas Kent told a federal advisory panel to "buckle up" for sweeping changes designed to end what he characterized as the use of accreditation standards as a "political weapon" to enforce liberal ideology on campuses.

The first meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) since Education Secretary Linda McMahon and other Trump officials were confirmed featured fiery rhetoric against accreditors, partisan seating arrangements that divided members by political affiliation, and the election of Jay Greene—a former Heritage Foundation researcher and vocal DEI critic—as committee chair after a dramatic tie vote.

The meeting signals that President Donald Trump's longstanding skepticism of the current accreditation system is translating into concrete action, with the administration promising to strip federal recognition from accreditors it deems insufficiently focused on outcomes while making it easier for new, Trump-friendly accrediting bodies to enter the market.

"Instead of focusing on student outcomes and accountability to taxpayers, accreditation has functioned as a shield for incumbent institutions, or worse, as a tool for political and ideological enforcement," Kent declared. "We will end the practice of using accreditation as a political weapon. As we correct past abuses, we might be accused of weaponization, but those accusations will be false."

A Contested Chair Election

The meeting's first order of business—electing a new NACIQI chair—immediately highlighted the panel's partisan divisions. After an initial vote ended in a 9-9 tie, Jay Greene, one of five new Trump appointees named in November, won the chairmanship on a second ballot after Republican appointee Jennifer Blum abstained, having voted against Greene in the first round.

Greene, a former senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and sharp critic of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in higher education, promised "to be a fair, even-handed chair" despite the "awkwardness" of the contested vote.

The election underscored how NACIQI—traditionally a relatively low-profile technical advisory body—has become increasingly politicized as both Democrats and Republicans view accreditation as leverage over universities they believe have strayed from their preferred values.

NACIQI's role is significant: the 18-member panel advises the Education Department on whether to grant or continue federal recognition of accrediting agencies. Since colleges must be accredited by a federally-recognized accreditor to receive federal student aid—the lifeblood of most institutions—NACIQI's recommendations carry enormous weight over higher education's governance structure.

"We're Breaking the Mold"

Kent's remarks following the chair election made clear the Trump administration intends to fundamentally reshape accreditation, not merely tinker with existing structures.

The under secretary accused accreditors of forcing "universities [to] spend millions of dollars complying with trivial or even counterproductive demands imposed by accreditors, while glaring deficiencies that undermine student success go unaddressed."

Instead, Kent argued, accreditors should focus on concrete outcomes: graduation rates, academic rigor, job placement statistics, post-graduation earnings, student debt levels, and other metrics that demonstrate whether institutions are actually serving students well or merely extracting tuition while providing poor education.

"We will end the practice of using accreditation as a political weapon," Kent repeated, suggesting the Trump administration views current accreditation standards—particularly those related to diversity, campus climate, and equity—as tools liberal accreditors use to impose ideological conformity on reluctant institutions.

Kent also accused accreditors of failing to respond adequately to campus antisemitism following the October 7, 2023 terrorist attacks on Israel, which triggered pro-Palestinian protests at universities that many Republicans characterized as creating hostile environments for Jewish students. This echoes broader Trump administration messaging that higher education institutions and their overseers have tolerated antisemitism while cracking down on conservative speech.

The under secretary further claimed accreditors have "inserted ideological criteria into standards" that fuel "discriminatory practices, mandatory DEI requirements, racial preferences in hiring, compulsory sensitivity training and political litmus tests" that "undermine merit" and "chill free speech."

Most institutional accreditors paused or suspended DEI-related standards earlier in 2025 following a Trump executive order seeking to eliminate diversity initiatives across federally-funded entities, though some accreditors never had such standards to begin with. The continued focus on DEI in Kent's remarks suggests the administration believes accreditors haven't gone far enough in purging diversity considerations from their review processes.

Encouraging New Accreditor Competition

Beyond attacking existing accreditors, Kent emphasized the Trump administration's efforts to make it easier to launch new accrediting bodies—a move critics view as an attempt to create more compliant alternatives to established regional and national accreditors that maintain standards Trump officials find objectionable.

