Trump executive order says ABA's role as law school accreditor may be revoked
President Donald Trump said he was directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to assess whether to suspend or terminate the ABA as the government's official law school accreditor, citing its 'unlawful 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' requirements,' as part of an executive order, opens new tab focused on reforming higher education accreditation. The order also calls for a similar review of two medical school accrediting bodies.
The ABA did not provide comment on the order.
Trump's order followed a similar warning by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in March which had said that the government could revoke the ABA's accreditor status. The U.S. Department of Education has recognized the ABA as the accreditor of law schools since 1952.
Bondi said in a March letter to the ABA that she wanted it to repeal its law school diversity rule and scrap a planned revision. The ABA's Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar suspended, opens new tab the diversity rule in February.
A national accreditation system like the ABA's gives law graduates more mobility and 'protects the public as well as the substantial investments law students make in legal education,' said Kellye Testy, executive director of the Association of American Law Schools.
A single accreditation system enables law graduates to work in any state and in rural areas that don't have a law school, Testy said.
If the ABA loses its accreditation status, it could lead to a "patchwork of licensure requirements," said Austen Parrish, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law. The vast majority of states currently require law students to graduate from an ABA-accredited law school in order to sit for the bar exam.
The high courts in Texas and Florida have both said in recent weeks that they are reviewing their ABA-graduation requirement, with the Florida justices citing the ABA's former law school diversity and inclusion rule.
Having to meet different requirements from multiple accreditors and states would be a headache for law schools, said Stetson University Law Dean Benjamin Barros. It's also unclear whether any other accreditor would step in to oversee law schools, he added.
'If not the ABA, then who?' Barros said. 'Having that national standard is really important.'
Student loan access could also be affected. College and professional degree students must attend accredited programs in order to be eligible for federal student loans. The vast majority of the nation's 195 ABA-accredited law schools get their federal loan eligibility through the accreditation of their central universities, not the ABA. But 13 standalone law schools, which aren't part of larger universities, use their independent ABA accreditation for federal loan eligibility as of July, Education Department data show.
If the ABA loses its accreditation authority, those independent schools, which include Brooklyn Law School and Southwestern Law School, would likely need to seek approval from other accreditors in order for their students to qualify for federal loans, Barros said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump's astonishing gamble may pay off spectacularly
After speaking with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders overnight, Donald Trump changed the dial on what at first seemed like a lacklustre summit. The American president announced that he would be pursuing a peace settlement instead of a ceasefire in Ukraine. Trump justified this shift by highlighting the potential fragility of a Ukraine ceasefire deal. Historical evidence shows that Trump's concerns are well-placed. While the February 2015 Minsk II Accords halted Russian territorial expansion in eastern Ukraine, ceasefire violations by Putin's brutal regime were rampant. By March 2016, the US department of defence estimated that 430 Ukrainian soldiers died after Minsk II's signing and warned that Russia was 'pouring heavy weapons' into Donbas. Despite the inherent logic in Trump's push for a grand bargain solution to the Ukraine War, the devil is ultimately in the details. After Trump's meeting with Putin, there are concerns that he might see the legitimisation of Russia's annexation of nearly one-quarter of Ukraine as the fastest route to further imperialism. This worst-case scenario would tempt Russia to rearm and encourage further aggression against Ukraine, Moldova or the Baltic States. There are reasons to believe that these concerns are overly pessimistic. Tragically, any end to the war would almost certainly