In a move that’s roiled the world of higher education and sent shockwaves through political circles, the Trump administration has proposed a sweeping “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” targeting nine of America’s most prominent universities. The proposal, unveiled on September 29, 2025, offers preferential treatment and access to federal research funding—if, and only if, the universities accept a set of far-reaching reforms. These include dramatic changes to admissions and hiring practices, a commitment to institutional neutrality, a five-year tuition freeze, caps on international student enrollment, and even requirements to suppress criticism of conservatives on campus.
The list of universities invited to sign the compact reads like a who’s who of American academia: the University of Texas at Austin, Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California (USC), the University of Virginia, and Vanderbilt University. While the Trump administration touts the compact as a step toward ensuring academic excellence and ideological balance, the response from higher education leaders and policymakers has been swift—and anything but unanimous.
Kevin P. Eltife, chair of the University of Texas system Board of Regents and a former Republican lawmaker, was one of the few to publicly embrace the overture. "We look forward to working with the Trump Administration on it," Eltife wrote, expressing his honor at being included. Yet, for most university leaders, the proposal has been met with a mix of silence, skepticism, and outright opposition.
On October 3, Dartmouth president Sian Beilock became the first among the group to break ranks with a forceful rejection. "I am deeply committed to Dartmouth’s academic mission and values and will always defend our fierce independence," she declared in a message to the campus community. "We will never compromise our academic freedom and our ability to govern ourselves." USC’s interim president, Beong-Soo Kim, struck a more cautious tone, saying he would consult with trustees, faculty, and other stakeholders before responding. "The Board’s and my responsibility is to advance USC’s mission and uphold our core values, and we are committed to doing just that," Kim wrote on October 6.
Elsewhere, the backlash has been fierce. The American Council on Education’s president, Ted Mitchell, lambasted the compact as "a naked exercise of power, lacking internal coherence," warning that it would set "a horrible precedent to cede power to the federal government." Denise Forte, president and CEO of Ed Trust, called the proposal "an existential threat to all institutions of higher learning," arguing that it jeopardizes everything from cancer research funding to Pell Grants for low-income students. "This displays a complete disregard for the role that higher education plays in advancing dialogue and debate from various viewpoints, and jeopardizes the success of students, the economy, and our competitiveness as a nation," Forte wrote, as reported by Inside Higher Ed.
The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) echoed these concerns, warning against what it called an "ultimatum" that would force universities to surrender their autonomy and abandon the American model of self-governance. Ross Mugler, interim president and CEO of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, added that the compact would turn institutions "into compliance machines rather than mission-driven centers of learning and discovery."
Faculty voices have perhaps been the most impassioned. Catherine D’Ignazio, an MIT professor, told The Boston Globe that the compact is "essentially a loyalty oath" to the Trump administration, asking universities to "sacrifice science, international students, trans students and our whole idea of shared governance." Todd Wolfson of the American Association of University Professors and Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers issued a joint statement arguing that signing the compact "would be a profound betrayal of your students, staff, faculty, the public, higher education, and our shared democracy—one that would irretrievably tarnish your personal reputation and compromise your institution’s legacy."
Some college presidents have been even more blunt. Pat McGuire of Trinity Washington University called the proposal "sheer political extortion," while Wesleyan University’s Michael Roth denounced it as "extortion" and highlighted a New York Times op-ed urging collective resistance. Former Harvard president Larry Summers, while critical of elite universities’ direction, called the Trump administration’s plan "like trying to fix a watch with a hammer—ill conceived and counterproductive."
The political reverberations have not stopped at campus gates. California Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, fired off an all-caps warning on social media: "IF ANY CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY SIGNS THIS RADICAL AGREEMENT, THEY’LL LOSE BILLIONS IN STATE FUNDING — INCLUDING CAL GRANTS — INSTANTLY. CALIFORNIA WILL NOT BANKROLL SCHOOLS THAT SELL OUT THEIR STUDENTS, PROFESSORS, RESEARCHERS, AND SURRENDER ACADEMIC FREEDOM." Pennsylvania lawmakers quickly followed suit, with Democrats announcing plans to bar state-funded institutions from signing the compact or similar agreements. In a statement, Representative Rick Krajewski and Councilmember Jamie Gauthier warned that the compact would mean "unprecedented policing and control of the curriculum and campus culture."
But the debate is not falling neatly along partisan lines. Some conservatives have voiced support for the idea, arguing that it’s "reasonable to offer additional benefits of partnership" to colleges that "voluntarily agree to higher standards," as Adam Kissel of the Heritage Foundation told The Wall Street Journal. Yet, others on the right see the compact as government overreach. Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute called the approach "profoundly problematic," warning it could set a precedent for future administrations to impose their own demands. Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute was even more direct: "Trump is not getting the feds out of education. He is taking control, and it is unconstitutional."
Against this backdrop, a parallel drama has played out between the White House and Harvard University over billions in research funding. As The New York Times reported, billionaire Harvard alumnus Stephen A. Schwarzman has emerged as a key intermediary in negotiations, acting at Harvard’s behest and with encouragement from President Trump. Schwarzman, a longtime Trump confidante, has led Harvard’s efforts to broker a deal that would end the administration’s pressure campaign, which has included demands for stricter gender definitions, deeper government access to admissions data, and tighter codes of student conduct.
Schwarzman’s involvement has brought both hope and controversy. On September 30, he called Trump from London and was patched into a heated Oval Office debate with administration hard-liners, including Justice Department civil rights lawyer Harmeet K. Dhillon, Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Trump, reportedly amused by the back-and-forth, publicly declared that a deal was close—though, as of early October, no agreement had been finalized.
The negotiations highlight not just the stakes for Harvard—whose financial stability could be rocked if cut off from future federal research projects—but also the outsized influence of private-sector figures in shaping policy under Trump. Schwarzman’s advocacy has not gone unnoticed, with some administration officials skeptical that his Wall Street experience and friendship with Trump will be enough to bridge the divide between hard-liners and the president himself.
As the government shutdown that began on October 1 further complicates matters, the future of the compact—and the broader relationship between elite universities and the federal government—remains uncertain. What is clear is that the battle lines have been drawn, with academic freedom, institutional independence, and billions of dollars hanging in the balance.
With so much at stake for students, faculty, and the nation’s research enterprise, the coming weeks promise more debate, more drama, and, perhaps, a reckoning for the very future of higher education in America.
