Universities Reject White House Offer Tying Funding to Policy Demands

Two prominent U.S. universities have declined a controversial proposal from the Trump administration that would offer expanded federal funding in exchange for adherence to a series of institutional requirements

Photo Disclosure by Brian Snyder/Reuters/File

What was on the table

The White House introduced a plan called the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which promised “substantial and meaningful federal grants” to select colleges that accepted a suite of conditions. These included:

• Capping the share of international undergraduates at 15%

• Banning the use of race or sex in admissions and hiring

• Defining gender based on biological criteria

• Freezing tuition for five years

• Submitting to assessments of institutional compliance via anonymous surveys

The proposal was sent on October 1, 2025, to nine elite universities, including MIT, Brown, Dartmouth, USC, UT Austin, UVA, U of Arizona, Vanderbilt, and U Penn.

Why they said no

MIT was the first to publicly refuse. Its president, Sally Kornbluth, warned that accepting the compact would restrict freedom of expression and undermine the institution’s independence. She emphasized that while MIT already meets many of the standards listed, the terms would compromise its ability to govern itself.

Brown University followed suit. In a letter to federal officials, Brown’s president, Christina Paxson, argued that the compact’s provisions would threaten academic freedom and contradict a previous agreement with the administration that preserved curricular and speech independence.

Paxson acknowledged alignment with some goals—such as affordability and equal opportunity—but maintained that certain mandates would erode the university’s ability to chart its own educational course.

Broader implications

The rejections have sparked intense debate about whether federal funding should come with policy strings, especially when those strings touch on governance, speech, and institutional autonomy. Critics interpret the compact as leveraging money to assert ideological control over academia.

By refusing, MIT and Brown are signaling that the cost of yielding control over core academic practices may outweigh financial incentives. Their stance may influence other institutions still weighing the decision.

What comes next

• The remaining universities have until October 20 to respond. Some have hinted at resistance, while others are still deliberating.

• Legal challenges may arise if the administration attempts to enforce compliance or withholds funding from non-compliant institutions.

• The debate may reshape how universities engage with federal funding—balancing resource needs against preserving institutional integrity.