require Ukraine to make some territorial this is a bitter pill for Ukraine to swallow, frustrations could be tempered by Trump offering the besieged nation ironclad security guarantees. Even though Trump launched a tirade against Zelensky when he mentioned the need for security guarantees at the Oval Office in February, he has apparently come around to the necessity of these assurances. Trump has offered Ukraine Article 5 Nato-style security guarantees in the event of a peace deal. Ukraine would still be nominally a neutral country and not become a full Nato member; yet it will have most of the protections that are afforded to countries within the alliance bloc. This proposal could gain traction within the US foreign policy community and rare bipartisan support. Based on my past engagements with American experts familiar with the Biden administration's thinking on a peace settlement, a plan consisting of territorial concessions and Nato-style security guarantees was under consideration back then. The main disagreement pertains to the legal status of the Russian-annexed regions. Biden's team was firmer about the need to avoid official recognition of these territories and inclined to support Ukraine's claims to their future reintegration. Trump's team, meanwhile, is more willing to torpedo the principle of Westphalian sovereignty and recognize the regions as Russian to stem Putin's aggression. If the US settles on this formula, Europe and Ukraine are unlikely to mount a fierce resistance campaign against it. Its chances of success hinge on its implementation, and there are two issues that need to be resolved for it to be effectively adopted. The first challenge pertains to settling Ukraine's new de facto borders. These involve extremely difficult decisions for Zelensky. In exchange for abandoning Donbas, Ukraine will almost certainly want a land swap deal that guarantees control over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and the occupied half of Kherson. It is unclear whether Putin will accede to these demands, as Russia has officially annexed these areas, but a compromise is possible as they have less resonance to Russian ultra-nationalists than Donbas. Regardless of whether a land swap deal transpires, Ukraine will be forced to tragically dismantle its civilian institutions in Donetsk and potentially integrate hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons. It will also have to respond in a measured fashion to Putin's imposition of Russian culture on all remaining Donbas residents and the subjugation of more Ukrainians to the totalitarian nature of Russian occupation. Once these challenges are achieved, Ukraine will need to ensure that its new borders are defensible. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum security guarantees unravelled due to a lack of will amongst signatories and denialism about the evil threat of Russian neo-imperialism. While these sources of complacency are much less striking now, there are still reasons for concern. The varying paces of arms deliveries to Ukraine and heated debates about escalation risks suggest that Nato does not have a united post-war plan. Therefore, it will be incumbent on Ukraine's strongest supporters within the alliance to quickly provide security assistance and steer as many of their more reluctant counterparts to follow suit. Britain's pledge to deploy ground troops to Ukraine within a week of a ceasefire and use Royal Air Force jets to patrol Ukraine's skies provides a positive example for its like-minded Nato allies. The US's active participation in the post-war peacekeeping coalition is critical. While Americans are evenly divided on the acceptability of peacekeeper deployments and military retaliations against Russia if peacekeepers are attacked, Trump must transcend politics for the cogency of the Nato alliance. Aside from the deployment of peacekeepers and integration of Ukraine into Nato's military technology supply chains, post-war reconstruction investments are a further guarantor of peace. If Ukraine's economy can attract large-scale capital infusions from both Western powers and Russia-friendly Global South stakeholders, such as the Gulf monarchies and China, the costs of further Russian aggression would rise precipitously. Putin's appalling wars have been driven by his false confidence in easy victories and a belief in Russian impunity. These assumptions need to be unequivocally put to rest. The Alaska summit failed to live up to its billing as a stepping stone for peace in Ukraine right now. Despite this, Trump's newest proposals suggest that it might just be around the corner.
