Accreditation 101

This analysis is part of Mythbusting Accreditation, a written and multimedia series from New America’s Education Policy program. It features insights from experts across multiple fields to cut through false narratives about a crucial higher education accountability system.

The following is a primer on the system of American college accreditation, as well as an overview of recent policy developments in the industry.

What is accreditation?

Accreditation is the process by which it is established that a U.S. college has met certain quality assurance standards. It is one of three seals of approval required for a college to become eligible for federal student financial aid. Federal financial aid is a $120 billion funding stream that the U.S. Department of Education administers annually. That aid includes student loans and Pell Grants, which benefit low- and moderate-income students. 

The other two layers of approval come from the states and the Education Department. Congress developed this three-pronged system decades ago. It’s known as the triad.

Accreditors write the standards by which they evaluate colleges. They assess things like academic quality, financial stability, and the level of student support an institution provides.

Accreditors—not government officials—review college curricula, and in this way, help shield academic decisions from political interference.

The Education Department also may not exercise control over accreditors, according to federal law. That means that accreditors have freedom to develop their standards independently from the federal government. 

At the same time, the Education Department decides which accreditors can act as gatekeepers for federal financial aid. It reviews and approves them through a process known as recognition.

How does an accreditor become “recognized?”

An accreditor that wants to become recognized must apply to the Education Department. The potential accreditor must meet a lengthy list of requirements outlined in federal regulations to become recognized, which include functioning as an accreditor, and making decisions overseeing colleges, for at least two years. 

Department staff first make a recommendation on whether or not an accreditor should be recognized, followed by a review by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, more commonly known as NACIQI. 

This is an independent committee that advises the Education Department whether to recognize accrediting bodies, among other areas. It is composed of eighteen members, six each appointed by the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. education secretary. The nominations from the House and Senate are each split evenly between the majority and minority party.

NACIQI will also provide an opinion on whether the government should recognize an accreditor. 

Ultimately, though, a designated senior Education Department official makes the final call on whether to recognize an accreditor. 

What types of accreditors are there?

There are two primary types of accreditors. Institutional accreditors review colleges as a whole to assess whether they have the leadership, finances, and staff needed to operate effectively. While they may consider how individual departments function, they do not evaluate or accredit those departments separately. Previously, some institutional accreditors were known as “regional” accrediting agencies, meaning they could only oversee colleges within a specific geographic area. Policy changes during both of the Trump administrations eliminated the regional designation. 

Programmatic accreditors only evaluate specific programs or departments tied to a field or profession, like medicine, law, or massage therapy. Some states require students to graduate from these accredited programs to get licensed.

How do accreditors evaluate colleges?

Accreditors review colleges based on standards they develop, and with input from programs or institutions they oversee. Although accreditors draft the standards themselves, they must assess a baseline set of factors that’s set out in federal law—everything from student outcomes and curricula to finances, faculty, and recruiting practices.

Accreditors consider all of these factors when they’re first deciding whether to approve a college for federal aid. Accrediting bodies reevaluate their colleges typically every five to ten years, unless they are alerted of possible violation of standards. They also monitor their colleges regularly.

The process to become accredited, and the reevaluation, can both be lengthy. Colleges draft a self-study, which teams of peer reviews read over. These are typically faculty and administrators from other institutions. Representatives from the accreditor will also visit brick-and-mortar campuses. 

Based on that multi-step review, the accreditor can then decide whether to sign off on accreditation. Accreditors can also warn colleges of rule violations or put them on probation before, or instead of, revoking accreditation. Withdrawing accreditation is a death sentence for most colleges, because the majority of U.S. institutions rely on federal financial aid, known as Title IV aid.

Why does accreditation matter?

Accreditation is critically important in part because it serves as a form of consumer protection. If the government didn’t have some mechanism for evaluating whether a college would be a responsible steward of federal financial aid, taxpayer dollars could flow freely to low-quality or predatory institutions more interested in a cash grab than educating students.

The system, as it is set up, also reinforces the concept that colleges themselves, not the government, should be the primary authority on matters concerning academic quality and freedom. 

This is a major reason as to why Congress assigned accreditors this role in the accountability triad. American colleges have historically been arenas where scholars can freely explore ideas that will grow and better society. 

Colleges’ autonomy is key to carry out this mission unimpeded. The government dictating the research institutions can pursue, or which concepts they may discuss, will only limit thought, and represents an erosion of U.S. democracy.

Accreditors reinforce that crucial boundary between government and higher education. They should decide that a college’s curriculum is acceptable, for instance, not elected officials who may have ideological bents.

What are the latest policy developments in accreditation?

March 2025: Two accreditors ordered to remove DEI standards. The top higher education official in the Trump administration demanded that two accreditors completely remove standards related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, despite that both had already stated they were no longer enforcing those policies. The official cited a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court case banning race-conscious admissions as justification for why the standards were discriminatory, a flawed legal argument. The demand represented clear government intrusion into accreditors standards, which are supposed to be shielded from the Education Department by law.

January 2026: Negotiated rulemaking announced. The Education Department announced the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization, AIM, negotiated rulemaking committee, which will draft new federal regulations governing accreditation. Negotiated rulemaking brings together to one table parties who would be affected by regulatory change, and they hammer out a new rule. If the committee cannot come to consensus, the Education Department can pursue whatever policy avenue it wishes. The Education Department’s stated goals for AIM Committee include eliminating accreditors’ diversity-related standards and simplifying the recognition process for new accreditors. It’s also likely the Trump administration will also try to mandate that accreditors enforce what it claims are civil rights violations among colleges. Negotiated rulemaking will take place in April 2026, with final rules likely to be released later that year.

June 2025: New red-state accreditor revealed. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis unveiled the Commission for Public Higher Education, or CPHE, a new accreditor formed by a collection of six predominantly Republican states. DeSantis described the venture as breaking up the “woke accreditation cartel,” spurring concerns the new accreditor would be politicized. It plans to seek Education Department recognition in 2027, and received a $1 million grant from the agency to support its launch. 

June and July 2025: Accreditors publicly pressured. The Trump administration notified the accreditors of Harvard and Columbia universities that the Ivy League institutions may no longer meet accreditation standards. However, this was based on the administration’s own claims of civil rights violations, not accreditors’ independent assessments. This represents an unprecedented use of accreditation as a tool for political pressure.

May 2025: New laissez-faire accreditation policy issued. The Trump administration put forth guidance that states if a college doesn’t receive official word from the Education Department on switching accreditors after 30 days, their request is automatically granted. Even colleges with black marks on their records, like being put on probation, can change accreditors if they claim one didn’t respect its “mission.” This policy significantly scaled back oversight on accreditation switching. 

April 2025: Trump accreditation executive order signed. President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14279, “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” which directed the Education Department to strip recognition from accreditors that maintain diversity, equity, and inclusion standards. The executive order characterizes DEI policies as “unlawful discrimination.”