Recent signals from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) have raised questions about the future of federal oversight in higher education accreditation.
During the early months of the Trump administration’s second term, policy proposals have emerged that would remove the DOE’s authority to recognize accrediting agencies, potentially shifting oversight responsibilities to states or private organizations.
While no concrete decisions have been made, the potential for change has stirred discussion across the academic community.
"At this point, it's all speculation," said Kyle Butcher, Associate Director of Accreditation at Evidence In Motion (EIM). "No one really knows what will happen if accreditation agencies lose federal oversight. Hypothetical scenarios only go so far, until accreditors weigh in, so any predictions should be taken with caution."
Still, understanding possible scenarios can help institutions prepare for a shifting regulatory environment. Here's what might happen if federal oversight were reduced or removed entirely.
What Role Does the Federal Government Play?
The DOE doesn’t directly accredit colleges or universities. Instead, it recognizes (i.e., approves) accrediting agencies as reliable authorities on academic quality.
Only those agencies on the DOE's recognized list can act as gatekeepers for institutions that wish to access federal student aid programs.
Why This Matters
- Student Access to Federal Aid
If a school is accredited by a DOE-recognized agency, its students are eligible for federal financial aid (grants, loans, work-study). Any shift away from that system would mean schools and accreditors need new ways to keep aid flowing.
- Quality Assurance Signal
Recognition by the DOE also signals to states, employers, and licensing boards that the accrediting agency—and by extension, the schools it accredits—meet national standards. This helps ensure that degrees are seen as credible and transferable.
- Institutional Legitimacy
Federal recognition supports institutional legitimacy, affecting student enrollment, employment prospects, and professional licensure pathways.
In short, “recognition” is the lynchpin that connects accrediting agencies to the federal financial aid system and to the broader perception of educational quality across the country.
Without it, the accreditation system could undergo a significant transformation, reshaping how quality and legitimacy are defined in higher education.
A Shift to State or Institutional Oversight
If the DOE eliminates its role in recognizing accrediting agencies, accrediting bodies may need to adjust their standards to align with state regulations or develop institution-specific criteria.
This decentralization could give rise to a wide range of practices, with agencies working to maintain credibility and relevance in a fractured system.
"Accrediting bodies may need to become more selective about their partnerships," Butcher explained. "Without the backing of the federal government, their prestige will rely heavily on maintaining rigorous standards and trusted relationships with institutions."
States Taking the Lead
Some states could respond by developing their own accreditation agencies or expanding the authority of existing regulatory bodies.
While this might enhance local accountability, it could also create challenges for consistency and mobility.
"We could end up with a patchwork system," said Butcher. "One state might have robust quality control while another could open the door to lower standards. That could complicate credit transfers, licensure and access to financial aid across state lines."
Such inconsistencies could place additional burdens on students, particularly those seeking to continue their education or relocate across state borders.
Financial Aid at Risk
Perhaps the most significant consequence for students would be the impact on federal financial aid.
"If institutions lose accreditation from federally recognized bodies, students may no longer qualify for federal loans, grants or work-study opportunities,” Butcher said. "Nothing is guaranteed, but institutions and states have strong incentives to keep education accessible so alternative funding or state aid programs might step up.”
In fields that require licensure, unrecognized accreditation could also delay or derail professional certification. Employers may hesitate to hire graduates from unaccredited programs, even if the academic quality remains unchanged.
New Models on the Horizon?
If traditional models break down, innovative forms of accreditation could emerge:
- Peer Review Models: Institutions evaluating one another to ensure quality across shared benchmarks.
- Industry-Specific Accreditation: Professional associations or employers defining standards for educational programs.
- State-Specific Systems: Local governments setting their own rules, potentially diverging widely across the country.
- Student-Driven Models: Ratings and reviews from learners could become informal but influential measures of quality.
Each alternative comes with trade-offs, and none yet matches the current system's ability to secure federal funding and ensure nationwide portability.
The Bottom Line
While nothing is certain, higher education institutions would be wise to monitor developments closely. Whether change comes swiftly or gradually, staying informed and adaptable will be key.
As Butcher noted, "We're in a holding pattern. But once we have clarity from the DOE or our accreditors, schools can respond. The key is to stay flexible & focus on providing a high-quality experience for students."