On October 1, 2025, the Trump administration launched what may become one of the most consequential showdowns in American higher education in decades. In a move both lauded and lambasted, the White House sent letters to nine of the nation’s top universities—including the University of Southern California (USC), University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Pennsylvania, University of Texas, Vanderbilt University, and University of Virginia—urging them to sign a so-called “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” The reward? Priority access to coveted federal research grants and other benefits. The catch? A sweeping overhaul of campus policies to align with the administration’s conservative vision for academia.
The compact, as reported by The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, demands that universities eliminate any consideration of sex, ethnicity, race, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, gender identity, or religious associations in admissions or financial aid decisions. There are a few exceptions for institutions that are single-sex or religiously affiliated, but the scope is otherwise total. The document also calls for strict definitions of gender—especially in sports—and imposes significant limits on international student enrollment, capping it at 15% of the undergraduate body and no more than 5% from any one country.
“Signatories commit themselves to revising governance structures as necessary to create such an environment, including but not limited to transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” the compact declares, according to the Washington Examiner. The message is clear: universities must not only refrain from discriminating in admissions, but also actively root out what the administration sees as institutional bias against conservative viewpoints.
The compact’s reach extends even further. It requires universities to ensure that protests or demonstrations never disrupt classes, libraries, or study spaces, and to prevent students from being heckled or accosted. The document authorizes the use of “lawful force if necessary” to prevent such violations, and mandates “swift, serious, and consistent sanctions for those who commit them.” The Department of Justice would enforce these terms, with violators losing access to the compact’s benefits for at least a year, and repeat offenders facing even stiffer penalties.
One of the most controversial provisions is the restriction on international student enrollment. At USC, for example, a staggering 26% of the fall 2025 freshman class is international, with more than half hailing from China or India. The compact’s new cap would force a dramatic reduction, striking at a major source of revenue for universities already grappling with budget shortfalls—USC alone has undergone hundreds of layoffs this year amid mounting financial pressures, as noted by the Los Angeles Times.
On the affordability front, the compact calls for a five-year tuition freeze at all signatory schools. For the wealthiest campuses—those with endowments exceeding $2 million per undergraduate student—it goes even further, demanding free tuition for students pursuing degrees in the hard sciences. This provision, while echoing some progressive calls for college affordability, comes with the heavy price of ceding broad institutional autonomy over admissions and campus culture.
Reactions to the compact have been swift and polarized. Kevin P. Eltife, chair of the University of Texas Board of Regents, was enthusiastic. “Our system is honored that its flagship in Austin was selected by the Trump administration for potential funding advantages,” he told the New York Times. “We enthusiastically look forward to engaging with university officials and reviewing the compact immediately.”
But most of the other universities kept their cards close to their chests, declining to comment publicly. USC stated only that it was “reviewing the administration’s letter,” while the University of Arizona’s spokesperson said, “We are reviewing it carefully.”
California’s political establishment, however, wasted no time in pushing back. Governor Gavin Newsom, in a statement issued in all capital letters on October 2, 2025, threatened to cut “billions” in state funding—including the critical Cal Grants program—if any California university signs the compact. “California will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers, and surrender academic freedom,” Newsom declared, as quoted by the Los Angeles Times. Cal Grants, the state’s largest financial aid program, distributed $2.5 billion in 2024-25 alone. Newsom’s warning was unmistakable: “If any California University signs this radical agreement, they’ll lose billions in state funding—including Cal Grants—instantly.”
Faculty and students at targeted universities voiced their own concerns. “It’s upsetting as a faculty member and a teacher and a product of higher education to see this administration trying to dismantle academic freedom and free speech in such a systematic way,” said Devin Griffiths, a USC associate professor of English and comparative literature. Howard Rodman, a professor at USC’s Cinematic Arts school, put it more bluntly in an email to colleagues: “It is abundantly clear that either the universities stand together and refuse the gift of ‘prioritized grants,’ or higher education in the United States will become a wholly owned subsidiary of MAGA, LLC... I would urge USC to remember that when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.”
Students, too, expressed a mix of confusion and concern. “It’s a good balance of confusion and concern,” said Liam Wady, a USC junior involved in pro-Palestinian activism. He worried that the university might ultimately accept the administration’s terms, given its recent actions against student protestors.
Critics across the spectrum described the compact in harsh terms. Salomé Viljoen, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan Law School, called it “extorting universities to sign away academic freedom—nothing meritocratic or ‘small government’ about it.” Damon Kiesow, the Knight chair for journalism innovation at the Missouri School of Journalism, described the document as “a document of unconditional surrender.” Edward Swaine, a professor at George Washington University Law School, warned, “this steps boldly toward a scheme in which the federal government’s role in relation to all colleges and universities, public and private, is akin to how state governments presently govern state institutions.”
Yet not all the feedback was negative. Richard W. Painter, former chief White House ethics counsel under President George W. Bush and now a University of Minnesota law professor, supported the tuition freeze, stating, “Price gouging of students and wasteful spending must stop. The administration’s obsession over ‘definition of gender’ is a silly sideshow undermining higher ed reform.”
The compact’s rollout comes at a time when universities are already under intense federal scrutiny. All University of California and California State University campuses, along with Stanford, are facing federal civil rights investigations that could result in funding clawbacks. The Trump administration has also cut off research money at institutions like UCLA, Harvard, and Columbia in recent months, using funding as leverage to press for policy changes.
As the dust settles, the future of the compact—and the universities’ response—remains uncertain. Will institutions sign away autonomy for federal dollars, or will they stand firm, risking financial pain but preserving academic freedom? The coming weeks will reveal whether this gambit marks a turning point for American higher education, or simply another skirmish in a long-running battle over the soul of the nation’s campuses.