"We're making it easier to launch new accreditors, which is necessary to 'drive innovation' and disrupt the status quo," Kent said.

Some aspiring accreditors have already responded to these signals. The Commission for Public Higher Education, for example, is working toward federal recognition and has attracted ten universities seeking accreditation through this new body.

The implicit threat is clear: established accreditors that resist Trump administration priorities may lose federal recognition, with new competitors ready to accredit universities under standards more aligned with conservative preferences. This creates market pressure on existing accreditors to align with administration expectations or risk becoming irrelevant as institutions flee to more accommodating alternatives.

Partisan Seating and Democratic Pushback

The meeting's partisan atmosphere prompted sharp criticism from Bob Shireman, a Democratic appointee and former Education Department official during the Obama administration.

Shireman noted that NACIQI members were introduced by their political affiliation—whether appointed by Republicans or Democrats—and were seated accordingly, with Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other.

"Historically, concerns about accreditation have been bipartisan, as has NACIQI," Shireman argued, characterizing the seating arrangement and partisan introductions as evidence of "extreme partisanship" that undermines the panel's technical advisory function.

Kent's response made clear the Trump administration has no interest in maintaining past norms.

"We're breaking the mold in this administration. We're doing things differently, we're conducting negotiated rule makings differently," Kent said. "I think we all agree there are real issues with NACIQI, there are real issues with the accreditation recognition process. We're going to fix a lot of it. So everybody, buckle up, we got a lot of work ahead of us."

The "buckle up" phrasing—simultaneously colloquial and ominous—signals the administration views disruption as desirable rather than problematic, and that stakeholders expecting gradual, consensus-driven change should prepare for something more aggressive.

DEI Questions Dominate Compliance Reviews

Beyond Kent's opening salvo, politics permeated other aspects of the meeting, particularly during compliance reports from accrediting agencies.

Several NACIQI members, especially Trump appointees, repeatedly questioned accreditors about diversity, equity and inclusion standards—even though most had already suspended or modified such requirements following Trump's April executive order threatening to strip federal recognition from accreditors requiring institutions to engage in unlawful diversity practices.

Democratic appointee Zakiya Smith Ellis pushed back, noting that accreditor standards "aren't particularly descriptive about what diversity, equity, or inclusion means" and that Trump's executive orders "do not have [the] force of law"—suggesting they cannot override statutory requirements or legitimately compel accreditors to eliminate all consideration of diversity in institutional reviews.

The tension reflects fundamental disagreements about what accreditation should assess. Trump officials and conservative appointees argue merit, outcomes, and taxpayer value should be paramount, with diversity considerations at best irrelevant and at worst discriminatory obstacles to excellence. Democratic appointees and many accreditors contend that institutional climate, equity in access and outcomes, and attention to serving diverse student populations are legitimate quality indicators that shouldn't be eliminated based on political ideology.

The Columbia University Case

Republican appointee Gary Ransdell raised compliance concerns at Columbia University, which the Trump administration has accused of failing to enforce federal nondiscrimination laws during pro-Palestinian protests in spring 2024.

Earlier this year, Education Secretary McMahon urged Columbia's accreditor, Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), to take action against the university. The accreditor responded by issuing Columbia a non-compliance warning—a serious sanction that can precede loss of accreditation if problems aren't addressed.

MSCHE President Heather Perfetti explained that Columbia provided a response report in November, and that under MSCHE's standards, the university would receive a campus visit from an evaluation team whose recommendation would go to a committee and ultimately to the full commission for decision at its March meeting.

However, the issue appears largely moot given Columbia's settlement with the Trump administration earlier in 2025. That agreement saw Columbia pay a $221 million penalty and commit to sweeping changes in admissions, disciplinary processes, academic programs and more in exchange for the federal government resolving its investigations.

Part of the settlement noted that the Trump administration would notify MSCHE of the government's "release of liability" following the deal—effectively signaling that the accreditor should close its compliance case since the federal government had resolved concerns through direct settlement.

