Responses from university presidents have ranged from forceful rejection to silence in the weeks since the White House asked nine prominent campuses to make sweeping policy changes. The demand: Align with the Trump administration’s political agenda in exchange for preferential access to federal funds and programs.
By contrast, faculty and students have largely called on university leaders to prioritize academic freedom, constitutional free speech rights and local decision-making power independent of political influence.
At stake for University of Arizona and the eight other campuses are White House promises of support that American universities have long depended on, including for research grants, student loans, approval of student visas, and “preferential treatment under the tax code,” according to the 10-point compact from the U.S. Secretary of Education dated Oct. 1.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Some higher-education experts warn the compact is a threat, calling it extortion and government overreach. Still, the chair of the University of Texas System Board of Regents said earlier this month that he was honored by the Trump administration’s invitation and “potential funding advantages under its new ‘Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.’”
The feds requested feedback from the three public and six private universities by Oct. 20 and “a signed agreement” by Nov. 21.
Seven institutions have said no. UA is the most recent and rejected the compact on Oct. 20. “The university has not agreed to the terms outlined in the draft proposal, but instead submitted a Statement of Principles to the U.S. Department of Education that I am sharing with you,” UA President Suresh Garimella wrote in a letter to the community.
Vanderbilt University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier sent a letter to the campus community late Oct. 20. He did not reject the compact, saying the school remains open to discussion. The University of Texas at Austin has so far not formally replied to the White House as of the deadline. Schools still weighing a decision were invited to speak with White House officials on Friday, The Associated Press reported.
Dartmouth College rejected the compact Oct. 18.
“I do not believe that a compact — with any administration — is the right approach to achieve academic excellence, as it would compromise our academic freedom, our ability to govern ourselves, and the principle that federal research funds should be awarded to the best, most promising ideas,” Dartmouth President Sian Leah Beilock wrote to the community.
On Oct. 17, the University of Virginia became the fifth institution to reject the compact. “The letter confirms our core values and commitments while expressing our view that federal research funding should be based on merit,” read the note from interim President Paul Mahoney outlining his stance in a letter to White House officials.
The first campus leader to reject the compact was Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth. In her Oct. 10 statement, she emphasized the proposal would “restrict freedom of expression” and violate the university’s values.
In the wake of rejection, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social on Oct. 12 and informally extended the invitation to any college or university that agrees to sign on. He warned that “much of Higher Education has lost its way, and is now corrupting our Youth and Society with WOKE, SOCIALIST, and ANTI-AMERICAN Ideology.”
As more schools declined the compact, the White House reached out late this week to other schools including Arizona State University, Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Kansas.
On Oct. 15, Brown University President Christina Paxson also rejected the compact. Paxson said that while the Ivy League university agrees with some of the items in the compact, she could not concede to others that “restrict academic freedom” and would undermine their mission.
One day later, the University of Southern California announced it would reject the compact and shared President Beong-Soo Kim’s response to the U.S. Department of Education.
“Other countries whose governments lack America’s commitment to freedom and democracy have shown how academic excellence can suffer when shifting external priorities tilt the research playing field away from free, meritocratic competition,” Kim wrote.
That same day, University of Pennsylvania President J. Larry Jameson rejected the compact with less of an explanation.
“The goal was to ensure that our response reflected our values and the perspectives of our broad community,” he wrote in a statement, adding that he submitted feedback to the department of education “highlighting areas of existing alignment as well as substantive concerns.”
No U.S. university has signed on — yet.
Students and faculty are pushing back against their education institutions that have not formally acknowledged the letter or whose presidents have offered little transparency about how the critical decision is being made.
So far, nearly 100 higher-education leaders have endorsed the American Association of Colleges and Universities statement on Oct. 3 calling the compact “an ultimatum” that ties funding to political ideology. The list includes the presidents of Vassar College in New York and the University of San Diego, as well as the CEO of the Association of American Law Schools.
