Institutions Prepare for New Accreditation Regulations

As the Department of Education heads into its second week of negotiations over accreditation policies, the proposed regulations remain largely unchanged, higher education experts say. That has triggered concerns among institutions and their accreditors about the operational burdens that the sweeping regulatory proposal could impose.

The draft—first released in mid-April and updated on May 11—could dramatically change how accreditors oversee colleges and what institutions need to do to comply.

So far, the Trump administration’s regulations have faced significant pushback from accreditation agencies, colleges and universities—all of whom have fewer seats at the negotiating table than they have in years past. But one of the most vocal opponents has been Jennifer Blum, a Republican-appointed member of the department’s accreditation advisory committee. Emerging accreditors, though mostly thankful for Trump’s interest in recognizing them as agencies, have shared hesitations as well.

The criticisms mostly point back to parts of the Higher Education Act that limit the department’s ability to regulate accreditors. Critics argue that many of the Trump administration’s proposals, no matter how well intentioned, break the law and represent executive overreach.

Still, despite a long list of questions and concerns, multiple sources familiar with the regulatory process say it seems unlikely that any committee member will go so far as to vote down the department’s regulations—in part because they’re afraid of how the Trump administration might respond. (So far ED has received consensus on all but one negotiated rule-making session, but past Inside Higher Ed reporting shows those votes were driven by similar strong-arm tactics.)

With the likelihood of another consensus gaining steam, higher ed policy experts are starting to think about the operational changes these regulations could require of institutions and accreditors.

“There are certainly some places where this administration has removed burdens on both accreditors and institutions … It’s one of the things [the Trump administration] talks a lot about, to make processes more efficient, remove unnecessary steps or costs, and there are some examples of that,” said Larry Schall, president of the New England Commission of Higher Education.

For instance, under the new regulations it will be easier for institutions to change accreditors, Schall explained. But they will also be required to provide more data about student outcomes, the cost-benefit of their expenses and the intellectual diversity of their faculty. Accreditors like NECHE will have to determine whether member institutions are in compliance with the First Amendment and civil rights laws.

“So when you look at this set of what is now 180 pages of new regulations, over all I think it’s very hard to say that it’s collectively reducing burden,” said Schall. “They’re doing it some places, but for every place they’ve taken a step in that direction, they’ve taken a step in the other direction.”

To illustrate the point, Inside Higher Ed broke down what it will take for colleges and universities to comply with one key regulatory change: new stipulations on credit transferability. Despite general support for the idea from all corners of the higher ed sector, policy experts say it will come at a cost.

Burden of Transferring Credit

College access advocacy groups have long promoted policies to improve the fluidity of credit transfer, helping students save time and money. But with a slew of other, more politically driven priorities on the table for the Trump administration to advance via accreditation policies, many higher ed experts were surprised to see it make the cut.

Still, when new standards for credit transfer made their way into the proposal, Juana H. Sánchez, director of Beyond Transfer, an initiative to improve credit mobility and recognition of prior learning, was hopeful.

Nearly four in 10 adult Americans have tried to transfer credit toward a college degree or credential, but of those, 58 percent lost credits in the process, a 2025 study from Beyond Transfer found. A different study conducted in Texas around the same time found that transfer processes are run largely by faculty members, resulting in a lack of standardized decisions among institutions about which credits would apply. Transfer acceptance rates ranged from as high as 94 percent to as low as 52 percent.

“It’s an issue that has just gained more traction and currency, as we have started to better understand from the available evidence how credit transfer is continuing to trip up learners and, frankly, also trip up institutions,” Sánchez said. In a negotiation meeting with so many points of contention, “It felt like an area where there might be room for agreement.”

And so far there has been. Under the Higher Education Act, accreditors are simply required to ensure “that the institution has transfer of credit policies, that are publicly disclosed; and that include a statement of the criteria established by the institution.” The Trump administration’s proposal would go a step further, requiring institutions to “presume” transferability of all general ed and elective credits from another accredited institution “absent a detailed, written, academic rationale that is specific to the courses completed by the student.”

There was little pushback on the idea during the first week of negotiations, and multiple sources, including institutional representatives, told Inside Higher Ed that over all it’s a step in the right direction. But that doesn’t mean it will be easy.

David Baime, senior vice president for government relations at the American Association of Community Colleges, said after years of “stubborn problems” that prevent associate degree credits from transferring to bachelor’s degrees—particularly major-specific courses—his members are “inclined to look positively” on policies that enhance credit transfer.

Yet “there’s no doubt that if this requirement were implemented as proposed, it would carry with it substantial administrative effort and cost on the part of institutions,” he said.

And not just four-year institutions. Community colleges also frequently handle transfer credits, Baime said. So “if a community college chose not to provide credit to any of those students, it would have to document the rationale for that rejection, and that would involve faculty time and probably registrar time.”

In addition, the latest version of the department’s regulations also requires four-year colleges to “provide prospective students with a transfer credit evaluation at the time of acceptance … or within 45 days after submission of the transcript in instances where the transcript is received after the time of acceptance.”

That could lead colleges to have slower response times when students apply and delay enrollment, some experts say.

Kyle Beltramini, a policy research fellow at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a conservative lobbying group, said he understands what the department is trying to do but argues that it could have unintended consequences. Instead, he suggests new federal legislation or voluntary actions by accreditors to protect students; rather than assume transferability unless proven otherwise, he would prefer policies that establish a national rubric of sorts against which the approval or denial of courses can be determined.

“I am very sympathetic to what the administration is trying to do,” Beltramini said. “However, the way that they’re doing it … will be a burden that is felt most keenly by small liberal arts colleges that try to do specific and unique kinds of education. The elite Ivy League institutions that most frequently tried to fence out students from other institutions will not feel this burden.”

This piece was originally published by Inside Higher Ed on May 18, 2026.