The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has become the first university to publicly reject President Donald Trump’s proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” a controversial pledge that ties federal funding to a series of sweeping policy changes in admissions, hiring, and governance.
In a letter to the campus community , MIT President Sally Kornbluth said the university “cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education,” citing fundamental conflicts between the compact’s principles and MIT’s mission of academic independence and scientific merit.
A Conditional Offer of Federal Support
The Trump administration sent the compact to nine prominent universities earlier this month, offering preferential access to federal research grants and other funding in exchange for adopting policies aligned with the president’s agenda. Among its conditions were bans on using race, sex, or religion in hiring and admissions decisions; a five-year tuition freeze; a cap limiting foreign undergraduate enrollment to 15%; mandatory standardized testing for all applicants; and revisions to university governance structures.
“Institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forego federal benefits,” the memo stated.
Critics across the higher education sector have described the compact as an attempt to impose political and ideological control over universities. The proposal also comes amid ongoing investigations and funding threats aimed at institutions accused by the Trump administration of fostering “anti-American bias” or “ideological indoctrination.”
MIT’s Response: Independence Over Influence
In her response, Kornbluth emphasized that MIT already meets or exceeds many of the standards outlined in the document — but does so voluntarily, not under government mandate.
“We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission – work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law,” she wrote.
Kornbluth noted that MIT’s admissions are need-blind, that the university caps international undergraduate enrollment at roughly 10%, and that 94% of its undergraduate degrees are awarded in STEM fields. She also highlighted the Institute’s long-standing commitment to merit-based achievement, including being the first university to reinstate the SAT/ACT requirement after the pandemic and its refusal to adopt legacy admissions preferences.
However, she drew a clear line at provisions that she said would “restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution.”
“Fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone,” Kornbluth wrote.
A Broader Defense of Academic Freedom
Kornbluth’s letter situates MIT’s rejection within the broader history of collaboration between U.S. research universities and the federal government — a partnership she said has long fueled national progress.
“Eight decades ago, MIT leaders helped invent a scientific partnership between America’s research universities and the U.S. government that has delivered extraordinary benefits for the American people,” she wrote. “We continue to believe in the power of this partnership to serve the nation.”
The decision from MIT may set the tone for other leading universities that received the same offer, including Dartmouth College, which confirmed it is also reviewing the proposal.
As the Trump administration continues to test the limits of executive influence over academia, Kornbluth’s response underscores a growing resistance among higher education leaders who view the compact as an existential threat to institutional autonomy. The move places MIT among a growing number of universities signaling they would rather risk losing federal funds than compromise on core academic principles.
By declining to sign, MIT has not only rejected the promise of preferential funding — it has reaffirmed a long-standing principle of American higher education: that the pursuit of knowledge must remain free from political interference.