Locally, the president of Northern Arizona’s Prescott College, which has a center in Tucson, also signed the endorsement. No University of Arizona leaders have signed on as of Oct. 17.
At UA, Garimella couched his rejection of the compact in support, saying the school aligns with the Trump administration’s priorities.
“We have much common ground with the ideas your administration is advancing on changes that would benefit American higher education and our nation at large,” he wrote in an Oct. 20 letter to the secretary of education. “At the same time, a federal research funding system based on anything other than merit would weaken the world’s preeminent engine for innovation, advancement of technology, and solutions to many of our nation’s most profound challenges.”
“We seek no special treatment and believe in our ability to compete for federally funded research strictly on merit,” he added.
Garimella met with the Arizona Board of Regents Oct. 17 in executive session to discuss the compact and next steps. The meeting was only open to the public for the first five minutes while members voted on entering a closed session.
During that meeting, UA faculty, staff and students held a campus protest — calling on leadership to reject the compact — in partnership with the other eight universities the Trump administration originally invited to sign on early this month.
Tucson City Council has weighed in on the pending decision, voting unanimously Oct. 8 on a resolution that calls on UA’s “leadership to reject the Compact and to continue its responsibility as a land-grant institution that champions access, independence, and opportunity for all.”
Council member Rocque Perez, representing Ward 5, said local leaders have long recognized that “the strength of our community was dependent on the success of our schools.”
Perez held UA leadership accountable for not standing up to the Trump administration’s past threats.
“This moment didn’t necessarily arise overnight. The university’s new administration has spent months over-complying with partisan demands at the state and federal level,” he said. “That posture of appeasement has left the university more vulnerable, not less.”
Perez said the compact’s partisan political policies undermine Tucson’s economy, cultural vibrancy and commitment to accessible post-secondary education that’s “fundamental to community well-being.”
Here’s a snapshot of reaction and responses from stakeholders at the nine institutions the Trump administration has courted.
At Brown University in Providence, R.I., President Christina Paxson rejected the compact on Oct. 15.
“I am concerned that the Compact by its nature and by various provisions would restrict academic freedom and undermine the autonomy of Brown’s governance, critically,” she wrote, posting a copy of the letter on the university’s website. “My decision to decline participation in the Compact aligns with the views of the vast majority of Brown stakeholders.”
Her initial public letter on Oct. 10, referenced the agreement the university reached with the federal government last summer when research funding was restored from the National Institutes of Health. That agreement ended three pending reviews into Brown’s compliance with nondiscrimination obligations, including for undergraduate admissions.
“In this moment, I feel strongly that it is most helpful to hear from members of our community,” Paxson wrote. “We need to decide, as a community, how or whether to respond to the invitation to provide comments.”
“At times like this, I am grateful that we took the time, together, last spring to consider and affirm a set of university values that guide our decision-making: a commitment to the pursuit of knowledge and understanding; upholding academic freedom and freedom of expression; a commitment to openness and diversity of ideas, perspectives and experiences; and responsibility for a thriving academic community. Brown’s mission is our north star, and these values should guide us.”
Brown’s community voices echo through campus. At a rally last week, the newly-formed student group, Brown Rise Up, included students and faculty who read a statement: “This compact is an attack on academic freedom and diversity of thought that would mark an end to the University’s ability to self-govern.”
During the rally, some protesters chanted “reject, rise up, Brown does not belong to Trump,” while others held up signs that read “students over politics” and “don’t be an accomplice,” according to The Brown Daily Herald student newspaper.
“We won’t take bribes & threats,” the group wrote in an Oct. 14 social media post, urging campus stakeholders to email the administration and sign their petition to reject the pledge. “If any one of our universities agrees to sign this compact, it risks creating a chain reaction for the higher education system at-large to side with tyrants over students.”
Dartmouth College President Sian Leah Beilock rejected the compact Oct. 18, stressing freedom from partisan political pressure.
