Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which accrediting bodies or institutions influenced the Department of Education’s 2025 criteria change?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows the Department of Education’s 2025 regulatory work was driven internally through a negotiated rulemaking process and by the administration’s policy agenda — including executive orders and a broader push to reorganize or “dismantle” ED — rather than by any single accreditor named as the prime architect [1] [2] [3]. The White House’s April 23, 2025 executive orders directed ED to target accreditor practices — including those seen as enforcing DEI-related standards — and encouraged new accrediting bodies, while broader reform blueprints such as Project 2025 and interagency transfers shaped the Department’s priorities [2] [3] [4].
1. Negotiated rulemaking: the Department’s internal vehicle, not an accreditor’s diktat
The Department opened a formal negotiated-rulemaking process in 2025 to revise Title IV regulations; the Department’s materials and schedule show the rules were being drafted and discussed in-house through that process, which is the standard federal mechanism for producing regulatory text [1]. Available sources do not mention a specific accreditor as authoring the proposed regulatory text; instead the Department convened stakeholders and circulated discussion drafts during the rulemaking [1].
2. The White House executive orders: explicit pressure on accreditors
A set of education-focused executive orders unveiled on April 23, 2025, directed the Department to scrutinize and act against accreditors that impose DEI-based standards or otherwise violate federal civil‑rights law, and the orders encouraged entry of new accreditors to “foster competition” and reorient accreditation toward “academic quality and return on investment” [2]. That White House directive is the clearest instance in the record of federal officials urging changes to accreditor behavior and of the Administration attempting to shape which accrediting bodies are favored [2].
3. Project 2025 and conservative blueprints: an ideological frame
Project 2025 and similar conservative plans advocated broader restructuring of federal education functions, including changing accreditation oversight and shifting responsibilities among agencies; reporting ties that blueprint to policy direction taken by the administration and its appointees [4] [3]. Those documents pushed for decentralizing federal control and for limiting federal prioritization of DEI and similar criteria — framing the policy objectives that influenced ED’s approach to accreditors and rulemaking [4].
4. Interagency reassignments: institutional realignment that affects accreditation oversight
Multiple outlets report the Administration moved major Education Department offices and programs to other agencies (Labor, HHS, Interior, State), and described interagency agreements transferring staff and program management; those structural shifts change which federal actors interact with accreditors and could influence regulatory priorities around accreditation [5] [6] [7]. Reporting notes the Labor Department, for example, would take on significant K‑12 and postsecondary program oversight — a change that implicitly reconfigures who negotiates with accreditors [5] [7].
5. Competing viewpoints in coverage: enforcement vs. disruption
Some coverage frames the Administration’s moves — including the executive orders and transfer of functions — as restoring “transparency” and protecting campuses from foreign influence, positioning pressure on accreditors as a corrective action [2]. Other reporting and analysis warns these steps amount to dismantling ED, risking disruption of grants and enforcement, and reflects concern from agency staff and outside experts about delays and chaos from reassignment of functions [3] [8] [6]. Both strands appear in the record and inform how accreditor influence (or lack thereof) should be interpreted [2] [3] [8].
6. What the sources do not say — gaps and limitations
Available sources do not identify particular accrediting agencies (for example, regional accreditors, specialized accreditors, or newer entrants) as the direct authors of the Department’s 2025 regulatory text; nor do they provide documentary evidence that a named accreditor negotiated language that became final rule provisions [1] [2]. Detailed minutes or statements from accrediting bodies about their involvement in the 2025 negotiated rulemaking are not included in the current reporting [1]. If you need confirmation about any specific accreditor’s role, that is not found in current reporting.
7. Bottom line for readers
The record shows the Administration’s policy directives (notably executive orders) and its organizational re‑engineering of the Education Department were the primary forces shaping 2025 changes related to accreditation; these moves pressured accreditors to change behaviors and opened the door to new accrediting organizations, but there is no reporting in this set naming a single accreditor as the principal influencer of ED’s regulatory text [2] [1] [3]. Readers should weigh competing framings: the Administration presents these shifts as reform and accountability, while critics say they amount to destabilizing the agency and reshaping accreditation through political pressure [2] [3] [8].