Nine universities were supposed to give feedback by the end of today, Oct. 20, on the Trump administration’s wide-ranging plan that would supposedly give them preferential treatment for funding if they enact a number of policy changes. Six have already publicly rejected the deal, leaving just the University of Arizona, the University of Texas at Austin and Vanderbilt University still to respond.
In light of the rejections and mounting criticism, Education Secretary Linda McMahon and other Trump officials met with several university leaders Friday to discuss the compact. Afterward, McMahon described the meeting as positive and “an important step toward defending a shared vision.”
“With continued federal investment and strong institutional leadership, the higher education sector can do more to enhance American leadership in the world and build tomorrow’s workforce,” she wrote on X. “A renewed commitment to the time-honored principles that helped make American universities great will strengthen the country and deepen public confidence in higher education.”
The University of Virginia and Dartmouth College, part of the initial group of invitees, rejected the compact after the White House meeting.
space for datawrapper
The administration initially asked the nine universities to review the proposal and offer “limited, targeted feedback,” noting that the document was “largely in its final form.” Bloomberg reported that officials planned to update the document in response to the feedback and send out a new version next month. But before all nine had provided feedback, President Trump invited any college that wants to “return to the pursuit of Truth and Achievement” to sign the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. So far, no institution has publicly agreed to do so.
In addition to UVA, Dartmouth and the three universities that haven’t yet responded, the White House invited leaders from Arizona State University, the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis to the Friday meeting. (A White House official said all eight attended, but only Washington University and Dartmouth have confirmed their participation either to Inside Higher Ed or in public statements.)
Dozens of higher education associations, academic freedom experts, current and former college presidents, civil rights groups, and others have spoken out against the compact, urging institutions to reject it. Students and faculty at the nine universities have also sent letters, signed petitions and rallied against the document.
“It really strikes at the fundamentals of higher education, and that is why you’re seeing such a vocal response,” said Adam Harris, a senior fellow with the education policy program at New America, a left-leaning think tank. “This is the executive branch trying to circumvent and go around Congress, like, plain and simple … to change the agreement with higher education.”
Further, the compact shows that Trump’s effort to reshape higher education extends beyond a handful of wealthy, selective universities.
“I think that so many institutions thought that if we just kind of keep our heads down, maybe it won’t affect us and maybe we can negotiate behind the scenes,” Harris said. “What this offer made clear for people is that that’s not true.”
Here are five things to know about the compact and the controversy surrounding it.
1. The compact’s requirements are far-reaching.
The wide-ranging nine-page proposal says it “represents the priorities of the U.S. government in its engagements with universities that benefit from the relationship.”
Across eight sections that include “equality in admissions,” “marketplace of ideas and civil discourse,” “student equality,” and “financial responsibility,” Trump officials outline a number of new requirements for institutions that sign on, including that they:
Ban consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions processes.Freeze tuition for a five-year period. (In addition, those with an endowment worth more than $2 million per undergraduate can’t charge tuition for admitted students pursuing hard science programs, with some exceptions.)Limit international undergraduate enrollment to 15 percent of the student body.Commit to institutional neutrality.Define and interpret “male,” “female,” “woman” and “man” according to reproductive function and biological processes.Require applicants to take standardized tests, such as the SAT or ACT.Clamp down on grade inflation.Restrict employees from expressing political views on behalf of the institution.Shut down departments that “punish, belittle” or “spark violence against conservative ideas.”Anonymously poll students and employees on compact compliance and publish the results.
The Justice Department would enforce the terms of the agreement, which are vague. (Read the full proposal here.) Colleges that sign and are found to violate the compact could face significant fiscal consequences.
Noncompliant universities would “lose access to the benefits of this agreement” for a year. Subsequent violations would lead to a two-year punishment. And the federal government could claw back “all monies advanced by the U.S. government during the year of any violation.” Private donations would also be required to be returned, upon request.
In a cover letter to the nine universities sent Oct. 1, officials said that with this compact, the government will be assured “that signatory schools are complying with civil rights law and pursuing Federal priorities with vigor.” In exchange, universities will see “multiple positive benefits,” which could include “increased overhead payments where feasible, substantial and meaningful federal grants, and other federal partnerships.”
McMahon, Vincent Haley, director of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council, and May Mailman, a White House adviser, signed the letter to institutions. (Read the cover letter here.)
2. The compact represents a new approach.
For most of this year, the Trump administration has used a variety of tools to pressure some universities into overhauling their policies, including by freezing billions in federal funding and launching civil rights investigations. So far, only three universities have cut deals to get their money back, while Harvard University fought the freeze in court and won.
In seeking a compact with more universities, the administration is switching gears “to effect change nationwide, not on a one-off basis,” a senior White House official told The Washington Post, which first reported on the concept.