Beilock spoke with the White House Oct. 17 and sent officials a letter the following day.
“I welcome further engagement around how we can (a) enhance the long-standing partnership between the federal government and this country’s leading research universities and (b) ensure that higher education stays focused on academic excellence,” Beilock’s letter said.
“Our universities have a responsibility to set our own academic and institutional policies, guided by our mission and values, our commitment to free expression, and our obligations under the law,” she wrote. “Staying true to this responsibility is what will help American higher education build bipartisan public trust and continue to uphold its place as the envy of the world.”
Dartmouth’s student body vice president Favion Harvard, along with UA undergraduate student body president Adriana Grijalva, and student government leaders or organizations with the University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, MIT, Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia issued a joint statement on Oct. 9 opposing the compact. They urged their administrations to reject Trump’s offer.
The statement warns the compact could “systemically alter the mission of higher education and erode the independence that has long defined our universities,” and insists they must not “allow these attempts to control what can be taught, studied, or spoken on our campuses.”
Absent from the statement were student body leaders from the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Southern California.
Hundreds of Dartmouth faculty members also signed a petition urging Beilock to reject the compact.
“The compact, in attempting to assert state control over admissions, tuition, grades, hiring, teaching, and research, is a direct threat to the beating heart of the university: free inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge,” reads the excerpt in The Dartmouth, the college’s student newspaper.
At MIT in Cambridge, President Sally Kornbluth replied on Oct. 10 to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon with a clear — albeit polite — no.
MIT disagrees with restricting freedom of expression and independence, said Kornbluth’s letter, posted on the university’s website. “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,” the letter said. “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.”
At the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, President J. Larry Jameson “respectfully” declined to sign the compact on Oct. 16 after seeking input from the Penn community.
“The long-standing partnership between American higher education and the federal government has greatly benefited society and our nation. Shared goals and investment in talent and ideas will turn possibility into progress,” Jameson wrote in the announcement.
“I am grateful to the Penn community for your thoughtful input and for what you bring to our University and our missions every day,” he added.
Jameson said he informed the department of education that Penn “respectfully” declined to sign the proposal but did not provide an in-depth response.
On Oct. 5, days after receiving the Trump administration’s compact, Jameson sent a statement to university stakeholders inviting feedback and stating that “Penn seeks no special consideration.”
The Ivy League school’s “long-standing partnership with the federal government in both education and research has yielded tremendous benefits for our nation,” Jameson wrote.
“I will continue to seek the input of our Penn community, including our Deans, the Faculty Senate, University leaders, and the Board of Trustees, and I will communicate further as we continue to manage this process,” he added.
Nearly 2,000 Penn community members have signed a petition titled “Just Say No to Trump’s Compact for Academic Extortion,” asking Jameson and Penn’s Board of Trustees to reject the compact.
“We call on the University to pursue other measures to combat possible funding restrictions, like temporarily raising the rate of spending on the endowment and collaborating with other institutions to pursue legal remedies for the restoration of unconstitutionally withheld funds,” the petition says. “Sacrificing our values irreparably damages the fabric of our University. Penn’s Latin motto, ‘Leges Sine Moribus Vanae,’ translates to ‘Laws Without Morals are Useless.’ It is time to put that principle into practice.”
In Austin, the University of Texas System Board of Regents Chair Kevin Eltife spoke favorably of the compact.
“We enthusiastically look forward to engaging with university officials and reviewing the compact immediately,” Eltife told the Texas Tribune.
“Higher education has been at a crossroads in recent years, and we have worked very closely with Governor Abbott, Lt. Gov. Patrick and Speaker Burrows to implement sweeping changes for the benefit of our students and to strengthen our institutions to best serve the people of Texas,” he said.
UT faculty and students spoke against signing the compact.
“While there are things in the compact that UT Austin already does there are a number of things that I think would be very damaging,” said Karma Chávez, president of the American Association of University Professors at UT Austin speaking to Spectrum News.
