A growing number of leading universities are rejecting President Donald Trump’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” a controversial federal offer that ties preferential funding to sweeping policy changes in admissions, hiring, and governance.
The White House sent the 10-point compact to nine prominent universities in early October, offering expanded access to research grants and government partnerships in exchange for adopting policies that align with the administration’s agenda. Among the requirements: a five-year tuition freeze, a 15 percent cap on international undergraduate enrollment, mandatory standardized testing for all applicants, and bans on using race, sex, or religion in admissions or hiring decisions.
Critics say the compact is a political maneuver aimed at reshaping higher education’s values. In a statement obtained by The Hill, the document calls on universities to “revise governance structures that stifle free speech and ideological diversity,” while rewarding compliance with “priority in federal funding decisions.”
Growing Resistance
Four universities—the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Southern California (USC)—have now publicly declined the offer.
MIT was the first to reject the compact on October 10. “The document includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution,” President Sally Kornbluth wrote to Education Secretary Linda McMahon. “Fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.”
Brown University followed days later, with President Christina H. Paxson warning that the proposal “would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown’s governance.” In her October 15 letter, Paxson said the compact’s approach to research funding “would ultimately damage the health and prosperity of Americans.”
The University of Pennsylvania and USC issued similar statements on October 16. Penn President J. Larry Jameson said the university “respectfully declines to sign the proposed Compact” after consulting with students, faculty, and trustees. “At Penn, we are committed to merit-based achievement and accountability,” he wrote, adding that federal partnerships should remain rooted in shared goals and academic integrity.
USC Interim President Beong-Soo Kim cited similar concerns, writing that while the university “recognizes the administration is trying to address issues in higher education,” the proposal would “undermine the same values of free inquiry and academic excellence that the Compact seeks to promote.”
Political Fallout
The backlash has been especially fierce in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom vowed to cut off state funding for any public or private university that signs the agreement. “If any California university signs this radical agreement, they’ll lose billions in state funding — including Cal Grants — instantly,” Newsom said. “California will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, and researchers and surrender academic freedom.”
The Trump administration has framed the compact as part of a broader effort to “restore excellence and accountability” in academia, following months of federal investigations into what it has called “ideological indoctrination” on college campuses. A White House spokesperson told CNN that signatories would receive “priority consideration” for major research grants and “substantial and meaningful federal partnerships.”
Autonomy at Stake
Universities that remain undecided—such as Dartmouth College, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia—are facing mounting pressure to take a stance. Some have assembled working groups to review the proposal, while others have remained silent amid political tensions.
For those that have already declined, the message is clear: institutional independence is nonnegotiable. By rejecting the compact, MIT, Brown, Penn, and USC have aligned themselves around a common principle—that federal funding should not be used as leverage to dictate academic policy or suppress campus governance.
Their stance underscores a broader defense of academic freedom at a time when higher education is increasingly at odds with federal oversight. As Kornbluth wrote in her letter, “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.”
