Republicans Want to Fire College Accreditors. A Federal Judge Just Said No

College accreditation, for decades a wonky topic that only a handful of policy nerds paid attention to, recently became a subject worthy of Presidential campaign platforms when earlier this year, former President Donald Trump stated in a campaign video that he would “fire the radical left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics.”

Trump’s campaign video \s just one of many in the litany of attacks that accreditors have faced from Republican politicians in recent years, who want to get rid of college accreditation so they can exert more control over higher education–most accreditors require that colleges can operate free from undue influence.

College accreditation is a critical part of college quality and oversight under the Higher Education Act. In order for a college’s students to be eligible for the billions in federal financial grants and loans each year, a school must first be accredited by an independent nonprofit accrediting agency that meets certain standards set by the federal government.

The first effort to “fire accrediting agencies,” came by way of a lawsuit led by Governor Ron DeSantis and the State of Florida against the Biden-Harris Administration. It claimed the practice of accreditation itself unconstitutional. Unfortunately for Governor DeSantis, to effectively reform accreditation, you have to understand its purpose and structure under Federal law. And he just failed massively, based on a misunderstanding of both the Higher Education Act and the Constitution itself.

If the suit had been successful, it would have eliminated the role of college accrediting agencies responsible for ensuring that colleges provide students with a high-quality education. But as hinted in the ruling, the receipt of Federal financial aid comes with requirements, and if the State of Florida or others would like to “fire accreditors” to gain control of institutions of higher education, it's not going to happen with a flip of a switch. They are going to have to first change the law or have students go without federal financial aid.

Why Did Florida Want to Get Rid of Accreditation?

Florida’s beef with accreditors started in 2022, when the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACSCOC) started asking some pointed questions about political interference at Florida public colleges and universities. Being able to operate free from undue external influence interference is part of most accreditors’ standards, as part of ensuring strong governance.

Just a couple of examples of the concerns SACSCOC raised, included the University of Florida barring several professors from testifying as expert witnesses against the State, apparently due to pressure from Florida lawmakers, and questions over potential conflicts of interest in a presidential search at Florida State University seemingly without much transparency or a proper search process.

In response to what Florida lawmakers viewed as SACSCOC meddling in things it should have left well alone, the Florida legislature passed a law requiring all public colleges and universities in Florida to switch accreditors from SACSCOC (historically the agency that has accredited most Florida schools).

The Department of Education (ED), at the time the Florida law was passed, made it clear that colleges must have a good reason to change accreditors and that the law could put public colleges in Florida at odds with federal law, which requires that accrediting agencies be made up of a voluntary membership and that they receive approval by the Secretary of Education demonstrating reasonable cause before switching accrediting agencies. This guidance, and Florida’s perception that the Department was trying to block Florida schools from changing accreditors, led to Florida filing suit. To date, the Department has not denied any applications from Florida colleges to switch accrediting agencies.

Florida v Cardona and the ruling

Florida’s lawsuit against Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, and other senior officials alleged that the current accreditation system as laid out in the Higher Education Act (HEA), was unconstitutional based on three primary arguments.

1. Florida’s Complaint, the Non-Delegation Doctrine Argument:

Florida argued that since colleges must be accredited in order for their students to use federal financial aid, accrediting agencies are wielding government authority, in violation of the non-delegation doctrine.

Department of Education’s Response:

ED noted in its response that the argument is based on a flawed premise, that Congress did not grant accreditors any federal power, and their role is not a federal function. To the contrary, the system of accreditation was developed by colleges themselves and existed long before the creation of the Federal financial aid programs.

Judge Becerra’s Ruling:

Judge Becerra ruled that the Department relying on accreditors to oversee colleges does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. The judge noted that since accreditation is one of several requirements for a school to be Title IV eligible, delegating one piece of the requirements to accreditors does not mean the Department is delegating all authority to determine Title IV eligibility to accreditors. The Judge also made clear that relying on a private entity is not the same as granting them government authority, and that accrediting colleges is not, and never has been a legislative function.

1. Florida’s Complaint, the Spending Clause argument:

Florida’s suit argued that the HEA, as it relates to accreditation, violates the Spending Clause, because colleges risk losing access to federal financial aid funds if they are not accredited and because accreditors can change their standards, which, according to Florida’s suit, leaves institutions unsure of what rules they need to follow.

Department of Education’s Response:

ED contended in its response that Florida ignores that federal student aid funds are provided to students to help pay for college, and the Title IV program is not a grant of funds directly to States.

Judge Becerra’s Ruling:

On the spending clause argument, the court agreed with the Department, that since Title IV goes to students, not states, there are no grounds to invalidate the HEA. Judge Becerra also dismantled Florida’s argument that since the state eventually receives some of the funds, it had an interest in how eligibility for those funds are governed. Judge Becerra made clear that the federal government has every right to set conditions around the receipt of federal funds, and that changing accreditation standards does not penalize states by removing current funds, but rather, impacts eligibility for future funds.

The judge also made clear that even if Title IV funds went directly to colleges, participating in Title IV programs is voluntary. Schools are not forced to be accredited, and can choose to not to participate in federal financial aid programs. For example, Hillsdale College chooses not to participate in Title IV, in part because it does not wish to be bound by federal regulations that come with participation.

It is also worth noting that in most cases, when accreditors change their standards, they do so in close consultation with the institutions they oversee, so changes are rarely, if ever, a surprise to colleges.

1. Florida’s Complaint, the Appointments Clause:

Florida argued that the heads of accrediting agencies should be considered federal officers because of the power they wield, especially because their seal of approval controls access to billions of dollars in federal financial aid. Florida argued that given this significant power, the leaders of accrediting agencies should be appointed according to the rules under the Appointments Clause. As an example, The Appointments Clause is what governs how presidents appoint, and the senate must approve, cabinet secretaries.

Department of Education’s Response:

ED notes in its response that accrediting agency heads are private individuals and not Officers of the United States subject to the Appointments Clause.

Judge Becerra’s Ruling:

Judge Becerra ruled that the appointments clause argument was invalid, because it relies on the argument that accreditors control eligibility for federal funds, which the judge already determined was unfounded.

Accreditation and Political Attacks

Accreditation has become a bit of a boogeyman for Republicans. Donald Trump has promised to get rid of all the current accreditors. Project 2025, The Republican Party’s blueprint for a second Trump presidency, argues that accreditors should be severely limited, or removed from the higher education system completely.

The oddly fierce war over accreditation comes down to one thing: control. Accreditors are independent agencies. While some are recognized by the Department of Education to serve as gatekeepers to federal aid funds, they do not answer to governors, or other state politicians. Republicans, in an effort to limit opposition to interference in higher education and impose their own views and control over colleges, view independent accrediting agencies as a barrier to gaining that control.

The risks going forward

Continued attacks on accreditors put students' access to vital federal financial aid at risk and work to undermine a key leg of the Federal triad responsible for ensuring quality academic standards. This concern is particularly acute when states with large public systems, like Florida, are putting the accreditation of its colleges at risk. Students are the ones who will ultimately pay the price if a large public institution loses accreditation.