UT stakeholders launched a community petition that as of Oct. 15 has nearly 1,200 petition signatures calling on university leaders to reject the compact.
“Not only does this decision set a dangerous precedent, but it also goes against the values that many of us, as proud graduates, hold dear,” the statement reads.
“Academic independence is the cornerstone of a vibrant and effective educational institution. By compromising this independence, the administration may erode the trust and respect that the university has garnered over its illustrious history.”
Interim President Beong-Soo Kim at the University of Southern California in LA rejected the compact on Oct. 16, sharing his letter to the U.S. Department of Education
“We are concerned that even though the Compact would be voluntary, tying research benefits to it would, over time, undermine the same values of free inquiry and academic excellence that the Compact seeks to promote,” Kim wrote.
Kim touched on areas where university values aligned with the compact including the promotion of civil discourse and prohibition of “discrimination admissions, hiring, and student discipline.”
Ultimately, he said concerns over the implications of the agreement solidified the school’s decision to not sign the compact.
“Without an environment where students and faculty can freely debate a broad range of ideas and viewpoints, we could not produce outstanding research, teach our students to think critically, or instill the civic values needed for our democracy to flourish,” Kim wrote.
His Oct. 3 letter posted on the university’s website says he aimed to consult with campus stakeholders to build trust and community before responding.
“In this moment, and in all others, the Board’s and my responsibility is to advance USC’s mission and uphold our core values, and we are committed to doing just that,” he wrote.
USC’s chapter of the American Association of University of Professors wrote a pointed letter to the university’s interim president, provost and chair of the board of trustees last week.
“We must not allow ourselves to be threatened into ceding our self-determination,” the group’s online statement urges campus stakeholders to sign a petition calling on the administration to reject the compact. “Whatever the consequences of refusal, agreeing would imperil the very mission of the University.”
As of Oct. 15, the petition had 73 pages of signatures from faculty, students, alumni and parents.
“This attempt at coercion is just one of the many examples of intensifying political interference into higher education. The compact characterizes efforts to improve diversity as discriminatory, a continuation of other efforts to undermine the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom warned the state’s university leaders against signing the compact.
“IF ANY CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY SIGNS THIS RADICAL AGREEMENT, THEY’LL LOSE BILLIONS IN STATE FUNDING — INCLUDING CAL GRANTS — INSTANTLY,” Newsom wrote in all caps in an online statement. “CALIFORNIA WILL NOT BANKROLL SCHOOLS THAT SELL OUT THEIR STUDENTS, PROFESSORS, RESEARCHERS, AND SURRENDER ACADEMIC FREEDOM.
At Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., Chancellor Daniel Diermeier continues to evaluate the compact, with no official response.
The Vanderbilt Faculty Senate asked its administration not to sign on when it passed a resolution opposing the compact and the Vanderbilt student government voiced opposition.
The Vanderbilt Graduate Workers United Union circulated a petition asking its administration to reject the compact.
The petition argues the proposed federal agreement would undermine the university’s commitment to free speech rights on campus and learning in higher education, according to The Vanderbilt Hustler, its student newspaper.
But backing the Trump administration’s effort are the Vanderbilt College Republicans, WKRN.com reports. “We support it, and we’re so honored that Vanderbilt was one of the schools that was recognized to implement this policy and that we have the opportunity to bring it on a campus,” said RaeAnna Morales, media director at Vanderbilt College Republicans.
At the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, interim President Paul Mahoney rejected the White House proposal on Oct 17.
In his letter spurning the White House demands, interim President Mahoney wrote that UVA agrees with “many of the principals outlined in the Compact, including a fair and unbiased admissions process, an affordable and academically rigorous education, a thriving marketplace of ideas, institutional neutrality, and equal treatment of students, faculty, and staff in all aspects of university operations.”
