Trump Order Reshapes College Accreditation Focus From DEI to Student Results

On April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at transforming how colleges and universities are accredited in the United States. The directive seeks to shift the focus of accreditation from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives to measurable student outcomes, such as graduation rates and post-graduation earnings. It also challenges accrediting agencies to eliminate practices deemed discriminatory, prompting a heated debate about the balance between educational quality and equitable access.

Accreditation serves as a gatekeeper for the more than $100 billion in federal student loans and grants distributed annually. Only institutions accredited by agencies recognized by the Department of Education can access these funds, making accreditation a critical link between colleges and financial aid. The executive order argues that accreditors have failed to ensure quality, pointing to a national six-year graduation rate of 64% and the fact that roughly 25% of bachelor’s degrees yield a negative return on investment.

The order has drawn sharp reactions from stakeholders across higher education. Supporters argue it will refocus institutions on delivering value to students and taxpayers, while critics warn it risks undermining efforts to support underrepresented groups. As colleges navigate this shift, the implications for students, faculty, and institutions are coming into focus.

A central pillar of the executive order is its critique of DEI requirements imposed by accrediting agencies. The directive singles out organizations like the American Bar Association and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, accusing them of mandating policies that prioritize race, gender, or ethnicity in ways that violate federal law. It cites the 2023 Supreme Court ruling against race-based admissions as a legal basis for challenging these standards.

The order instructs the Secretary of Education to investigate accreditors for unlawful discrimination and, if necessary, suspend or terminate their federal recognition. This move aligns with a broader push by some policymakers to curb DEI initiatives, which they argue promote ideological conformity over merit. Since 2023, 19 states have enacted laws restricting DEI efforts at public universities, leading to the closure of DEI offices and the elimination of related programs.

Advocates for DEI, including faculty associations and student organizations, counter that these policies are essential for fostering inclusive campuses and addressing historical inequities. They point to data showing that students of color now make up 40% of bachelor’s degree recipients, a record high, and argue that dismantling DEI could reverse these gains. The tension reflects a broader divide over how colleges should balance diversity with academic and economic priorities.

The executive order emphasizes student-focused accreditation, urging accreditors to prioritize metrics like graduation rates, loan repayment, and earnings potential. It calls for new principles that ensure colleges deliver high-quality programs at reasonable costs, free from what the administration describes as unnecessary ideological mandates. To spur innovation, the order proposes recognizing new accreditors and launching experimental pathways for quality assurance.

This focus on outcomes resonates with growing public concern about the value of a college degree. Surveys show that 70% of adults without a degree view a bachelor’s as highly valuable, yet only 18% believe tuition at four-year colleges is fair. With average tuition at public colleges reaching $11,011 and private colleges $43,505 for the 2024-2025 academic year, affordability remains a barrier for many students.

Some education experts welcome the emphasis on transparency and accountability. They note that 41% of “good jobs” will require a bachelor’s degree by 2031, underscoring the need for programs aligned with workforce demands. However, others caution that an overemphasis on economic metrics could marginalize fields like the humanities, which may offer less immediate financial returns but contribute to critical thinking and civic engagement.

The executive order also seeks to reduce federal overreach by ensuring accreditors do not force institutions to violate state laws or institutional missions. It encourages intellectual diversity among faculty and aims to streamline the accreditation process, making it easier for colleges to switch accreditors. These changes are framed as a way to foster competition and innovation in higher education.

Historically, the federal government has played a limited but pivotal role in accreditation, recognizing agencies since the 1950s to ensure quality for institutions receiving federal funds. The Higher Education Act of 1965 solidified this role, tying accreditation to student aid eligibility. Some stakeholders worry that the new order could disrupt this balance, potentially weakening national standards if oversight shifts to states or private entities.

Faculty groups and accreditors have raised concerns about the order’s impact on academic freedom. They argue that federal intervention in accreditation standards could pressure institutions to align with specific political priorities, undermining their autonomy. Meanwhile, proponents of the order assert that it frees colleges from ideological constraints, allowing them to focus on education over compliance with external mandates.

The executive order sets a bold course for higher education, but its success will depend on implementation and legal challenges. The Department of Education faces the complex task of investigating accreditors, revising recognition processes, and launching new initiatives, all while navigating a polarized landscape. Legal battles are likely, as DEI advocates and accrediting agencies may challenge the order’s interpretation of federal law.

For students, the stakes are tangible. A reformed accreditation system could lead to more affordable, workforce-aligned programs, but it also risks creating uncertainty for institutions serving diverse populations. As colleges adapt to these changes, the debate over how to define and measure quality in higher education will shape the opportunities available to future generations.