Daily Mail
24 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Secret dossier detailing Trump's meeting with Putin found
Donald Trump's mystery woman has been plunged into scandal after a secret dossier detailing his summit with Vladimir Putin was found by guests at an Alaskan hotel. Eight pages of official government documents were left behind on printers at the four-star Hotel Captain Cook on Friday, NPR reports. The hotel is located 20 minutes from the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage. The documents, which were produced by the Office of the Chief of Protocol, revealed the precise locations and times of the meetings between US and Russian officials. The president's Chief of Protocol, former Fox News analyst Monica Crowley, was responsible for creating the detailed program for Putin's visit, including arranging the vital meeting between the two countries to discuss a potential ceasefire in Ukraine. Details of the schedule contained in the papers included phone numbers of three US government employees and pronunciation guides for the names of Russian attendees — including 'Mr. President POO-tihn'. Trump also intended to offer Putin a ceremonial gift during Friday's summit, the documents showed, though it is unclear if he did. In the aftermath of the summit, Trump has urged Ukraine to make a deal with Russia to end the war and allegedly told Volodymyr Zelensky that Putin offered to freeze most front lines if Kyiv's forces ceded all of Donetsk. Zelensky reportedly rejected the demand. Trump has also indicated that he agrees with Putin that a peace deal should be sought without the prior ceasefire that Ukraine and its European allies, until now with US support, have demanded. Trump met with Putin in Anchorage Friday to discuss a peace proposal, though few details were disclosed about the pair's meeting. But papers found at the Hotel Captain Cook around 9am Friday revealed exactly what rooms the Russian and US leaders convened in at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. Page one of the pack showed that Trump and Putin met near the 'American Bald Eagle Desk Statue' at the base, NPR reports. Three pages in the document included names of US and Kremlin officials, including phonetic pronunciation for all the Russians expected to attend the summit. The sixth and seventh pages in the document stated that a luncheon would be held in 'honor of his excellency Vladimir Putin'. It featured the expected menu of green salad with a champagne vinaigrette dressing for the starter and a main of filet mignon or halibut, with potatoes and asparagus on the side. Guests would be served crème brûlée for dessert. The included seating chart placed Trump across from Putin, alongside senior US officials. Putin was meant to be seated with senior Russian officials, but it is understood that the luncheon was cancelled. It is unclear who left behind the documents, but political analysts warn the mishap demonstrates 'sloppiness and the incompetence of the administration'. Although the documents and summit itinerary were marked as being produced by Crowley's team, there has been no official information tying her specifically to the leak. Crowley took center stage as she charmed Vladimir Putin at the Alaska summit on Friday, making the Russian leader beam as they shook hands shortly before he took off from Elmendorf Air Force Base. As Chief of Protocol, her role is to ensure diplomatic proceedings run smoothly. Trump's three-hour meeting with Putin was the first US-Russia summit since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. 'It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up,' Trump said of the summit. Before the meeting, Trump had said he would not be happy unless a ceasefire was agreed on. Afterwards, he suggested a follow-up meeting with Putin could happen if talks with Zelensky went well. Russia's forces have been gradually advancing for months, with the war — the deadliest in Europe for 80 years — killing or wounding well over a million people from both sides, including thousands of Ukrainian civilians. Both Russia and Ukraine carried out overnight air attacks, and Ukraine's military reported 139 front-line clashes in 24 hours. Trump told Fox he would hold off on imposing tariffs on China for buying Russian oil after making progress with Putin. He ended his remarks to Putin by saying, 'I'd like to thank you very much, and we'll speak to you very soon and probably see you again very soon.' Putin replied, 'Next time in Moscow.' Trump said he might 'get a little heat on that one' but could 'possibly see it happening.'
