U.S. Department Of Education Proposes Sweeping Overhaul Of Higher Education Accreditation System

Key Takeaways

• Major accreditation reform proposed: On August 20, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would fundamentally restructure the higher education accreditation system, implementing Executive Order 14279. Comments are due September 21, 2026.
• Institutional choice and competition: The proposed rule would eliminate the historical distinction between “regional” and “national” accreditors, allow institutions to hold multiple accreditations simultaneously, and streamline the process for new accreditors to enter the market.
• Shift to outcomes-based standards: Accreditors would be required to evaluate institutions based on measurable student outcomes—including employment, completion rates, and economic returns—rather than process-based compliance metrics.
• New anti-discrimination and academic freedom mandates: The rule would prohibit accreditation standards that encourage or require violations of federal or state antidiscrimination law and mandate protections for intellectual diversity and viewpoint neutrality.
• Transfer of credit protections: Institutions would be prohibited from denying transfer credit solely based on the sending institution’s accreditor and would be required to provide written justifications for credit denials with an appeal process for students.

On August 20, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (91 FR 53940–54021) proposing comprehensive revisions to 34 CFR Parts 600, 602, and 668, the regulatory framework governing higher education accreditation. The proposed rule, developed through negotiated rulemaking sessions conducted by the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) Committee in April and May 2026, would implement Executive Order 14279, “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education.”

Like Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s recent “National Call to Action,” the Department frames the proposal as a response to declining public trust in higher education. The Department states that the current accreditation system has prioritized “bureaucratic processes” over student outcomes. Under Secretary Nicholas Kent characterized the proposed changes as intended to “reorient our quality assurance framework so that accreditors prioritize student outcomes rather than bureaucratic processes or the promotion of divisive and unlawful ideological agendas.”

If finalized, the rule would take effect no earlier than July 1, 2027, with certain provisions (specifically, the separate-office-space requirement) delayed until July 1, 2028. The comment period closes September 21, 2026, and comments must be submitted via www.regulations.gov (Docket No. ED-2025-OPE-1042).

The Department has signaled that it intends to finalize the rule by November 1, 2026. Importantly, the proposed rule would not trigger immediate re-review of institutions that already hold accreditation; rather, the revised standards would apply prospectively as accreditors update their review processes. Institutions should anticipate that their next regularly scheduled accreditation cycle will incorporate the new federal requirements.

I. Background and Executive Order 14279

Executive Order 14279, “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” directed the Department of Education to undertake a comprehensive review of the accreditation system and propose regulatory changes that the administration says will promote competition among accreditors, strengthen student outcome measures, protect academic freedom and institutional autonomy, and reduce barriers to entry for new accrediting agencies.

Accreditation serves as the gateway to federal student aid under Title IV of the Higher Education Act: institutions must be accredited by a recognized agency to participate in federal financial aid programs. The Trump administration has criticized the current system from multiple perspectives, including concerns that incumbent accreditors face insufficient competitive pressure, that standards focus on inputs and processes rather than outcomes, and that some accrediting standards have encroached on institutional academic freedom.

The Department convened the AIM Committee under the negotiated rulemaking process. The committee reached consensus on the entire proposed regulatory package during sessions held April 13–17 and May 18–22, 2026. Because the committee reached consensus, the Department published the proposed rule substantially as negotiated.

II. Key Provisions of the Proposed Rule

A. Promoting Competition and Accreditor Choice

The proposed rule includes several provisions that the Department says will increase competition among accrediting agencies and expand institutional choice:

• Elimination of geographic restrictions (§ 602.11): The rule would eliminate Department-assigned or preferred geographic scopes for accrediting agencies, fully eradicating the distinction between “regional” and “national” accreditors. Agencies could operate in any group of states or nationally, subject only to demonstrated capacity.
• Institutional mobility (§ 600.11): Institutions could change accreditors by demonstrating “reasonable cause.” Cause would be presumed reasonable unless the change is made to evade Federal law, avoid enforcement action, obtain Title IV eligibility unlawfully, or undermine program integrity. Institutions could also hold accreditation from multiple recognized agencies simultaneously.
• Removal of the two-year rule (§ 602.12): The current requirement that new accrediting agencies must have operated for two years before seeking recognition would be eliminated. A new agency would need only to be legally established, have adopted appropriate standards, have operating procedures in place, and have accredited at least one institution or program before recognition is granted.
• Streamlined recognition process (§§ 602.30–602.37): The rule proposes a risk-based recognition-review framework that could reduce the timeline from over 720 days to approximately 240 days. Draft staff analyses would generally be due within 120 days, with agencies receiving at least 90 days to respond.
• Antitrust clarification (§ 602.13): The rule clarifies that recognition does not confer immunity from Federal or State antitrust laws, does not authorize otherwise unlawful collective action, and does not create a property interest or entitlement to continued recognition.

B. Focus on Student Outcomes

The proposed rule would significantly reshape accreditation standards toward what the Department characterizes as outcomes-based evaluation (§§ 602.16–602.17):

• Accreditation standards would be required to address student achievement at both institutional and program levels.
• Agencies would evaluate licensing and certification examination results; retention, completion, and graduation rates; post-completion employment and continued education; and educational and economic returns relative to credential level, program length, occupational context, and total attendance cost.
• Agencies would assess whether institutions maintain formal faculty evaluation processes and whether staffing models allow reasonable adjustments in response to shifting enrollment patterns, program sustainability concerns, or financial pressures.
• Agencies would be required to conduct cost-benefit reviews of institutional budgets, resource allocation, facilities, and staffing.
• Standards could not categorically prohibit or unreasonably restrict shorter programs that produce comparable outcomes.
• Agencies must reduce barriers to innovative delivery models, improved access, and accelerated completion.