In their cover letter, McMahon, Mailman and Haley described the document as an opportunity for the “proactive improvement of higher education for the betterment of the country.”
“Compact signatory schools will signal to students, parents, and contributors that learning and equality are university priorities,” they wrote. “In short, this compact will renew and strengthen the vital, mutually beneficial relationship between the U.S. Government and higher education that is essential to our nation’s future and success.”
3. It’s not clear what happens when universities say no.
White House officials are framing the agreement as voluntary. However, while the cover letter mentions some benefits, the compact doesn’t actually discuss preferential treatment. Instead, it says those that don’t want to adhere to the agreement are free to “forego (sic) federal benefits.”
In statements responding to some of the public rejections, White House officials have also appeared to double down on that idea. After the University of Southern California announced its decision to reject the compact, Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, told the Los Angeles Times that “as long as they are not begging for federal funding, universities are free to implement any lawful policies they would like.”
What federal funds are on the line is not clear. Universities get money from the federal government for grants, contracts and student aid. So far, the administration’s attack on higher ed has focused on research grants and contracts.
But, as written, the document appears to threaten all federal funding for higher ed institutions, including federal student aid, said Audrey Anderson, a higher education attorney at the law firm Bass, Berry and Sims.
“It can be read to say unless you agree to this, you’re not going to be able to get access to student aid, you’re not going to be able to get access to federal research contracts, you’re not going to be able to get student visas and you’re no longer going to have 501(c)(3) status,” said Anderson, who previously served as general counsel for Dartmouth and Vanderbilt.
Anderson added that it’s the responsibility of Congress—not the executive branch—to put conditions on federal funds, so the compact raises questions about the separation of powers.
“The administration can’t say that right now the law requires institutions to have no more than 15 percent of international students or it requires institutions to use a standardized test,” she said.
Colleges and universities already have to comply with federal law and adhere to other conditions in order to access federal funds. But, Anderson said, “most of what’s in this compact are things you have to do on top of being in compliance with federal law.”
4. Universities are forcefully rejecting the deal for multiple reasons.
In their statements rejecting the compact, officials from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brown University, Dartmouth, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California and UVA reiterated that federal grant funding should be doled out based on merit, not on adherence to an administration’s priorities.
The leaders also said they generally supported some of the compact’s goals, such as lowering the cost of college and ensuring a vibrant exchange of ideas across the ideological spectrum. However, they expressed worry about giving up their independence and maintaining academic freedom.
USC interim president Beong-Soo Kim wrote that he was concerned that tying research benefits to the compact could “undermine the same values of free inquiry and academic excellence that the Compact seeks to promote.”
“Other countries whose governments lack America’s commitment to freedom and democracy have shown how academic excellence can suffer when shifting external priorities tilt the research playing field away from free, meritocratic competition,” he added.
Some leaders also said they didn’t think such an agreement was the best way to accomplish the administration’s goals, though their public statements fall short of the full-throated denunciations from faculty union representatives and other higher ed leaders.
“As I shared on the call, I do not believe that the involvement of the government through a compact—whether it is a Republican- or Democratic-led White House—is the right way to focus America’s leading colleges and universities on their teaching and research mission,” Dartmouth president Sian Leah Beilock wrote in a message to Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
Almost immediately after the compact was made public earlier this month, California governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has repeatedly fought the Trump administration, threatened to cut off state funding for any university that signs what he called the “radical agreement.”
5. Both pressure on universities and criticism of the compact are mounting.
Lawmakers in Pennsylvania and Virginia have made similar threats in recent weeks. And over the weekend, Arizona governor Katie Hobbs said she had concerns about the deal but declined to say whether the University of Arizona should sign on, The Arizona Daily Star reported.
The compact does have some support among state leaders. For example, lawmakers in Iowa want the University of Iowa to take the deal, The Iowa Capital Dispatch reported. But the bipartisan list of dissenters continues to grow.
Former senator Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican and trustee at Vanderbilt, wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Friday that the compact was an example of federal overreach akin to previous efforts to impose uniform national standards on K–12 schools.
“Mr. Trump’s proposed higher education compact may provoke some useful dialogue around reform,” he wrote. “But the federal government shouldn’t try to manage the nation’s 6,000 colleges and universities.”
On Friday afternoon, the American Council on Education and 35 other organizations warned in a joint statement that “the compact’s prescriptions threaten to undermine the very qualities that make our system exceptional.” The statement requested the administration withdraw the compact and noted that “higher education has room for improvement.”
But “the compact is a step in the wrong direction,” the letter states. “The dictates set by it are harmful for higher education and our entire nation, no matter your politics.”
Jessica Blake, Josh Moody and Ryan Quinn contributed to this report.
