Education Department Moves to Eliminate "Regional Accreditor" Label in Major Higher Ed Shake-Up

The Trump administration moved Thursday to eliminate the term "regional accreditor" from higher education, proposing an interpretive rule that would bar accrediting agencies, colleges, and universities from using terminology officials say creates "inappropriate barriers" and misleads students by suggesting some accreditors are superior to others based on outdated geographic distinctions rather than actual educational quality.

Proposed Rule Targets "Artificially Inflated Prestige"

The U.S. Department of Education issued the proposed interpretive rule Thursday, clarifying that phrases like "regionally accredited" create artificial distinctions among accreditors and institutions that prioritize prestige over student outcomes. The rule would require institutional accreditors to describe their scope as "national" or "institutional" rather than "regional."

"Accreditors, institutions of higher education, states, and professional licensure boards continue to cling to outdated terminology that prioritizes artificially inflated prestige over real student outcomes," said Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent. "Through this proposed interpretive rule, the Trump Administration is advancing reforms to strengthen higher education and reduce barriers for students, families, and taxpayers."

The Department emphasized it holds all recognized institutional accreditors to the same standards regardless of geographic scope, with the goal of promoting high-quality education that supports student success.

The History and Hierarchy of Accreditation

For more than a century, American higher education accreditation operated through a system of six regional accrediting bodies that evaluated colleges and universities within specific geographic areas. These organizations—the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, New England Commission of Higher Education, Higher Learning Commission (North Central), Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, and Western Association of Schools and Colleges—historically accredited traditional nonprofit colleges and universities.

Simultaneously, "national" accreditors primarily evaluated for-profit institutions, career colleges, and distance education providers. Over time, a hierarchy developed where "regional" accreditation became synonymous with quality and legitimacy, while "national" accreditation faced skepticism and was sometimes viewed as inferior.

This distinction carried significant practical consequences: colleges often refused to accept transfer credits from "nationally" accredited institutions, employers sometimes questioned degrees from such schools, and professional licensing boards in some states required graduation from "regionally" accredited programs.

The 2019 Regulatory Change

The Department of Education eliminated the concept of "regional" accreditors from federal regulations in 2019, conforming rules to the statutory requirement in Section 101 of the Higher Education Act that institutions must be "accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association."

That 2019 final rule designated all accrediting agencies recognized by the Secretary of Education as "nationally recognized accrediting agencies," officially ending the federal distinction between regional and national accreditors.

However, five years after that regulatory change, many stakeholders in higher education continue using the old terminology. Recognized accreditors still market themselves as "regional," colleges prominently display "regional accreditation" in admissions materials, transfer credit policies explicitly require "regional" accreditation, and state licensing boards maintain "regional" accreditation requirements for professional credentials.

Real-World Impact on Students

The Department's announcement Thursday highlighted concrete ways the "regional" label harms students and drives up costs:

Transfer Credit Discrimination: Many colleges maintain transfer credit policies that deny students credits earned at "nationally" accredited institutions, even when those institutions meet the same federal quality standards as "regionally" accredited schools. Students must retake courses they've already completed and paid for, extending time to degree completion and increasing costs.

Professional Licensure Barriers: Some state professional licensing boards require degrees from "regionally" accredited institutions, potentially limiting career opportunities for graduates of high-quality "nationally" accredited programs.

Confusion for Families: The terminology misleads students and families trying to evaluate college options, suggesting that geographic scope indicates quality when federal standards apply equally to all recognized accreditors.

Artificial Market Segmentation: The distinction helps maintain traditional higher education hierarchies that may not reflect actual educational quality or student outcomes, potentially protecting established institutions from competition.

Who's Affected?

The proposed interpretive rule would apply to multiple stakeholders:

Accrediting Agencies: The seven former "regional" accreditors would be prohibited from describing themselves as "regional" in official communications, marketing materials, or documentation. They would need to update websites, brochures, and all public-facing materials.

Colleges and Universities: Institutions would be barred from advertising "regional accreditation" in admissions materials, websites, or marketing. They would need to describe their accreditation status accurately using terms like "institutionally accredited" or referencing their specific accreditor by name.

State Education Agencies: States would need to revise policies, regulations, and guidance documents that reference "regional" accreditation, particularly in transfer credit agreements and articulation policies.

Professional Licensing Boards: State boards governing professions like nursing, teaching, counseling, and others would need to update licensure requirements that currently specify "regional" accreditation.

Implementation Timeline and Public Comment

The proposed interpretive rule is now open for public comment through March 19, 2026. Comments must be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov—the Department will not accept comments by fax or email.

After reviewing public comments, the Department will decide whether to finalize the interpretive rule as proposed, modify it based on feedback, or withdraw it entirely. As an interpretive rule rather than a substantive regulation, it clarifies existing requirements rather than creating new legal obligations, potentially allowing faster implementation than traditional rulemaking.

If finalized, the rule would take effect upon publication in the Federal Register, though the Department may provide transition time for affected parties to update materials and policies.

Broader Trump Education Agenda

The proposed rule fits within the Trump administration's broader higher education reform agenda, which has included confronting elite universities over alleged antisemitism, pressuring institutions to eliminate diversity programs, and severing military education partnerships over ideological concerns.

The accreditation proposal represents one of the administration's more direct interventions in higher education's operational structure, potentially reshaping how institutions present themselves and evaluate each other.

What Happens Next

Higher education stakeholders have until March 19 to submit comments on the proposed rule. The Department will review feedback before deciding on final implementation. Accrediting agencies, colleges, and professional boards should begin preparing for potential changes while monitoring the rulemaking process.

This developing story represents a significant shift in how American higher education operates, with implications for student mobility, college marketing, and the competitive landscape among institutions.