C. Academic Freedom and Anti-Discrimination Provisions

Sections 602.17 and 602.18 of the proposed rule address the Department’s academic freedom and antidiscrimination requirements:

• Agencies would be required to evaluate academic freedom protections, including First Amendment protections at public institutions and comparable protections at qualifying private institutions.
• Standards must address intellectual diversity among faculty.
• Agencies would assess whether institutions measure and address viewpoint diversity among students and faculty. The NPRM stops short of codifying a regulatory definition of ‘academic freedom’ but offers a non-binding definitional framework in the preamble that institutions and accreditors may voluntarily adopt.
• Accrediting decisions must be neutral with respect to viewpoint and ideology unrelated to accreditation standards, with an exception for religious-mission institutions.
• Agencies may not maintain standards that encourage or require violations of Federal or State law, including unlawful preferences based on race, color, national origin, or sex.
• Accreditation standards cannot require institutions to violate Title VI or Title IX.
• Accreditors would be expected to review institutional policies governing research misconduct—covering fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and material misrepresentation—as part of the accreditation evaluation process.

D. Trade Association Independence

The proposed rule strengthens requirements for accrediting agencies to be “separate and independent” from related trade and membership organizations, which the Department characterizes as necessary to prevent conflicts of interest (§§ 602.14–602.15):

• Decision-making members of accrediting agencies may not be selected by or employed by affiliated trade organizations.
• Agency dues and budgets must be fully separate from those of related organizations.
• The rule eliminates regulatory provisions that previously allowed shared personnel, services, equipment, facilities, or office space.
• Agencies must maintain physically separate office space, with compliance required by July 1, 2028.
• Detailed conflict-of-interest controls are required, and agencies must minimize unnecessary compliance costs and administrative burdens on institutions.

E. Transfer of Credit

New provisions at §§ 602.24(e) and 668.43 would establish significant protections for students seeking to transfer credits:

• Institutions may not deny transfer credit solely because of the sending institution or its recognized accreditor.
• Comparable undergraduate coursework from a recognized institution must generally receive credit unless the receiving institution provides a written academic basis for denial.
• Students must receive a written rationale for each credit denial and have an appeal opportunity within 15 calendar days of receiving notice.
• Institutions must disclose transfer-of-credit policies before enrollment, registration, or any non-refundable financial commitment.

F. Enforcement, Oversight, and Teach-Out Protections

The proposed rule includes enhanced enforcement mechanisms and student protection provisions:

• Institutions must submit teach-out plans within 30 days of specified triggering events, including heightened cash monitoring, enforcement actions, withdrawal of accreditation, planned closure, or loss of state authorization.
• Required teach-out agreements must coordinate transfer options and publish information about teach-out procedures, transcript availability, loan discharge, and reimbursement options.
• The National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) would review contraction-of-scope applications.
• Adverse actions against an institution (withdrawal, probation, show cause, suspension) would not by themselves preclude the institution from holding multiple accreditations.

III. Comment Period and Process

Comments on the proposed rule are due by September 21, 2026. All comments must be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under Docket No. ED-2025-OPE-1042 (RIN 1840-AD82).

Given that the AIM Committee reached consensus on the proposed rule, the Department may be less likely to make substantial changes in the final rule. Nevertheless, the comment period provides an important opportunity for institutions and other stakeholders to raise concerns, highlight implementation challenges, and build a record that may be relevant in any future legal challenge to the final rule.

Institutions are encouraged to consider whether comments would be submitted individually or through associations and consortia. Comments that provide specific data, concrete examples of potential impacts, or legal analysis tend to be most persuasive in the rulemaking process.

IV. Practical Considerations for Institutions

Colleges, universities, and other institutions of higher education that receive federal funding should consider the following steps:

• Evaluate accreditor relationships. The elimination of geographic restrictions and the expansion of multi-accreditor options may create strategic opportunities. Institutions should assess whether their current accreditor remains the best fit for their mission and whether additional accreditation relationships might be beneficial.
• Prepare for outcomes-based evaluation. The shift toward measurable student outcomes—including employment rates, economic returns, and cost-benefit analysis—will require robust data collection and reporting capabilities. Institutions should begin evaluating their data infrastructure and capacity to demonstrate program-level performance.
• Review transfer-of-credit policies. The proposed restrictions on denying transfer credit based solely on accreditor identity, combined with the written-justification and appeal requirements, may necessitate revisions to current transfer policies and procedures. Institutions should review existing practices for compliance with the proposed framework.
• Prepare for research integrity scrutiny. Because the proposed rule brings research misconduct squarely within the accreditation framework, institutions should evaluate whether their existing policies on fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and related misconduct are sufficiently documented and formalized to withstand accreditor review.
• Assess academic freedom and DEI-related policies. The anti-discrimination and viewpoint-neutrality provisions may have implications for institutional diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Institutions should review existing programs and policies in light of the proposed standards.
• Consider filing comments. The September 21, 2026 deadline provides a limited window to submit substantive comments. Institutions should determine whether to submit comments individually or coordinate with peer institutions and industry associations.
• Plan for implementation timelines. If finalized, most provisions would take effect July 1, 2027, with the separate-office-space requirement for accreditors effective July 1, 2028. Institutions should begin internal planning to ensure readiness.
• Monitor estimated costs. The Department estimates annualized costs of approximately $490–$494 million across affected entities and approximately 470 hours of one-time implementation burden per institution. Institutions should assess their own likely compliance costs and factor these into budget planning.