Most Universities Reject Trump’s New Campus Policy

In a significant rebuke to the Trump administration, seven of nine major U.S. universities have rejected a controversial Department of Education policy proposal that would link federal funding to a series of restrictive campus policies.

The proposal, dubbed the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” faced a decisive response as Monday’s deadline passed. According to The New York Times, the University of Arizona, Brown University, University of Southern California, Dartmouth College, University of Virginia, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and University of Pennsylvania have all declined to endorse the policy. Only Vanderbilt University and the University of Texas at Austin have not yet fully rejected the compact.

Details from The Wall Street Journal indicate the proposal would provide expanded access to federal research funding and student aid to institutions that agree to several stringent conditions. These requirements include implementing a five-year tuition freeze, capping international undergraduate enrollment at 15 percent, prohibiting consideration of race or sex in admissions and hiring decisions, adopting a “biological definition” of gender, and conducting annual campus surveys.

Additional stipulations would require universities to disclose graduate earnings data and enforce more rigid free speech and leadership oversight policies. Institutions would also need to comply with Department of Justice reviews.

The enforcement mechanism has particularly alarmed university administrators. Institutions found to have violated the compact could face severe financial penalties, including the return of federal funds received during the violation period. The agreement states that “all monies advanced by the U.S. government during the year of any violation shall be returned,” and even private contributions could be subject to return upon grantor request.

While administration officials frame the initiative as promoting accountability and transparency, university leaders view it as a politically motivated overreach that threatens institutional independence.

In a coordinated response, several university presidents, including those from MIT, Dartmouth, the University of Virginia, and the University of Arizona, sent a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon expressing their concerns. The letter warned that the compact fundamentally threatens academic freedom and contradicts the long-established principle that research funding should be awarded based on scientific merit rather than political alignment.

Inside Higher Ed reported that the rejections from Dartmouth and the University of Virginia came shortly after an October 17 meeting where undecided university leaders discussed the proposal with senior White House officials.

Among the nine targeted institutions, the University of Texas at Austin has shown the most openness to the proposal, with its Board of Regents indicating a willingness to “engage in dialogue.” Vanderbilt University stated it is still reviewing the terms, while the University of Pennsylvania expressed partial support while noting “serious concerns” with multiple provisions.

This initiative represents part of a broader federal effort to exert control over higher education funding and campus policies. Earlier this year, the Trump administration froze or canceled billions of dollars in federal funding to several prominent universities, including Columbia, Harvard, UCLA, Cornell, and Northwestern, citing alleged civil rights violations related to campus protests over the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The administration’s approach has produced mixed results. Columbia University ultimately agreed to a settlement, paying $200 million to restore most of the $400 million in suspended federal grants. In contrast, Harvard University rejected similar demands and is pursuing legal action.

The compact has also triggered responses from state officials. California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that any university in his state signing onto the compact—including USC—would immediately lose access to billions in state funding, escalating the conflict between federal and state educational priorities.

As universities continue to navigate this contentious proposal, the standoff highlights fundamental questions about institutional autonomy in American higher education and the appropriate role of government in university governance.