Department of Education Proposes Sweeping Changes to Accreditation Regulations Through AIM Negotiated Rulemaking

At a Glance

• The proposed changes to regulations resulting from the Department of Education’s AIM negotiated rulemaking would impose sweeping changes that reshape how accrediting agencies operate and interact with institutions.
• Proposed rules would effectively require accreditors to fully separate from affiliated organizations while complying with expanded legal, antitrust, and civil rights requirements.
• New standards emphasizing student outcomes, earnings, and accountability — combined with easier entry for new accreditors, as well as new requirements pertaining to faculty, viewpoint diversity, academic freedom, and research integrity — could significantly shift the accreditation landscape.

On May 21, 2026, the Department of Education's Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking committee reached consensus on proposed amendments to federal regulations governing the recognition of accrediting agencies and institutional eligibility related to accreditation. These proposed draft changes (the “consensus draft” or “proposed rules”) would primarily revise critical elements of 34 CFR Part 602 and, if finalized, would significantly reshape the regulatory landscape for accrediting agencies — particularly those that accredit professional and programmatic educational institutions. Higher education institutions, accrediting bodies, and organizations with ties to professional accreditation should closely evaluate the scope and implications of these proposed rules.

Background and Regulatory Context

Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended, all rulemakings in this area must go through a negotiated rulemaking process. The Department of Education (the Department) assembles a committee of subject matter experts representing constituencies most affected by the rules to negotiate proposed regulatory language. If the committee and the Department reach unanimous consensus, the agreed-upon rules are included in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) without substantive changes. If consensus is not achieved, the Department may issue any rules it chooses, disregarding the views of the negotiators.

Because the AIM committee achieved consensus, the proposed rules are expected to be published in the NPRM substantially as drafted. The proposed rules — if published as currently drafted — are noteworthy in several important respects. The consensus draft largely seeks to sever or disrupt long-established relationships that programmatic accrediting agencies have with related professional or trade associations; impose significant substantive requirements upon accreditors, requiring (among other things) standards pertaining to academic freedom, diversity of viewpoints, and research; and would impose additional requirements in the area of student achievement. The proposed rules would also prohibit accrediting agencies from having standards that would violate state or federal law, particularly in the area of preferences or benefits for protected classes.

Summary of Key Proposals

Strengthened Conflict of Interest/Separate and Independent Requirements

The consensus draft would dramatically expand the "Separate and Independent" requirement by imposing a significant new conflict of interest requirement upon recognized accrediting agencies. This would include effectively requiring most programmatic accreditors to become fully separate and independent from the operations of any related, associated, or affiliated trade or membership organization. Key elements of the consensus draft in this area include:

• Prohibition on shared resources. Accrediting agencies would be prohibited from joint use of personnel, services, equipment, or facilities with any related, associated, or affiliated trade association. A related, associated, or affiliated organization would be defined as one that “is generally a membership organization, is organized to promote a line of commerce, business, industry, or profession, does not engage in a regular business ordinarily carried on for profit, and is related to an accrediting agency that accredits institutions or programs preparing students to enter the same profession.”
• Mandatory separate office space. Under the proposed rules, accrediting agencies' offices cannot be located in the same building as any related trade or professional association. This requirement will take effect one year after the rule's effective date on July 1, 2028.
• Financial autonomy. All dues must be paid directly to the accrediting agency, and the agency must have full control over its budget without any input or consultation from related or affiliated organizations.
• Separation of standards committee from decision making. Members of the agency's standard-setting body who also serve as officers, directors, or employees of an accredited institution or program would not be permitted to vote on standards or policies affecting that institution or program. In practical terms, this prohibits academics employed by accredited institutions — including deans and faculty — from setting accreditation standards applied by the accrediting agency.
• Narrowed definition of "representative of the public." The proposed rules would exclude any member of a trade association or membership organization related to, associated with, or affiliated with the agency from qualifying as a public member of an accrediting agency board. This could significantly affect the composition of accrediting agency decision-making bodies by excluding anyone who is a member of a related professional organization.
• Restrictions on feedback from affiliated organizations. Agencies would be prohibited from seeking feedback, formally or informally, on proposed standards from any related, associated, or affiliated organization.
• Restrictions on access to employment. The proposed rules would require that an accrediting agency not act to restrict access to employment in a profession unless it provides the Department with “clear and convincing evidence” that the restriction is necessary to protect the public interest, that the public benefits outweigh the costs, and that no less restrictive alternative exists.
• Expanded conflict-of-interest controls. These would apply to officers, directors, staff (including temporary and part-time employees), evaluators, consultants, contractors, volunteers, and other representatives.
• Annual CEO certification. Agency CEOs or executive directors of accrediting agencies must provide an annual signed certification to the Department affirming compliance with the Separate and Independent requirements.
• Elimination of waiver provision. The Department intends to eliminate the existing waiver provision that previously permitted agencies recognized before October 1, 1991, to seek a waiver of the Separate and Independent requirements. Under the proposed rules, no accrediting agency — regardless of its recognition history — may seek an exemption.

