Higher ed negotiators are pushing back against the Trump administration’s bid to force accreditors to take stronger stances on student success, costs, academic freedom and other outcomes.
Department of Education officials remained forthright about their intent to upend the current accreditation model with a 151-page proposal presented to higher ed representatives at the first of two rule-making negotiations earlier this month.
“What’s in the proposal is what you’re going to get,” says Jonathan Helwink, former special counsel for the Education Department during the first Trump administration. Helwink, who is not involved in the negotiations, provided analysis for University Business. “If the [higher ed] negotiators are hoping to water down the revolution, I don’t think they’re going to.”
Higher education representatives argued that some of the proposals would unlawfully increase federal oversight over higher education and that accreditors have traditionally operated autonomously when regulating institutions.
More on policy: New earnings test moves one step closer to reality
They also warned that stronger federal oversight could be abused by future administrations, though administration officials stressed the goal is to drive student success.
“I understand the perspective that this is something that needs some guardrails, so that it doesn’t get used in an unintended fashion,” says Helwink, principal at Helwink Legal Group. “But I understand where the department is coming from.”
“This is not an easy thing to do,” he adds. “You’re wrestling with issues that go to the heart of higher ed.”
Here were three areas of the proposed regulations that sparked debate.
Monitoring academic freedom
The administration wants accreditors to measure student success based on its interpretations of academic freedom and intellectual inquiry. These new standards could allow the Education Department to circumvent the Higher Education Act, which prohibits the federal government from interfering with an institution’s curriculum.
College presidents have largely rebuked past attempts by the Trump administration to regulate academic freedom. Negotiators vented similar concerns, explaining that such a move would impede institutional autonomy despite claims that colleges and universities did not sufficiently protect students from harassment during protests over the war in Gaza.
“We get a little suspicious when the government tells someone to respect free speech,” Helwink says. “It’s a balancing act for the administration, and they’re trying to thread the needle.”
‘Innovation’ and the accreditation market
The administration also believes it can spark innovation by recognizing new accreditors that promote alternative education models. Few new accreditors have emerged as online learning and generative AI have disrupted higher ed, and since Trump ended region-based accreditation during his first term, Helwink points out.
However, accreditation cycles can last up to a decade, and switching accreditors is expensive, disruptive and time-intensive, Helwink says. “I don’t know how many institutions would have been willing to just switch of their own volition.”
Two major accreditors, the Higher Learning Commission and Western Association of Schools and Colleges, have encouraged new credential offerings and imposed accountability on post-graduation outcomes.
“I call that innovation,” Helwink says. “Maybe people at the department don’t think so, and who knows what the final requirement is going to look like, but [accreditors] are doing something—whether it’s good or bad is a different question.”
Overriding an accreditor’s judgment
The administration seeks to allow the federal government to override an accreditor’s decision to sanction an institution.
Jennifer Blum, a higher education attorney and negotiator, argued during the rulemaking session that such authority exceeds statutory limits. However, officials assert that there are limited measures to appeal an accreditor’s punishment, even if it is unjustified.
“Accreditors make mistakes, and, in most cases, it’s not nefarious,” Helwink says.
“The department wants to fix that, or at least address it in a way that’s constructive.”
