The Department of Education last month finalized an overhaul of the accreditation system for colleges and universities in a way critics say could punish unpopular speech in the classroom.

Accrediting agencies now have to evaluate how Indiana schools apply the state’s “intellectual diversity” law, which affects what faculty teach.

The federal changes follow threats by President Trump that college accreditation would become his “secret weapon” against “the radical left.”

Accrediting agencies are independent nonprofits working with schools to ensure they comply with national education standards. Under new rules, that includes making sure schools enforce intellectual diversity where such laws exist.

It’s a major change for the way colleges and universities are held accountable, said Amy Reid, program director for Freedom to Learn at PEN America.

“It's not that it's requiring anybody to have an intellectual diversity provision,” Reid said. “It is saying that universities and accreditors may have an intellectual diversity rule, and that these rules don't stop them from enforcing an intellectual diversity rule that is reasonably designed.”

PEN America, an advocacy group for academic freedom and free expression, warned that the Department of Education’s new rule could weaken protections for faculty by allowing the accreditors to set standards for what intellectual diversity means. In Indiana, critics say that phrase has already been used to punish faculty for presenting controversial left-wing views in the classroom.

“As written, the new changes make it more difficult for accreditors to insist that there is a respect for academic freedom,” Reid said.

Indiana University spokesperson Mark Bode did not respond to a request for comment.

Read more: Faculty fear state law on post-tenure review dilutes academic freedom

Indiana passed its intellectual diversity law in 2024, following Florida and Texas. Public Law 113 (still referred to by many academics under its name as a bill, SB 202) mandates that faculty present diverse perspectives on what they teach in the classroom or risk losing tenure.

Its proponents say that law ensures students are exposed to new perspectives and helps conservative students feel more welcome on campus.

The author of Public Law 113, State Senator Spencer Deery (R – Lafayette), welcomes the new federal regulations as a commonsense measure.

“It's simply challenging institutions to prioritize making sure that they're exposing students to the best scholarly works and not shielding them from anything simply because it may not align with a professor or an institution's preferred world viewpoint,” Deery said. “That's a service for all students of all political stripes.”

Read more: Indiana Supreme Court rules Sen. Spencer Deery winner in 3-vote primary

Deery said intellectual diversity standards should be neutrally applied and hopes the law and new guidelines will create a more welcoming space for debate.

He said he doesn’t see the new rules as Trump “putting his thumb on the scale.”

“Let's be honest, we've seen some of that from the administration,” Deery said. “That doesn't appear to be what this is. This is not a campaign video; this is something that went through the rulemaking process.”

The Department of Education addressed those criticisms as well.

“Contrary to the hyperbole exercised by several commenters,” it wrote. “The new regulations also do not prescribe the content of policies relating to academic freedom and diversity.”

Although it’s too early to see how exactly that new oversight will play out, intellectual diversity requirements are just a small part of the new federal accreditation rules.

Notably, the guidelines will make it easier for new accrediting agencies to form and give universities the freedom to choose which one they want to work with, ostensibly to “encourage innovation” and “increase competition.”

Functionally, Reid worries it means schools will be able to choose their own regulators, and agencies will be encouraged to become more accommodating.

“We are concerned about what happens when the field is open for more accreditors to join who aren't necessarily experienced or vetted and who may have political agendas that they're trying to impose,” she said.