New Antitrust and Legal Requirements

The consensus draft introduces several new antitrust and other legal requirements upon accrediting agencies, including the following:

• No antitrust immunity. The proposed rules state that the Department does not confer immunity under any federal or state antitrust laws and does not authorize collective action among accrediting agencies, institutions, or programs.
• Compliance with antitrust laws. Accrediting agencies would be required to have internal controls to ensure compliance with antitrust laws, including ensuring that the agency does not coordinate or collude to unnecessarily restrict access to employment or an occupation.
• Anticompetitive conduct as negative factor. In determining whether to re-recognize an agency, the consensus draft states that the Department may consider anticompetitive conduct as a negative factor, including collusion to unnecessarily inflate qualifications necessary for licensure or entry into a profession.
• Accreditation not a property right. The proposed rules state that recognition does not create a property interest or entitlement to continued recognition. This effectively would limit the constitutional rights of recognized accrediting agencies by limiting their due process rights.
• No conflict with First Amendment. The agency’s accreditation standards, policies, and enforcement practices could not restrict public institutions from fulfilling their obligations under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, nor restrict any private institutions that — through their institutional policies — guarantee the same or similar protections for students or faculty, unless the institution has a religious mission.
• Civil rights laws. Accrediting standards and practices would not be permitted to require institutions to violate US federal or state civil rights laws (including Title VI and Title IX), nor impose unlawful race- or sex-based preferences.
• Noninterference with governance of public institutions.Accrediting agencies would be required to refrain from reviewing governance aspects of public institutions.

New Standards Requirements

The consensus draft would require that recognized accrediting agencies adopt new standards in a number of areas not required by the HEA. While imposing significant new substantive requirements on accrediting agencies, the Department intends to simultaneously require that agencies conduct accrediting activities in a manner that seeks to “avoid unnecessary financial, compliance, and administrative burdens, including by avoiding duplicative reporting, excessive documentation requirements, and unwarranted prescriptive processes.” Agencies will also be required to adopt procedures to ensure that all agency decisions are neutral with respect to viewpoint and ideology. The Department also will require that all standards be “lawful.”

Specific new standard requirements include:

• Student achievement metrics. Accreditors would be required to evaluate institutions' success using appropriate metrics, including licensure outcomes, completion, retention, post-completion education and employment outcomes, and relevant standardized assessments (i.e., student scores on graduate school admissions exams such as GMAT, LSAT, GRE).
• Analysis of earnings data. Accreditors would be required to assess “the educational and economic returns aligned to a program's credential level, length, and occupational context relative to total cost of attendance, including utilizing earnings data calculated under 34 CFR 668 Subpart Q (the proposed ‘minimum earnings’ metrics), unemployment insurance wage records, or other reliable earnings data.”
• Faculty evaluation. The proposed rules would require that faculty standards must include requirements that institutions apply faculty evaluation policies and that all faculty, regardless of status, be evaluated on a regular basis.
• Academic freedom and viewpoint neutrality. Accreditors would be required to ensure that First Amendment and civil rights of faculty are protected, and that any academic freedom protections are applied consistently to faculty regardless of race, viewpoint, or ideology. Accreditors would need to have standards in place requiring institutions to implement policies designed to support and promote intellectual diversity and the free exchange of ideas, including measuring student and faculty perceptions on the range of viewpoints and perspectives offered, unless the institution has a religious mission.
• Research integrity. Accreditors would be required to have standards on research integrity that require institutions to implement policies regarding the integrity of scholarly activity and research, and practices to prevent, detect, and address fabrication, material misrepresentation, falsification, plagiarism, and other forms of research misconduct.
• Financial standards. In applying financial standards, agencies would be required to conduct a cost-benefit analysis that includes a review of the institution's budget, resource utilization and allocation, and business/strategic plan.
• Short-term and accelerated programs. Agencies would be prohibited from categorically prohibiting short-term or accelerated programs that produce comparable outcomes.
• Misrepresentation prohibitions. Agencies would be subject to new requirements that prohibit their knowingly making false, misleading, or materially incomplete statements regarding accreditation status, scope, conditions, or limitations. They would also be expected to have procedures for investigating and correcting such misrepresentations.
• Retroactive restoration of accreditation. Accrediting agencies must have a means of retroactively restoring accreditation if warranted or required by a judicial decision.

