legal-document-to-plain-english-translator/”>Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration

Find a LOCAL lawyer

Executive Order on Higher Education Accreditation Reform

By the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of this great nation, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1: Purpose and Background

A consortium of higher education accreditors serves as the pivotal gatekeepers determining which colleges and universities American students can trust with their education—essentially where to allocate the more than $100 billion in Federal student loans and Pell Grants distributed annually. The fundamental role of these accreditors is to assess and ensure that institutions provide a quality education deserving of accreditation. Regrettably, these accreditors have not only mismanaged this responsibility towards students, families, and American taxpayers but have also abused their considerable authority.

Accreditors frequently grant approval to institutions that fail to meet essential quality benchmarks. Incredibly, the national six-year undergraduate graduation rate stood at an alarming 64 percent in 2020. A further cause for concern is that many accredited institutions now offer undergraduate and graduate programs that yield a negative return on investment. Reports indicate that nearly 25 percent of bachelor’s degrees and over 40 percent of master’s degrees may leave students financially vulnerable and deeply in debt—charging them exorbitant amounts for degrees that provide only modest earning potential.

Despite the decline in graduation rates and the disappointing performance of graduates in the job market, coupled with spiraling debt obligations, accreditors have regrettably continued to prioritize the imposition of discriminatory ideologies over students’ outcomes. Alarmingly, some accreditors have formalized the adoption of unlawful discriminatory practices as a requirement for accreditation, making them a precondition for institutions to access federal aid through “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) standards. These standards mandate institutions to “share results on diversity, equity, and inclusion in the context of their mission,” further complicating the educational landscape while infringing upon the principles that should govern fair education.

High-Profile Cases of Unlawful Discrimination

Prominent organizations such as the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of legal Education and Admissions to the Bar—the only federally recognized accreditor for Juris Doctor programs—have enforced mandates compelling law schools to demonstrate actionable commitments to diversity and inclusion. These obligations include maintaining diverse student and faculty bodies concerning gender, race, and ethnicity. However, the Attorney General has concluded that such discriminatory requirements directly violate the Supreme Court’s ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Although the Council has temporarily suspended its enforcement while it reevaluates these mandates, these standards, laden with unlawful impositions, must be fully dismantled.

Similarly, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, the only accrediting body for Doctor of Medicine degree programs, prescribes that institutions engage in systematic recruitment efforts to fulfill diversity mandates. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education also imposes expectations that institutions adopt policies focused on recruiting individuals underrepresented in medicine. Training the next generation of medical professionals should be centered around providing superior healthcare, not enforcing unlawful discrimination masked as the promotion of diversity.

American students and taxpayers rightfully expect better outcomes. My administration is committed to reforming a broken accreditation system so that colleges and universities prioritize high-quality educational programs at reasonable costs. Federal acknowledgment will not be granted to accreditors who engage in unlawful discrimination against federal law.

Section 2: Holding Accreditors Accountable for Unlawful Actions

(a) The Secretary of Education shall, in accordance with applicable law, hold accountable—through denial, monitoring, suspension, or termination of accreditation recognition—those accreditors failing to meet necessary recognition criteria or who otherwise violate federal laws. This includes any accreditation organizations that compel institutions to engage in unlawful discriminatory practices under the guise of DEI initiatives.

(b) The Attorney General, along with the Secretary of Education, shall investigate and take necessary action against unlawful discrimination practices in American law schools pushed forward by the Council, including DEI requirements disguised as accreditation standards. The Secretary of Education should also evaluate the possibility of halting or completely terminating the Council’s status as an accrediting entity under federal laws.

(c) In collaboration with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General and Secretary of Education shall also investigate discriminatory practices perpetuated by American medical schools, with the intent to terminate such unlawful mandates orchestrated by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The Secretary of Education will examine whether to suspend or revoke the status of these committees as accrediting agencies and will undertake other appropriate actions to ensure compliance with federal laws.

Section 3: New Principles of Student-Oriented Accreditation

To realign accreditation with high-quality, valuable education for students, the Secretary of Education shall take necessary steps to ensure that:

(i) Accreditation standards mandate higher education institutions deliver high-quality, high-value academic programs free from unlawful discrimination and other federal law violations.

(ii) Institutional barriers that inhibit the advancement of innovative practices promoting degree completion and credential attainment are effectively reduced.

(iii) Accreditation requirements compel institutions to actively support and prioritize intellectual diversity among faculty members, thereby promoting academic freedom, critical inquiry, and enriching student learning experiences.

(iv) Accreditors do not wield their federal law authority to coerce institutions into violating state regulations unless those laws conflict with constitutional or federal statutes.

(v) Accreditors must refrain from engaging in practices that lead to credential inflation, which unnecessarily burdens students with additional costs.

Mechanism for Improvement

To further the policies and objectives outlined above, the Secretary of Education will take several important actions:

(i) Resume the recognition of new accreditors, thereby fostering competition and accountability in promoting high-quality academic programs centered around positive student outcomes.

(ii) Mandate accreditors to require their member institutions to leverage program-level student outcome data for improvement—free from any consideration of race, ethnicity, or gender.

(iii) Ensure timely transmission of non-compliance findings to accreditors arising from investigations conducted by the Office of Civil Rights related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972.

(iv) Launch an experimental site designed to accelerate innovation in the education sector, providing flexible quality assurance pathways for higher education institutions dedicated to high-quality, valuable academic programs.

(v) Enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the accreditor recognition review process, incorporating technological advancements.

(vi) Simplify the processes for higher education institutions to switch accreditors, guaranteeing that institutions are not pressured into conforming to standards that contradict their values and missions.

(vii) Revise and update the Accreditation Handbook to ensure that the processes surrounding accreditor recognition and reauthorization are transparent, efficient, and adequately streamlined.

Section 4: General Provisions

(a) This order is not intended to impair or affect:

(i) The authority granted by law to any executive department, agency, or its head; or

(ii) The functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget concerning budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) Implementation of this order will proceed in accordance with applicable laws and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order does not confer any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable in law or equity, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, their officers, employees, or agents, or any other individual.

In conclusion, it is vital to understand the evolving landscape of education accreditation, where challenges abound yet opportunities for reform also exist. The AI legalese decoder can play a crucial role in navigating these complex legal landscapes. By simplifying legal jargon, this AI tool can translate intricate regulations into comprehensible terms, allowing stakeholders—including students, educators, and policymakers—to grasp and advocate for necessary changes in the system. Through this enhanced understanding, we can collectively strive for higher education accreditation that focuses on quality, equity, and accessibility for all students.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

April 23, 2025.

legal-document-to-plain-english-translator/”>Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration

Find a LOCAL lawyer

Reference link