The Columbia case illustrates how the Trump administration is bypassing traditional accreditation processes—negotiating massive financial settlements and policy changes directly with universities, then informing accreditors that their compliance reviews are no longer necessary. This reduces accreditors' role from independent quality assessors to implementers of politically-driven federal mandates.

Broader Context: Years of Growing Politicization

Tuesday's contentious meeting represents the culmination of years of increasing political attention to accreditation from both parties.

Democrats have criticized accreditors for failing to hold for-profit colleges accountable for poor student outcomes and for being too deferential to established institutions with weak graduation rates or employment results. They pushed (unsuccessfully under Biden) for requirements that accreditors set specific student achievement benchmarks.

Republicans, meanwhile, have increasingly viewed accreditors as enforcers of liberal ideology—particularly regarding diversity requirements, campus speech policies, and responses to controversies like pro-Palestinian protests. Trump explicitly pledged during his 2024 campaign to "fire the radical left accreditors" and replace them with bodies focused on "defending the American tradition and Western civilization."

The April 2025 executive order threatening to strip recognition from accreditors requiring unlawful diversity practices represented the opening shot in Trump's accreditation war. The Education Department is now seeking public comment on accreditation reform and planning to update accreditor rules in 2026.

The NACIQI meeting Tuesday showed how these abstract threats are becoming concrete actions: partisan control of the advisory panel, explicit promises to favor new competitors over established accreditors, and rhetoric framing current standards as political weapons rather than quality assurance tools.

What Happens Next

The Trump administration's accreditation agenda includes several concurrent efforts:

Rule Changes: The Education Department plans to update regulations governing accreditor recognition in 2026, likely incorporating outcomes-focused requirements while eliminating or restricting diversity-related standards.

New Competitor Recognition: The administration is actively encouraging and fast-tracking recognition applications from new accrediting bodies willing to use standards aligned with Trump priorities.

Pressure on Existing Accreditors: Through NACIQI oversight, public criticism, and threats of derecognition, the administration is pushing established accreditors to modify standards or risk losing federal recognition.

Direct University Settlements: As with Columbia, the administration may bypass accreditors entirely by negotiating direct settlements with universities over alleged violations, then instructing accreditors to close parallel reviews.

The cumulative effect could fundamentally transform how higher education quality is defined and assessed in America. If the Trump administration succeeds in replacing or reshaping accreditors to prioritize metrics like job placement and earnings while minimizing attention to campus climate, diversity, and equity, it would mark the most significant change to higher education governance in decades.

Implications for Universities

Universities face difficult strategic decisions as accreditation battles intensify:

Stick With Established Accreditors: Remain with regional or national accreditors that have decades of experience and broad recognition, but may face pressure or derecognition from Trump officials.

Switch to New Accreditors: Move to Trump-friendly upstart accreditors that will face less federal scrutiny but may lack credibility with graduate schools, employers, or students.

Modify Policies Preemptively: Eliminate diversity programs, change admissions processes, or adjust campus policies proactively to avoid accreditor or federal government scrutiny.

Fight Back: Join with other institutions, accreditors, and advocacy groups to challenge Trump administration actions in court as exceeding statutory authority or violating Administrative Procedure Act requirements.

Most universities will likely pursue some combination—modifying obvious targets like DEI programs while hoping judicial challenges might limit the administration's most aggressive moves.

The "Buckle Up" Presidency

Kent's "buckle up" warning to accreditors captures the Trump administration's broader approach to higher education: aggressive disruption of established structures, explicit partisan control of previously technical bodies, and willingness to use federal leverage to reshape institutions according to ideological preferences.

Whether this represents necessary accountability for complacent bureaucracies or dangerous politicization of academic governance depends largely on political perspective. What's undeniable is that American higher education's governance structures are facing their most significant upheaval in generations—with the outcome uncertain and stakes enormous for universities, accreditors, and the students they ostensibly serve.

For now, as Kent promised, everybody should indeed buckle up. The ride is just beginning.