Trump vows to eliminate ‘Marxist influence’ of accreditors on campuses: Why accreditation remains a battleground in U.S. higher education

In a bold statement on Tuesday, US President-elect Donald Trump declared it is time to “reclaim America’s educational institutions from the radical Left,” signalling his commitment to reshaping the country’s educational landscape. Trump announced that his administration, set to take office on January 20, will dismiss the current accreditation bodies, which he accuses of allowing colleges to be taken over by “Marxists, maniacs and lunatics.” He outlined a new vision focused on patriotism, affordability, and the eradication of what he calls “Marxist diversity, equity and inclusion bureaucrats.”
Trump’s remarks, shared widely on social media by prominent figures including SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, cast a stark spotlight on the ideological divide within higher education. In his proposed reform, Trump aims to install accreditors that will ensure American colleges and universities defend “American traditions in Western civilisation,” uphold free speech, and prioritise career-readiness and cost-effective degrees.

“It’s time to reclaim our institutions from the grip of the radical Left,” Trump stated. As part of his proposed overhaul, he promised to remove accreditors he views as promoting Marxist ideas and replace them with agencies aligned with what he called “American values.” His remarks have revived an ongoing debate about the role of accreditation agencies, which have long influenced college policies, standards, and access to federal funding.

Accreditation in the US: A Foundation for Quality or Ideological Control?
The U.S. accreditation system has traditionally served as a quality assurance mechanism for higher education. Accreditation agencies, independent of government control, assess and approve institutions based on their academic standards, financial health, and overall educational quality. Only accredited institutions are eligible for federal funding, a key resource for many universities.

The accreditation process in the United States is dual-layered: regional accrediting bodies generally oversee non-profit and public institutions, while national agencies evaluate for-profit and career-focused schools. This system has historically been essential in maintaining educational standards across diverse institutions. However, accreditation also wields significant power over curricula, policies, and administrative structure, which some argue makes it an ideological battleground as well.
Trump Terms Accreditation as a ‘Left-Leaning’ Agenda: But why?
Trump has criticised accreditation agencies, arguing they have embedded progressive, “leftist” values in their standards. According to him, these agencies mandate policies that elevate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) over educational quality, which he claims has led to “indoctrination” of students with liberal ideologies. Trump contends that these standards hinder the representation of conservative viewpoints on campus and create an environment hostile to free speech.
This criticism aligns with longstanding conservative views that accreditation agencies are out of touch with middle America and promote social justice agendas. These agencies’ emphasis on diversity initiatives and campus policies supporting gender and racial inclusivity, Trump claims, constitutes a form of ideological gatekeeping that excludes or marginalises more conservative perspectives.
Trump’s allegations of “Marxist” influence in accreditation are rooted in broader conservative grievances about perceived left-wing biases within higher education. Many on the right argue that accrediting bodies, particularly those that enforce DEI standards, push a progressive agenda in higher education. For instance, accrediting agencies often require universities to meet diversity and equity benchmarks, which critics argue compels institutions to adopt policies that reflect liberal social values. In this context, accreditation agencies are seen not only as gatekeepers of academic quality but also as influencers of social policy on campus.
Some conservative education advocates argue that these standards prioritise political correctness over meritocratic educational goals. In their view, the focus on social justice and inclusivity restricts free speech and promotes specific ideologies at the expense of academic freedom. By removing accreditors that promote these DEI standards, Trump believes he can protect universities from what he sees as a political agenda that sidelines conservative viewpoints.
Trump’s Actions So Far to ‘Reform’ the Accreditation Landscape
During his previous term, Trump took steps to alter the accreditation system, actions that sparked considerable controversy. Under then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, his administration relaxed regulations on accrediting agencies, allowing institutions greater choice in selecting their accreditors. Trump aimed to empower colleges and universities to align themselves with agencies that shared their educational or ideological values.
Among the administration’s reforms was the removal of “substantive change” approval requirements. Previously, universities needed accreditor approval to implement major changes, such as launching new degree programmes or modifying curricula. The Trump administration eliminated this requirement, giving institutions more flexibility to shape their educational offerings without external oversight. This deregulation, Trump argued, would allow institutions to innovate freely without the constraints of what he viewed as progressive policies enforced by accreditation bodies.
Critics Warn of the Risks of Politicising Accreditation
Critics of Trump’s approach argue that his reforms risk undermining academic quality in favour of political gains. Accreditation is meant to be a neutral quality-control mechanism, they say, but Trump’s interventions have opened the door for partisan influence over educational standards. By shifting accreditation’s role away from quality assurance and toward ideological alignment, critics warn, Trump’s policies may compromise the credibility of

U.S. higher education

.
Some argue that Trump’s changes, particularly his move to reduce the role of regional accreditors in favour of national agencies, have already weakened academic standards. National accreditors have been accused of being more lenient, especially toward for-profit institutions, which have faced criticism for higher student debt and lower graduation rates. By encouraging schools to select “like-minded” accreditors, they argue, Trump’s policies could incentivise lower standards and prioritise ideological alignment over educational rigor.
Additionally, educational policy experts argue that Trump’s stance against DEI initiatives overlooks the positive impact of diversity and inclusivity on campus. Research shows that diverse student bodies and faculty foster a richer learning environment, promoting empathy, collaboration, and critical thinking. By targeting DEI standards as “leftist” ideology, critics believe Trump risks sacrificing these benefits to pursue a partisan agenda.
The Future of Accreditation in the U.S.
As Trump continues to champion his vision for an “ideologically neutral” accreditation system, the role of accreditation in U.S. higher education remains a focal point of political and educational debate. Trump’s campaign to eliminate “Marxist” influence among accreditors has intensified discussions about academic freedom, ideological balance, and the responsibilities of accrediting agencies. With federal funding at stake, the outcomes of these reforms could significantly impact the future of U.S. higher education.
The debate over accreditation reform is far from resolved, and the question of whether accreditation agencies should reflect societal values or focus solely on academic standards will remain contentious. Whether Trump’s proposed overhaul succeeds in reshaping American campuses or leads to further polarisation, his influence on the accreditation system has sparked a critical conversation about the intersection of ideology and educational quality.
A New Era for US Education?
As the debate over accreditation reform intensifies, Trump’s stance has introduced a polarising vision for the future of American higher education. His administration’s efforts to shift accreditation standards reflect a broader cultural clash over the ideological direction of colleges and universities. For proponents, Trump’s policies represent a necessary corrective to leftist influences, aiming to restore institutional autonomy and uphold free speech on campuses. For opponents, however, these reforms risk politicising accreditation and eroding the essential role of oversight in preserving academic quality.
The future of the US educational system now hangs in the balance, as policymakers, educators, and accrediting agencies grapple with how best to balance institutional freedom with the need for consistent, unbiased standards.