The Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education is a proposal by the Trump administration to American universities. The compact would confer access to federal funds in exchange for agreeing to demands. [1] In a letter introducing the compact, Education Secretary Linda McMahon described it as supporting university students to "grow into resilient, curious, and moral leaders, inspired by American and Western values." [2] The compact purports to offer "multiple positive benefits" and "substantial and meaningful federal grants" to those universities that would abide by it. [1] Policy analyst Kevin Carey described the compact as "the newest escalation in Trump’s attempt to impose ideological dominance over" American higher education. [3] [4] [5]
The compact was proposed on October 1, 2025, to Brown University, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Arizona, University of Pennsylvania, University of Southern California, University of Texas at Austin, University of Virginia, and Vanderbilt University. [2] It was sent along with a letter from Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, May Mailman, senior adviser for special projects at the White House, and Vincent Haley, director of the Domestic Policy Council. [6] On October 14, the administration extended the offer to sign the compact to any US higher education institution. [7]
On October 10, MIT rejected participation in the compact in a letter to McMahon. [8] [9] Further rejections followed, from Brown University on October 15, [10] [11] the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Southern California on October 16, [12] [13] the University of Virgnia on October 17, [14] and Dartmouth College on October 18. [15] [16] On October 20, the deadline given for feedback on the initial draft of the compact, the University of Arizona became the seventh of the nine invited universities to reject the proposal. [17]
Specific demands by the compact would include a cap on international undergraduate students of 15% and a tuition fee freeze for five years. [1]
The text of the compact has been shared with multiple media outlets. [18] The compact enumerates policies in eight areas of policy (titles as listed below), as well as provisions for exceptions and for enforcement.
The proposal was criticized variously as a violation of the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, ideological interference in science and academia, harming transgender students, and anti-immigrant. The administration was also criticized as untrustworthy, with some institutions having existing agreements now being met with new demands. [19] [20]
Sian Leah Beilock, Dartmouth College's President, responded to the compact by vowing to "always defend our fierce independence" and stating, "We will never compromise our academic freedom and our ability to govern ourselves." [21] [22] Kevin Elte, head of the University of Texas Board of Regents, responded positively, stating, “Today we welcome the new opportunity presented to us and we look forward to working with the Trump Administration on it.” [23]
The American Association of Colleges and Universities issued a statement rejecting the Compact, and declaring that university administrators "cannot bargain with the essential freedom of colleges and universities to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom." [22]
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology responded to U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon with the following letter
Dear Madam Secretary,
I write in response to your letter of October 1, inviting MIT to review a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” I acknowledge the vital importance of these matters.
I appreciated the chance to meet with you earlier this year to discuss the priorities we share for American higher education.
As we discussed, the Institute’s mission of service to the nation directs us to advance knowledge, educate students and bring knowledge to bear on the world’s great challenges. We do that in line with a clear set of values, with excellence above all. Some practical examples:
· MIT prides itself on rewarding merit. Students, faculty and staff succeed here based on the strength of their talent, ideas and hard work. For instance, the Institute was the first to reinstate the SAT/ACT requirement after the pandemic. And MIT has never had legacy preferences in admissions.
· MIT opens its doors to the most talented students regardless of their family’s finances. Admissions are need-blind. Incoming undergraduates whose families earn less than $200,000 a year pay no tuition. Nearly 88% of our last graduating class left MIT with no debt for their education. We make a wealth of free courses and low-cost certificates available to any American with an internet connection. Of the undergraduate degrees we award, 94% are in STEM fields. And in service to the nation, we cap enrollment of international undergraduates at roughly 10%.
· We value free expression, as clearly described in the MIT Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom. We must hear facts and opinions we don’t like – and engage respectfully with those with whom we disagree. These values and other MIT practices meet or exceed many standards outlined in the document you sent. 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. And of course, MIT abides by the law.
The document also includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution. And fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.
In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence. In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences. Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.
As you know, MIT’s record of service to the nation is long and enduring. Eight decades ago, MIT leaders helped invent a scientific partnership between America’s research universities and the U.S. government that has delivered extraordinary benefits for the American people. We continue to believe in the power of this partnership to serve the nation.
Sincerely,
Sally Kornbluth
On October 15, president Christina Paxson publicly posted Brown University's response. [11]
The White House is asking nine major universities to commit to President Donald Trump's political priorities in exchange for more favorable access to federal money. A document sent to the universities encourages them to adopt the White House's vision for America's campuses, with commitments to accept the government's priorities on admissions , women's sports, free speech, student discipline and college affordability, among other topics.
Legal analysis: