As the Trump administration works to root out DEI, medical school accreditors continue to prioritize it.
Accreditation organizations continue to pressure the medical schools in their charge to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion at the expense of rigorous training for the next generation of health-care professionals, forcing administrators to choose whether to comply with the Trump administration’s new anti-DEI push and jeopardize their accreditation, or risk their accreditation by ditching the divisive identity politics.
Do No Harm, a watchdog opposed to identity politics in medicine, found that ten prominent accreditors continue to advance DEI through accreditation standards to the detriment of medical professionals and patients, the group said in a new report first shared with National Review.
“Do No Harm identified 10 accrediting bodies for graduate medical and healthcare education programs that reference the value of ‘diversity’ in their accreditation standards and/or impose DEI requirements on the programs they accredit. These standards range from explicit requirements to maintain DEI offices and programs to more indirect encouragement of efforts to achieve certain diversity-related outcomes,” the report reads.
“Accreditors that impose DEI requirements are doing so to the detriment of the medical profession and patients across the country, and it is essential to hold them accountable.”
The ten accreditors included in Do No Harm’s report include bodies that set the educational standards for nursing, dentistry, pharmacy, optometry, physical therapy, podiatry, psychology, and veterinary professionals. While not as well known, the accreditors have enormous power in setting the educational guidelines for medical schools, where DEI and other left-wing ideological commitments have become increasingly commonplace.
President Donald Trump has taken major steps towards eliminating DEI from colleges and universities. Trump signed an executive order on the second day of his term ending DEI inside the federal government and all federally funded institutions. The Department of Education is now investigating dozens of colleges and universities for racially discriminatory DEI programs after putting schools on notice that they could lose federal funding if they continue to embrace racially divisive curricula.
Do No Harm’s report lists out the DEI policies and statements about diversity each one of the accreditors has adopted. The most explicit example is the American Osteopathic Association’s Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation DEI framework for colleges seeking accreditation in the field.
The commission’s standards require educational institutions to commit to advancing DEI and to produce a plan outlining how they will incorporate concerns around immutable characteristics into their curricula. Colleges must hire an individual to oversee DEI initiatives and incorporate DEI into the curriculum, training, hiring, and recruiting efforts.
Several other accrediting bodies have similar standards for incorporating DEI into student admissions and faculty requirements as part of a broader commitment to achieving institutional diversity.
The American Dental Association’s Commission on Dental Accreditation mandates that colleges develop “systematic and focused” policies to bring in students, faculty, and staff from diverse backgrounds. With race being considered an element of diversity, CODA’s standards could encourage racial discrimination in violation of federal civil rights laws, Do No Harm’s report explains.
The Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education, the accreditor for physical therapy programs, tells schools to incorporate “anti-racism” and a more expansive iteration of DEI known as JEDI, justice, equity, diversity, inclusivity, into their programs. Physical therapy programs are required to develop a JEDI culture and promote JEDI in their curriculum and administrative functions, Do No Harm found.
Of all the accreditors promoting DEI, the most influential one is the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, the organization that accredits schools to give medical degrees. The LCME’s 2025-26 standards encourage schools to implement diversity policies and create space in the curriculum for students to confront their biases.
Communications between the LCME and the University of Utah obtained by Do No Harm show the committee encouraged the school to give an update on the activities of its DEI office after determining that Utah had insufficient levels of diversity. But, the LCME told the House Education Committee that its standards do not mandate race-conscious initiatives or refer to racial diversity specifically.
DEI programs typically focus on people’s demographic characteristics to the point of obsession, rather than emphasizing personal character and merit. In the field of medicine, prioritizing race and other aspect of one’s identity could lead to worse patient outcomes and inadequately trained medical professionals.
“Our new report shines a much-needed light on the all-powerful actors in healthcare education. Wielding unchecked control, accreditors have long had the ability to force member institutions to comply with their standards,” said Dr. Kurt Miceli, medical director at Do No Harm.
“Over the past decade, their shift towards political and social activism has furthered the imposition of DEI requirements on these graduate medical and healthcare education programs. Applicants, students, and patients are now paying the price. If these governing bodies want to earn back the public’s trust, they must depoliticize their standards and focus on prioritizing expertise and high-quality care in the institutions they accredit.”