[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 80 (Monday, April 28, 2025)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Pages 17529-17532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-07376]
Presidential Documents
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 80 / Monday, April 28, 2025 /
Presidential Documents
[[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
[[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 law
schools that is advanced by the Council, including
unlawful ``diversity, equity, and inclusion''
requirements under the guise of accreditation
standards. The Secretary of Education shall also assess
whether to suspend or terminate the Council's status as
an accrediting agency under Federal law.
(c) The Attorney General and the Secretary of
Education, in consultation with the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, shall investigate and take
appropriate action to terminate unlawful discrimination
by American medical schools or graduate medical
education entities that is advanced by the Liaison
Committee on Medical Education or the Accreditation
Council for Graduate Medical Education or other
accreditors of graduate medical education, including
unlawful ``diversity, equity, and inclusion''
requirements under the guise of accreditation
standards. The Secretary of Education shall also assess
whether to suspend or terminate the Committee's or the
Accreditation Council's status as an accrediting agency
under Federal law or take other appropriate action to
ensure lawful conduct by medical schools, graduate
medical education programs, and other entities that
receive Federal funding for medical education.
Sec. 3. New Principles of Student-Oriented
Accreditation. (a) To realign accreditation with high-
quality, valuable education for students, the Secretary
of Education shall, consistent with applicable law,
take appropriate steps to ensure that:
(i) accreditation requires higher education institutions to provide high-
quality, high-value academic programs free from unlawful discrimination or
other violations of Federal law;
(ii) barriers are reduced that limit institutions from adopting practices
that advance credential and degree completion and spur new models of
education;
(iii) accreditation requires that institutions support and appropriately
prioritize intellectual diversity amongst faculty in order to advance
academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning;
(iv) accreditors are not using their role under Federal law to encourage or
force institution to violate State laws, unless such State laws violate the
Constitution or Federal law; and
(v) accreditors are prohibited from engaging in practices that result in
credential inflation that burdens students with additional unnecessary
costs.
(b) To advance the policies and objectives in
subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary of
Education shall:
[[Page 17531]]
(i) resume recognizing new accreditors to increase competition and
accountability in promoting high-quality, high-value academic programs
focused on student outcomes;
(ii) mandate that accreditors require member institutions to use data on
program-level student outcomes to improve such outcomes, without reference
to race, ethnicity, or sex;
(iii) promptly provide to accreditors any noncompliance findings relating
to member institutions issued after an investigation conducted by the
Office of Civil Rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42
U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) or Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972
(20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.);
(iv) launch an experimental site, pursuant to section 487A(b) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094a(b)), to accelerate innovation and
improve accountability by establishing new flexible and streamlined quality
assurance pathways for higher education institutions that provide high-
quality, high-value academic programs;
(v) increase the consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness of the
accreditor recognition review process, including through the use of
technology;
(vi) streamline the process for higher education institutions to change
accreditors to ensure institutions are not forced to comply with standards
that are antithetical to institutional values and mission; and
(vii) update the Accreditation Handbook to ensure that the accreditor
recognition and reauthorization process is transparent, efficient, and not
unduly burdensome.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order
shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or
the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with
applicable law and subject to the availability of
appropriations.
[[Page 17532]]
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not,
create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against
the United States, its departments, agencies, or
entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any
other person.
(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 23, 2025.
[FR Doc. 2025-07376
Filed 4-25-25; 8:45 am]
Billing code 3395-F4-P