Reforming Accreditation To Strengthen Higher Education
Record date: 2025-04-28
( printed page 17529) Executive Order 14279 of April 23, 2025 Reforming Accreditation To Strengthen Higher Education By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1 . Purpose . A group of higher education accreditors are the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year. The accreditors' job is to determine which institutions provide a
What this record contains
- Federal Register document
- 2025-07376
- Publication date
- 2025-04-28
- Citation
- 90 FR 17529
- Issuing office
- Executive Office of the President
Official record excerpt
( printed page 17529) Executive Order 14279 of April 23, 2025 Reforming Accreditation To Strengthen Higher Education By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1 . Purpose . A group of higher education accreditors are the gatekeepers that decide which colleges and universities American students can spend the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants dispersed each year. The accreditors' job is to determine which institutions provide a quality education—and therefore merit accreditation. Unfortunately, accreditors have not only failed in this responsibility to students, families, and American taxpayers, but they have also abused their enormous authority. Accreditors routinely approve institutions that are low-quality by the most important measures. The national six-year undergraduate graduation rate was an alarming 64 percent in 2020. Further, many accredited institutions offer undergraduate and graduate programs with a negative return on investment—almost 25 percent of bachelor's degrees and more than 40 percent of master's degrees—which may leave students financially worse off and in enormous debt by charging them exorbitant sums for a degree with very modest earnings potential. Notwithstanding this slide in graduation rates and graduates' performance in the labor market, the spike in debt obligations in relation to expected earnings, and repayment rates on student loans, accreditors have remained improperly focused on compelling adoption of discriminatory ideology, rather than on student outcomes. Some accreditors make the adoption of unlawfully discriminatory practices a formal standard of accreditation, and therefore a condition of accessing Federal aid, through “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or “DEI”-based standards of accreditation that require institutions to “share results on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the context of their mission by considering . . . demographics . . . and resource allocation.” Accreditors have also abused their governance standards to intrude on State and local authority. The American Bar Association's Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (Council), which is the sole federally recognized accreditor for Juris Doctor programs, has required law schools to “demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion” including by “commit[ting] to having a student body [and faculty] that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.” As the Attorney General has concluded and informed the Council, the discriminatory requirement blatantly violates the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College , 600 U.S. 181 (2023). Though the Council subsequently suspended its enforcement while it considers proposed revisions, this standard and similar unlawful mandates must be permanently eradicated. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which is the only federally recognized body that accredits Doctor of Medicine degree programs, requires that an institution “engage[ ] in ongoing, systematic, and focused recruitment and retention activities, to achieve mission-appropriate diversity outcomes among its students.” The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, which is the sole accreditor for both allopathic and osteopathic medical residency and fellowship programs, similarly “expect[s]” institutions ( printed page 17530) to focus on implementing “policies and procedures related to recruitment and retention of individuals underrepresented in medicine,” including “racial and ethnic minority individuals.” The standards for training tomorrow's doctors should focus solely on providing the highest quality care, and certainly not on requiring unlawful discrimination. American students and taxpayers deserve better, and my Administration will reform our dysfunctional accreditation system so that colleges and universities focus on delivering high-quality academic programs at a reasonable price. Federal recognition will not be provided to accreditors engaging in unlawful discrimination in violation of Federal law. Sec. 2 . Holding Accreditors Accountable for Unlawful Actions . (a) The Secretary of Education shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, hold accountable, including through denial, monitoring, suspension, or termination of accreditation recognition, accreditors who fail to meet the applicable recognition criteria or otherwise violate Federal law, including by requiring institutions seeking accreditation to engage in unlawful discrimination in accreditation-related activity under the guise of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives. (b) The Attorney General and the Secretary of Education shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, investigate and take appropriate action to terminate unlawful discrimination by American
The excerpt is reproduced from the public federal record and may omit later sections, tables, signatures or attachments. Open the official source for the complete text.
Questions for accountability
- What legal authority does this economy action cite?
- Which agencies or officials were directed to act?
- What measurable implementation, cost, deadline or later court action followed?
How to use this page
This is a source-record entry, not a truth-rating by itself. It preserves the action, date and original government publication so it can be connected to later claims, implementation records, court decisions, costs and measurable outcomes. Editorial claim reviews on this site use separate finding labels and explain the evidence for those findings.