When Deregulation Backfires: How Executive Order 14279 Might Hurt the Schools It Aims to Save
This is the first in a series of posts exploring the impact of executive orders (and other political decisions) on higher education—specifically, how they shape the survival of private universities.
Ah, deregulation. The siren song of fewer forms, looser rules, and bold promises. President Trump’s Executive Order 14279—“Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education”—sells itself as a gift to struggling colleges drowning in bureaucracy and wokeness.
But look a little closer, and you’ll find this EO might be the higher ed version of a Trojan horse: rolled onto campuses with good PR, only to unleash forces that many schools aren’t equipped to fight.
📜 What’s in the Executive Order?
The EO outlines five headline reforms:
-
Increased Oversight of Accreditors
The Department of Ed will now police the gatekeepers more closely—demanding consistency, rigor, and "ideological neutrality." -
Expansion of the Accreditor Marketplace
More accreditors will be allowed. Tired of your current overlord? Shop around. -
Elimination of DEI-Driven Mandates
Accreditors will be discouraged from requiring Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion plans as part of institutional expectations. -
Protection of Institutional Free Speech
Colleges won't be punished for holding or teaching "nonconforming" viewpoints. -
Ease of Accreditor Switching
Schools can ditch their accreditor with less red tape—sort of like breaking up over text.
Sounds freeing, right? Until you realize that each of these “fixes” comes with hidden costs, especially for smaller, private universities.
🧩 The True Impact, by University Type
Here’s what EO 14279 really means for different corners of the higher ed map:
🏛 Ivy League (e.g., Harvard, Yale)
Effect:
A non-event. These schools won’t drop DEI, won't switch accreditors, and won’t stop admitting students from 147 different countries. They’ll likely just use the EO as a case study in policy seminars.
Hidden Risk:
None. They're immune to policy weather.
Verdict:
Still tenured. Still funded. Still fine.
💰 Financially Elite (e.g., Liberty University, Hillsdale College)
Effect:
They may see short-term wins—less DEI pressure, more freedom to align accreditors with ideology, and applause from their base.
Hidden Risk:
A sharp drop in international enrollment. As DEI support structures vanish across higher ed, U.S. colleges may become less attractive to full-pay international students. Even elite conservative schools could find themselves unexpectedly on the losing end of global competition.
Verdict:
Helpful on paper, but possibly self-defeating in practice.
🏫 Stable Liberal Arts (e.g., Friends University, St. Olaf College)
Effect:
These schools operate on tight margins and do a delicate dance between mission and market. The EO may look like a lifeline, offering less red tape.
Hidden Risk:
- Loss of international students, many of whom rely on DEI offices for support and adjustment.
- Faculty hiring standards may rise under new accreditor pressure. Many of these schools hire expert practitioners rather than research-driven doctorates. If accreditors start pushing for terminal degrees across the board, it’s a financial and operational gut punch.
Verdict:
A deregulation mirage. Fewer DEI requirements, but a new maze of compliance.
🆘 Struggling Private (e.g., Clinton College, Morris College)
Effect:
Initially, these schools may benefit. The EO slows accreditor scrutiny and buys time.
Hidden Risk:
- Without DEI infrastructure, they become less attractive to international and marginalized domestic students—often their most tuition-reliable groups.
- Switching to a fringe accreditor might void Title IV eligibility or create a stigma that accelerates enrollment decline.
- And if the EO is reversed in 2029? These schools could be left holding the bag—with fewer students, lower standards, and no federal aid.
Verdict:
A sugar high followed by an existential crash.
🌍 The International Enrollment Domino Effect
Let’s be blunt: DEI helps keep the doors open.
International students are more than a cultural asset. They’re a financial pillar—often paying full tuition, living on campus, and staying for grad school. DEI offices are often the only support structure for these students, guiding them through:
- Cultural adjustment
- Legal navigation (visas, housing, healthcare)
- Academic norms and communication barriers
End DEI, and that infrastructure collapses. What comes next?
- Fewer international applications
- Higher transfer-out rates
- Lower retention
- Accreditation flags for “unsatisfactory institutional effectiveness”
All because someone wanted to cancel a pronoun workshop.
🎓 Faculty: Experience ≠ Inferiority
Many small universities run on faculty with exceptional experience but non-doctoral credentials. They’re former CEOs, nurses, journalists, nonprofit leaders, and tech professionals—people who train job-ready students, not publish in academic journals.
EO 14279’s call for increased “rigor and consistency” among accreditors sounds harmless—until accreditors, fearing oversight, start tightening hiring standards. That could mean:
- Smaller schools forced to pay doctoral-level salaries
- Fewer courses offered
- Reduced industry relevance in the classroom
The irony? The very EO that wants to promote “workforce readiness” might suffocate the campuses that actually deliver it.
🪦 Final Verdict: Trojan Horse, Not Lifeline
EO 14279 sells itself as a way to save higher ed from ideological rot and accreditation bloat.
But behind that noble curtain is a darker reality:
- International students will leave.
- Faculty hiring will get harder.
- Accreditor flexibility may turn into fragmentation.
- Smaller schools could lose what little leverage they have.
If you’re running a university—or attending one—you should be deeply skeptical of this "gift." Sometimes deregulation isn’t freedom. Sometimes it’s a wooden horse filled with unintended consequences.