Trump Administration Evaluates Future of Accrediting Agency for Beauty and Cosmetology Schools

The Trump administration is currently considering the accreditation status of the National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences (NACCAS). This agency oversees approximately 1,300 beauty and cosmetology schools enrolling over 120,000 students. The decision will test the applicability of President Donald Trump’s commitment to overhaul higher education accreditation, a promise that gained attention during his 2024 campaign.

Trump vowed to address what he termed the ‘radical left accreditors’ and disparaged colleges and universities he viewed as politicized. However, the present situation with the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) ventures into different territory. The concern here is not about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) standards, but whether NACCAS has met federal requirements.

NACCAS accredits around 1,300 schools with over 120,000 students in relevant programs. It is essential for students since DOE-approved accreditation allows for participation in federal financial aid programs.

A review by DOE staff identified certain weaknesses within NACCAS but suggested maintaining its recognition with specific restrictions. These include enhanced monitoring and additional reporting as NACCAS works towards full compliance. However, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) moved to deny NACCAS’ renewal of recognition, taking a stricter stance with a 9-3 vote during its July meeting.

The Department of Education, describing a three-step evaluative process of accreditor recognition conducted every five years, has yet to announce a final determination. A senior DOE official will make the ultimate decision based on staff and NACIQI recommendations, though they declined further comment during ongoing proceedings.

For numerous students, the stakes are pronounced, as access to federal aid is a critical factor in affording beauty school. Aliyah Fernandez, a Hollywood Institute graduate, credited federal financial support as necessary for her education. As a working mother, Fernandez appreciated the career flexibility that cosmetology offered, which aligned with her family commitments. Her concerns were echoed by Blythe Fields, another student who, after paying for esthetician school out of her own pocket, saw federal aid as indispensable to continuing her education.

Fernandez and Fields initiated a petition urging the DOE to forego NACIQI’s harsh recommendation. They propose a monitored improvement period, allowing NACCAS to rectify issues and maintain federal recognition. Fernandez acknowledged the federal concerns yet argued for a balanced approach, emphasizing the severe implications an accreditation loss would render.

The Department’s review process stands in contrast to an executive order from Trump, directing the DOE to evaluate accreditors requiring adherence to potentially unlawful DEI standards. Instead, current proceedings emphasize NACCAS’s compliance with broader federal oversight criteria.

Internal disagreements manifest further as Zakiya Smith Ellis, a former Obama-era DOE official and NACIQI member, argued in favor of denying NACCAS recognition. She cited prior opportunities given to resolve compliance issues as insufficient while expressing concerns about student loan debt and career earnings among NACCAS graduates.

Robert Eitel, a former DOE representative under Trump, opposed the denial. He questioned the repercussions of severing recognition and advocated for corrective measures, highlighting the impact on tens of thousands of enrolled students.