Major Universities Reject Federal Higher Education Proposal
Four prominent universities have reportedly declined to sign the Trump administration’s proposed “compact” on higher education reform, according to sources familiar with the matter. The University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, University of Southern California, and MIT have all announced they will not agree to the administration’s terms ahead of the initial October 20 deadline.
The proposed agreement, which sources indicate would remake fundamental aspects of university operations, would require institutions to increase conservative representation on campus, eliminate departments perceived as hostile to conservative ideas, adopt biological definitions of sex and gender, freeze tuition for five years, restrict student protests, and maintain institutional neutrality on current events. In exchange, universities would maintain access to federal benefits including research funding, student loans, and immigration visas for international students and faculty.
Higher Education Organizations Voice Opposition
The American Council on Education, representing more than 1,600 colleges and universities, issued a strong statement calling for the compact’s complete withdrawal. According to their public statement, the compact would “impose unprecedented litmus tests on colleges and universities as a condition for receiving ill-defined ‘federal benefits.'”
Analysts suggest the proposal represents a significant departure from traditional conservative approaches to education policy, particularly given its centralized requirements coming from a Department of Education whose leadership has previously advocated for reduced federal involvement in education. The report states this apparent contradiction highlights ongoing tensions within education policy debates.
Political and Legal Backlash Intensifies
State leaders have joined the opposition, with California Governor Gavin Newsom threatening immediate funding cuts to any state university that signs the agreement. In his official statement, Newsom declared that “California will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers, and surrender academic freedom.”
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro also expressed support for the University of Pennsylvania’s decision, noting on social media that he had “engaged closely with university leaders on this” matter. The University of Pennsylvania had previously outlined its position in an official university announcement.
Unexpected Opposition from Conservative Legal Group
Even the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), which has frequently represented conservative interests on campus, has opposed the compact. In their published statement, the organization warned that “a government that can reward colleges and universities for speech it favors today can punish them for speech it dislikes tomorrow. That’s not reform. That’s government-funded orthodoxy.”
The opposition from typically aligned groups suggests broader concerns about the proposal’s implications for institutional autonomy and academic discourse surrounding controversial topics.
Administration Continues Push Despite Setbacks
Despite the rejections, reports indicate the Trump administration continues to pursue the initiative. According to the Associated Press, the White House recently convened a call with the five remaining universities that received the compact: University of Arizona, University of Virginia, University of Texas, Dartmouth, and Vanderbilt.
Analysts suggest the administration’s persistence reflects the influence of Vice President JD Vance, who according to reports has previously advocated for conservatives to “honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country.” This stance represents significant evolution in conservative thought regarding higher education policy.
As the deadline approaches, observers note that Brown University’s public rejection and similar positions from other institutions signal substantial resistance to what many in academia perceive as federal overreach. The ongoing confrontation highlights continuing debates about academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and the federal government’s role in higher education amid broader education department policy discussions.
This article aggregates information from publicly available sources. All trademarks and copyrights belong to their respective owners.
Note: Featured image is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent any specific product, service, or entity mentioned in this article.
