The Trump administration has proposed a "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education" that offers preferential access to federal resources for universities that adopt a series of policy changes. Most of the nine institutions initially approached have publicly declined, with some faculty and lawmakers calling the plan “extortion,” even as public confidence in higher education continues to wane.
The White House in early October circulated a 10-page Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education to nine research universities, pitching it as a voluntary agreement that could confer advantages in federal funding and other benefits for schools that sign on. The document lays out requirements on admissions, campus speech, hiring, institutional neutrality, and finances; the administration has framed it as a way to re-center universities on merit and civil rights compliance. (washingtonexaminer.com)
According to the compact text, signatories would prohibit the use of race, sex, and other characteristics in admissions and hiring; require standardized tests for undergraduate applicants; commit to protecting a “marketplace of ideas” and enforcing conduct rules; adopt an institution-wide neutrality policy on political statements; define gender in biological terms for certain policies; freeze effective tuition rates for U.S. students for five years; and accept annual certifications and surveys, with Department of Justice review and potential loss of benefits for violations. The administration has also described preferential treatment in competitions and invitations as possible incentives. (washingtonexaminer.com)
The offer went to nine campuses on Oct. 1: Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia, and Vanderbilt University. By the administration’s initial response deadline in late October, most had said no. Reporting from national outlets shows at least six—and subsequently seven—rejections, with UT Austin and Vanderbilt still weighing the proposal at that time. Faculty and elected officials at several schools publicly labeled the proposal “extortion.” (washingtonpost.com)
The push and pushback arrive amid declining public confidence in higher education. A new Pew Research Center survey in October found that 70% of Americans say the U.S. higher education system is generally going in the wrong direction, including majorities across parties and demographic groups. Separately, Gallup reported in September that the share of Americans calling a college education “very important” fell from 75% in 2010 to 35% in 2025, an all-time low in its trend. (pewresearch.org)
Critics of the compact—and of the administration’s broader approach—also point to the political lean of elite faculties. In its 2025 Faculty of Arts and Sciences survey, the Harvard Crimson found that 63% of responding Harvard professors identified as liberal and 9% as conservative. By contrast, Gallup’s national data show roughly 37% of U.S. adults identify as conservative and about 25% as liberal. (thecrimson.com)
The stakes are significant. Federal support tied to higher education spans research, grants, and loans. Universities reported $108.8 billion in total R&D expenditures in FY 2023, with federal sources providing the largest share; federally funded university R&D totaled about $54 billion in FY 2022. Federal grant aid to students was about $44 billion in 2023–24, and preliminary data for 2024–25 show $37.9 billion in Pell Grants and $81.3 billion in Direct Loans disbursed, figures that typically rise as schools finalize reports. (ncses.nsf.gov)
Many leading research universities depend on federal dollars for double‑digit shares of their revenue. An Urban Institute analysis of 2022–23 finances found that 17 of 90 prominent institutions received at least 20% of total revenue from federal sources, and nearly half received between 10% and 20%; at MIT and Johns Hopkins, federal support approached or exceeded 40–48%. (urban.org)
After an initial feedback window that closed in mid-to-late October, the administration continued outreach, including a White House call with institutions. Brown and MIT publicly rejected the compact; the University of Virginia, Dartmouth, USC, Penn, and the University of Arizona also declined. The administration has indicated it remains open to further discussions. (washingtonpost.com)
In an opinion essay for the Daily Wire, William A. Jacobson, a clinical professor at Cornell Law School, argued that the compact aims to “restore diversity of thought” without imposing a conservative orthodoxy, and warned that universities risk further public disaffection—and possibly funding consequences—by refusing to engage. Those are Jacobson’s views; universities and academic groups counter that the proposal threatens academic freedom and institutional independence. (dailywire.com)
