Confrontation or Cooperation? Trump’s New Compact & What it Means for Higher Education

October 14th, 2025
Ayat Nayyer

Tensions at the higher education table may be brimming once again following a recent proposal by the Trump administration. Deemed the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” the document urges universities to ban the use of gender and race in the admissions process, freeze tuition for five years, and limit international student numbers if they want to receive “preferential funding.” The proposal furthers that institutional units “purposefully punish[ing], belittl[ing], and even spark[ing] violence against conservative ideas” should be “abolished.”

So far, the plan has been sent to nine universities, including the University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), University of Pennsylvania, University of Southern California, University of Texas, University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University. In response, universities have started to publicly position themselves. While most have expressed skepticism regarding the compact, the University of Texas has pivoted slightly towards an accepting stance. On Friday this week, MIT rejected it entirely.

“The document…includes principles with which we disagree,” wrote MIT President Sally Kornbluth in a letter to Secretary May Mailman. “Fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.”

This defiant response is one of several instances in recent months where universities have pushed back against federal higher education directives. After the Administration cited antisemitism concerns and left-wing biases to impose federal research funding cuts on Harvard, the university took the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled the slashes illegal. Others took a softer approach: Columbia University, for instance, agreed to pay the government $200 million over three years to settle claims concerning “discriminatory practices.”

Meanwhile, some colleges, such as Brown University, are adopting a cautious approach toward the pact. Brown University President Christina Paxson said that she would “hear from members of the community” before making a decision. Doing so requires a careful consideration of the associated merits and drawbacks.

Critics assert the plan violates the First Amendment and threatens colleges’ independence, demonstrating what they term “federal overreach.” Some claim that it is merely intended as a political “carrot” that the government will wield to exert its “ideological goals.” This comes in light of the recent killing of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk last month, which has prompted President Trump to take increased measures to promote conservative speech and values. The growing disparity between the Democratic and Republican parties has generally escalated political violence, with debates often spilling into higher education institutions.

Still, proponents argue various benefits. The compact may be an opportunity for institutions of higher education to unify and form a “coalition,” allowing them to set aside their differences.

“Trust in U.S. colleges and universities has fallen precipitously….the legitimacy and authority of higher education have been eroding for decades — because of high tuition, rising student debt, [and] increasingly opaque admissions processes,” notes Harvard professor Danielle Allen. The compact could rectify this issue by illuminating the idea of “civic strength — healthy relationships among citizens that give [them] the wherewithal to govern [themselves] democratically, including the ability to negotiate [their] disagreements.” While the government may be extending its powers, it is filling a “vacuum” left by a “polarized Congress,” and a deal in some form may be necessary to set a meaningful precedent for peace; the compact directly addresses this by fostering an environment conducive to “healthy debates” and “fairness,” Allen writes.

Whether these benefits will materialize will depend heavily on how universities and the administration navigate the upcoming weeks. For now, uncertainty lingers across both parties, and analysts wonder whether the government will take harsher actions. Though the friction seems benign for now, the coming months may reveal whether confrontation or cooperation will define the next chapter of American higher education.