Reducing Barriers for New Accrediting Agencies

One of the primary goals of the Department is to streamline and shorten the process for the recognition of new accrediting agencies. The Department also intends to shorten and simplify the process for switching accrediting agencies. The consensus draft seeks to achieve these goals in several key ways:

• Approval from the Department will no longer be required to switch accrediting agencies, and institutions will be permitted to be accredited by more than one accrediting agency.
• Agencies seeking recognition will be able to apply prior to accrediting an institution or program.
• At the time an agency seeks recognition, it must only have at least one institution that has applied for accreditation and have standards and policies in place.
• While an application for recognition can be filed without recognition of a program or institution, it will not be granted until at least one program or institution is accredited by the agency.
• The definition of “accrediting agency” in the proposed regulations would be modified to include both peer review and non-peer review entities, potentially expanding the types of agencies that may seek recognition from the Department.

Other Noteworthy Provisions in the Consensus Draft

• Actual funding link required. In order to maintain recognition, an accrediting agency would have to have at least one institution or program that relies upon the agency’s accreditation to access federal funds (Title IV or non-HEA funds). New agencies would have two years from the date of recognition to demonstrate that a program or institution was relying on the agency’s accreditation for such purposes.
• Transfer of credit. Accrediting agencies will be required to have policies requiring accredited institutions to accept credit from other institutions accredited by a Department-recognized accreditor, except where there is a written basis for denial that can be appealed by the student. Institutions will also be required to adopt disclosure policies on transfer of credit and will need to provide a written explanation to a student in the event a credit transfer is declined.
• Public disclosure of enforcement timelines. Institutions and programs will be required to publicly disclose any action by the agency that begins the enforcement timelines in 34 CFR 602.20(a) or (b), which effectively means that such public notice will need to be provided upon any finding of noncompliance by the accrediting agency.
• Accelerated initial accreditation. Agencies must have procedures to accelerate the comprehensive accreditation process for institutions or programs seeking initial accreditation.
• Risk-based recognition review. The Department intends to apply a risk-based review to the recognition process, permitting agencies with a lower risk profile to submit a streamlined application.
• Direct communication mechanisms. Accrediting agencies must establish and maintain at least one structured mechanism through which currently enrolled students, employed staff, and employed faculty of accredited institutions or programs may communicate directly with the agency regarding accreditation standards or compliance concerns.

Practical Implications and Compliance Considerations

The consensus draft carries wide-ranging implications for accrediting agencies, higher education institutions, and professional organizations. If the proposed rules are adopted in their current form, they would require a number of actions by accrediting agencies in order to retain recognition from the Department. These include:

• Organizational restructuring. Programmatic accrediting agencies with ties to trade or membership organizations may need to undertake significant structural changes — including physical separation, independent staffing, and financial autonomy — to comply with the enhanced conflict of interest and Separate and Independent requirements.
• Governance and board composition. The revised definition of "Representative of the Public" and new restrictions on the overlap between the committees that set accrediting standards and decision-making committees may require accrediting agencies to change the composition of their decision-making and standard-setting bodies. This may require that the decision-making body include fewer individuals who are affiliated with accredited programs and institutions.
• Antitrust compliance programs. Agencies should review and strengthen internal antitrust compliance controls, recognizing that the Department has signaled it will consider anticompetitive conduct as a significant factor in re-recognition decisions.
• Standards review. Accrediting agencies will need to review their standards against the new substantive requirements — including student achievement metrics, faculty evaluation, academic freedom and viewpoint neutrality, and research integrity — and revise them accordingly.

Key Dates and Next Steps

Affected parties should note the following anticipated timeline.

Accrediting agencies and affected institutions should begin evaluating the potential impact of these proposed rules on their operations, governance, and standards now. The public comment period will provide an important opportunity to raise concerns about the scope and legality of the proposed changes. Stakeholders are encouraged to engage with counsel to assess compliance obligations and develop a strategy for responding to the NPRM once it is published.