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Putin has cemented Russia's status as a great power. Europe should be terrified
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin met as equals on American soil this week, not because Mr Trump is in thrall to Putin but because his advances into Ukraine have been unstoppable despite over three years of Western effort. Ukrainian forces have fought hard and with tremendous courage, skill and sacrifice. They prevented the intended Russian blitzkrieg at the beginning of the war and have pushed Russia back in places. They even conducted audacious assaults into Russian territory and inflicted unexpected damage on Moscow's forces including in the Black Sea and as far away as eastern Siberia. But Putin still believes he can absorb whatever blows Kyiv throws at him and win even more territory as his forces push hard and continue to make progress in the Donbas. This region, rich in mineral wealth, is Russia's main military focus. Pushing against well-prepared Ukrainian defences here has proven costly in men and munitions and has made slow progress. Putin would prefer not to continue fighting for it if he can get it by other means and he told Mr Trump at Anchorage that the war could end if Ukraine withdraws from the 30 per cent of Donetsk that his forces have not yet conquered. Volodymyr Zelensky will be reluctant to agree to that and has said that voluntarily ceding any Ukrainian territory would require constitutional change. He will have to balance that with his judgment on whether Ukrainian forces will be able to hold on to it if the war continues, and what the price of that might be. That assessment will have to include the extent to which the West, eyeing the potential for peace, will continue to enable his defensive efforts and how effective Ukraine can be on its own. On top of that, Mr Zelensky will be mindful that at this stage in this extremely costly war, polling suggests that the majority of the population want to see its end, with significant proportions reluctantly willing to give up land. What is Putin offering in return? Virtually nothing. Russia has taken small areas of territory in the north-east, around Kharkiv and Sumy, and has said he will be willing to withdraw from there in exchange for Donetsk. He has also agreed to freeze the front lines in the south, in the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, of which Russia currently holds around three quarters of the total. A ceasefire prior to Putin's 'deal' is of no interest to him and it seems any such thing, which had been a Western priority, was not seriously entertained in Anchorage. Despite serious military flaws that became only too evident since the start of the war, Russia has shown that its forces are no paper tiger. The much-vaunted Western hardware, technical sophistication and military doctrines are not enough to beat it. Indeed Russia has learnt the lessons of modern warfare, adapting its forces and strategies to deal with drones and other battlefield innovations in a way that the West has not. Russia is maintaining astonishing levels of arms production and has been supplementing its own output with supplies from Iran, North Korea and China. In this form of attritional warfare the West has been unable or unwilling to keep up. Putin has reoriented his economy away from Europe especially towards the Brics nations. Although Russian finances are in difficulties, the West has not yet been willing to administer the level of shock that might lead to anything approaching collapse. Instead, dependent on Russian energy, European countries have continued to play their part in fuelling the war machine. Western sanctions have been severe but insufficient, and the additional sanctions President Trump threatened, as well as secondary tariffs, seem to have evaporated since Putin agreed to the Alaska summit. The net result of all this is that it seems the war will continue to grind on unless President Zelensky accedes to Putin's maximalist demands which, as the summit showed, have not changed since the day he launched his special military operation. Meanwhile, the Europeans have reduced themselves to spectators to Ukraine's fate – and their own. European leaders don't even seem to recognise that the cause of this entire situation, and whatever develops from it, largely falls at their own doorstep. Putin claims that a reason for invading Ukraine was Nato aggression towards the east. Yet it was the opposite. He noted that there was no price to be paid for his 2014 invasion of Crimea, notwithstanding Western guarantees that Ukraine would not be threatened by its agreement to give up its nuclear arsenal. Putin read the situation exactly right: it was Nato that was the paper tiger. Mr Trump has been discussing security guarantees with the Europeans as part of a final settlement. That would not include membership of Nato, which in any case would not be acceptable to Putin were he to agree any peace deal. It is unlikely to be any internationally binding treaty but rather a Nato 'article 5' type arrangement whereby participating states would agree to come to Ukraine's defence if it were to be attacked. That would amount to no more than political promises along the lines of previous guarantees given to Kyiv which were not subsequently honoured. Geography alone dictates that European countries should, theoretically, have greater investment in Ukraine's future than the US, and it is they who ought to be looking to bear the burden of security guarantees rather than always looking across the Atlantic. We keep hearing about the 'coalition of the willing', with European forces led by Britain and France to send in forces to guarantee a ceasefire or perhaps a peace agreement. Yet always this is accompanied by the caveat of a US backstop if it is to work. We also hear from European leaders how, if Putin gets his way in Ukraine, it will encourage him to further aggression. Well, it now looks likely that he may well get his way, or at least much of it. So rather than lamenting a dire situation that their own negligence has helped bring about, these European leaders need to get serious about defence – and fast. That means more than just promises to increase defence spending to repair their destitute armed services sometime in the future. It means hardening political thinking away from decades of flabby compromise, appeasement and accommodation and bringing about societal change so that when the Russian bear comes back for more there will be sufficient patriots ready and willing to get into the trenches rather than the hope that Uncle Sam will come to their rescue.
