6 minPolitics
Beauty school students face uncertainty as Trump administration weighs accreditor decision
The Education Department is deciding whether to strip federal recognition from NACCAS, the accreditor for roughly 1,300 beauty and cosmetology schools serving more than 120,000 students. Students who rely on federal aid say the outcome could determine whether they can continue their education.
The Trump administration is weighing whether to strip federal recognition from the accreditor that oversees roughly 1,300 beauty and cosmetology schools and more than 120,000 students, a decision that could reshape access to federal student aid for career-focused programs.
The case before the U.S. Department of Education centers on the National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences, or NACCAS, and whether it has complied with federal requirements. Department staff have recommended continuing NACCAS's recognition with restrictions, additional reporting, and monitoring while it works toward compliance. But the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, an independent bipartisan panel known as NACIQI, voted 9-3 in July to recommend denying renewed recognition outright.
The stakes are significant for students because recognition by a department-approved accreditor is generally required for schools to participate in federal student aid programs. NACCAS says it accredits approximately 1,300 institutions offering cosmetology, beauty, and related career programs.
For some students, the outcome could determine whether they can afford their education at all. Aliyah Fernandez, a recent graduate of Hollywood Institute's cosmetology program and a mother who now works as a salon assistant, said federal aid made her training possible.
«I could not have afforded beauty school without federal financial aid,» Fernandez said. «It was because of that that I could attend at all.»
Fernandez said she chose cosmetology in part because she wanted a career that would allow her to earn a living while remaining present in her daughter's life. «I knew that if I worked full-time 9 to 5, I wouldn't barely have any time to see her grow up,» she said. «I wanted an opportunity to financially support her and be present in her life at the same time.»
Blythe Fields, an expectant mother studying cosmetology while working in salons, said she previously paid for esthetician school herself and spent roughly two years saving her tips to continue her education. «I paid out of pocket for esthetician school, and it made me go broke,» Fields said.
Fields said she now works during the day and attends school at night, describing her schedule as «literally 12-hour days.» She said federal financial aid allowed her to continue her education and that the flexibility of cosmetology will become even more important when her baby arrives. «The first year is so important, and I need to be able to have that flexibility to raise a child,» she said.
Both women said they helped start a petition asking the department not to adopt NACIQI's recommendation outright. The petition calls instead for a monitored improvement period that would allow NACCAS to address the government's findings while maintaining recognition.
Fernandez said she understood why federal officials raised concerns about NACCAS but believed denying recognition would go too far. «Having done the research myself, I can completely understand, you know, the side of the board,» she said. «However, I do not think a full termination of accreditation is reasonable considering how many people rely on this.»
Fields was more pointed when asked what she would tell Trump before his administration makes the final decision. «I would ask him who cuts and colors his hair and how did they get there?» she said.
The disagreement over NACCAS centers on whether the deficiencies identified during its federal review warrant continued oversight or denial of recognition. Department staff recommended that NACCAS be prohibited from accrediting additional institutions until it demonstrates compliance, completes corrective action within 12 months, and submits additional reports. NACIQI instead recommended denial.
Zakiya Smith Ellis, a former Obama administration education official who serves on the advisory committee, made the motion to deny NACCAS renewed recognition. Michael Poliakoff seconded the motion, which passed 9-3. Smith Ellis argued during the July meeting that NACCAS had been given opportunities to address compliance problems and questioned whether additional time would be sufficient.
The Education Department told Fox News Digital that accreditor recognition is reviewed every five years through a three-step process: department staff makes a recommendation, NACIQI makes its own recommendation, and a senior department official makes the final judgment based on both. «We will not comment on details as the process is ongoing,» the department said.
The case arrives as the Trump administration has made accreditation reform a priority. Trump promised during the 2024 campaign to «fire the radical left accreditors» and called accreditation his «secret weapon» against colleges and universities he argued had been captured by the political left. But this case differs from those involving diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements, centering instead on whether NACCAS has met federal compliance standards.