He added, “We seek no special treatment in exchange for our pursuit of those foundational goals.”
The rebuff comes after more than 90% of the UVA Faculty Senate voted Oct. 3 to oppose the compact.
“The Faculty Senate of the University of Virginia firmly opposes this Compact as written and calls upon Interim President Mahoney and the Board of Visitors to also reject this Compact outright as well as any similar proposal compromising the mission, values, and independence of the University,” the resolution states.
UVA interim President Paul Mahoney sent a letter to the university community last week. In it, he says he formed a group to respond to the compact. The letter on the university’s website includes a link for community members to share their concerns and is only valid through a UVA login.
“The document raises questions of profound importance to the University of Virginia and more broadly to all institutions of higher education in the United States,” reads the letter. “It would be difficult for the University to agree to certain provisions in the Compact. We write to assure you that our response will be guided by the same principles of academic freedom and free inquiry that Thomas Jefferson placed at the center of the University’s mission more than 200 years ago, and to which the University has remained faithful ever since.”
Mahoney has been on the job since August. He took over after Jim Ryan resigned in May in the wake of pressure from the federal government, which was looking into the university’s diversity, equity and inclusion practices.
Read the email and the compact here:
UA President Suresh Garimella rejected the compact on Oct. 20, sharing a letter with the Trump administration and campus community.
On Oct. 17, a demonstration on the UA campus featured UA faculty, staff, students and local groups. Speakers at the protest criticized the university’s delay in rejecting the compact.
The UA’s Faculty Senate officially opposed the compact on Oct. 6 by approving a resolution. In it, the faculty senate calls for Garimella and the board of regents to “reject any similar proposal compromising the mission, values and independence of the University.”
UA’s Graduate and Professional Student Council released a statement Oct. 7 asking university leadership “to provide clear, transparent, timely, and comprehensive information regarding the compact, the review process, and the timeline for decision-making.”
“Regardless of political perspectives, universities should not be placed under the threat of funding withdrawal for declining to adopt externally proposed legislation,” the statement read. They also set up an online forum for feedback from students to share with UA leadership.
Garimella issued an unsigned Oct. 9 statement. “We recognize that this proposal has generated a wide range of reactions and perspectives within our community and beyond,” the statement read. “We will continue to keep our community informed as this process moves forward.”
Tucson City Council passed its own resolution on Oct. 8, unanimously opposing the compact.
City council member Perez and Vice Mayor Lane Santa Cruz of Ward 1 proposed the resolution, calling the compact an “unacceptable act of federal interference that undermines local control, academic freedom, and opportunity for our residents.” They urged UA leadership to reject the deal.
“Freedom of learning is a basic human right. And this resolution makes clear that Tucson stands with our students, our educators in the University of Arizona in defending that right,” Santa Cruz said during the discussion. “Education should always be about expanding minds, not enforcing ideologies.”
Perez said Trump’s compact “asks universities to pledge loyalty — not excellence — conditioning federal funding on political conformity. That’s not someone else’s business. Frankly, that’s ours. It’s an intrusion into our community, into the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Tucsonans who study, teach and work at the university.”
Mayor Regina Romero said Tucson City Council is not standing against the university. Rather, the resolution defends the “academic integrity and the academic freedom of the University of Arizona. Compliance, especially with Trump, does not bring you any leeway. Compliance only brings about much more push back from President Trump and his political agenda.”
Council member Kevin Dahl representing Ward 3 said that certain items in the compact, such as freezing student tuition, align with UA’s priorities. However, Trump’s threats are too great a risk, he said.
“I’ve heard from faculty leaders, I’ve heard from staff. And I’ve heard from students,” he said. “It’s the federal overreach. This is a state institution. This is a land-grant college. This the heart of Tucson. Dammit, we’re Wildcats. We’re not tame. We need to support what is the true heart of the university.”
This story has been updated with a response from the Arizona Board of Regents.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print.
