University leaders who have struggled to counter the Trump administration’s monthslong campaign to rewrite higher education just caught the biggest break academia has had all year.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth’s public rejection Friday of an offer to voluntarily link the school’s federal funding to President Donald Trump’s higher education priorities on college finance, hiring and admissions came after a string of setbacks for elite institutions in particular.
“Today really felt like the clouds were breaking,” Ted Mitchell, the former president of Occidental College, said after MIT’s announcement. “One of the things I appreciate most about Sally Kornbluth’s letter is that she is capturing what a lot of presidents are saying behind the scenes.”
The Trump administration has spent the year trying to assert control over universities by launching civil rights probes, freezing millions in federal research dollars and throttling their international student enrollment. And while the federal government has spent months in court fighting Harvard University, Columbia University — the administration’s first target — signed a deal over the summer that Trump critics saw as capitulation.
Over the past few weeks, Trump administration officials have flipped their strategy and are now trying to sell universities on a deal that will net them federal cash, business and a bit of White House praise — a suite of benefits that aren’t explicitly in the contract.
It’s an arrangement former college presidents are urging their schools to reject.
“It’s pretty vague what the advantages are of signing the compact,” said Teresa Sullivan, the former president of the University of Virginia, one of nine colleges the Trump administration is trying to court. “If you’re thinking of this as a deal, it’s a one-sided deal.”
The benefits of Trump’s “compact” include “increased overhead payments where feasible” and “substantial and meaningful federal grants,” according to a cover letter sent to university leaders alongside the agreement. But the White House is offering things colleges enjoyed until just a few months ago.
Sullivan and others say the offer is all sticks and no carrots. And while the compact itself makes no mention of the benefits the White House is offering, it does spell out what costly financial penalties schools will face if they fall short of what the administration deems as compliance.
Mitchell, who now leads the American Council on Education, which represents roughly 1,600 institutions, said many university leaders agree with statements about the need for addressing the cost of college, discrimination and free speech.
“But we will not compromise our independence as institutions and we will not allow higher education to be an instrument of the government,” he said.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon, White House Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley and senior adviser May Mailman are spearheading the effort, having started with Vanderbilt, Dartmouth, University of Pennsylvania, University of Southern California, MIT, University of Texas at Austin, University of Arizona, Brown University and UVA.
Those officials say universities have long benefited from their relationships with the government. That includes access to federal student loans, competitive grant programs and federal contracts to fund research, approval for foreign student visas and tax-exempt status for the vast majority of institutions.
The White House now wants these colleges to make changes to their admissions policies, faculty hiring, how they use their endowments and ensure there is “a broad spectrum of viewpoints” on campus. Trump officials also want the schools to freeze their tuition for five years, cap their international undergraduate student enrollment at 15 percent, ensure sex is defined as “male” and “female,” and adopt a policy of institutional neutrality, which means their campuses won’t weigh in on societal and political events.
“Institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forego federal benefits,” the compact said.
A school found in violation of the document by the Justice Department will lose access to federal student aid, grants and contracts and more for at least a year. Institutions would also have to pay back all federal cash they’ve received that year to the government along with any private donations, if the donors ask for them back, according to the compact.
Former presidents, including some who once led those institutions, are urging current leaders to resist what they see as unworkable mandates and severe penalties.
“The potential sanctions are existential,” one former university president told POLITICO. “To me, it feels like a federal takeover of higher education.”
A White House official on Thursday said the administration has received widespread engagement on the compact and there is some flexibility to negotiate the terms.
“We’ve heard from many current and former university leaders who think the US university system needs significant change to get back on track,” a White House official said in a statement. “President Trump is delivering lasting reform to make our universities once again the envy of the world.”
Spokespeople for the Education Department did not respond to a request for comment.
Former Dartmouth President Phil Hanlon said some of the compact’s goals — like cost control and protecting broader expression of viewpoints — are reasonable. But he warned that most provisions are nonstarters.
“All of these, at least in my mind, are quite extreme demands that universities forfeit self-governance and academic freedom,” Hanlon said. “There are certainly ways in which U.S. higher education needs to improve. But universities always have, in my experience, worked towards self-improvement without the need to have someone hit them over the head with a cudgel.”
Sullivan, the former UVA president, said one of the greatest issues higher education leaders must weigh is how this compact could affect their finances.
“The part of this compact that shows the least sophistication is the part that deals with finances,” Sullivan said, pointing to the mandates on tuition pricing and how endowments are used. “It just read to me as pretty naive about how higher education finance works.”
She said Trump’s compact ignores inflation, the cost of new technology, faculty benefits including health care, and unpredictable state appropriations.
“You don’t have that many levers to pull if you cannot ever increase tuition,” she said. “This puts the university in an impossible situation. They have to control their prices but no one else has to control theirs.”
The initial group of nine universities has been asked to submit feedback by Oct. 20, with an eye toward inviting those schools in “clear alignment” with the administration’s effort to the White House by Nov. 21.
How those first nine leaders respond could usher in a new era of how the federal government decides which schools it will work with and the terms they must agree to. But so far, several leaders appear to be leaning towards aligning with Kornbluth’s decision.
UVA’s interim President Paul Mahoney and Rector Rachel Sheridan told their campus community, “It would be difficult for the University to agree to certain provisions in the Compact.” Dartmouth College President Sian Leah Beilock wrote a letter to her campus noting “we will never compromise our academic freedom and our ability to govern ourselves.” And University of Pennsylvania President Larry Jameson in his message to campus said “Penn seeks no special consideration. We strive to be supported based on the excellence of our work, our scholars and students, and the programs and services we provide.”
But for some schools, their presidents aren’t the final say.
“Regardless of what some presidents may think about it, governing boards make policy,” Sullivan said.
At the University of Texas, Board of Regents Chair Kevin Eltife said they were “honored” that their flagship campus made the White House’s initial list of outreach.
Hanlon, the former Dartmouth president, said the “greatest risks to the partnership between higher ed and the U.S. government” are still ahead.
“I liken the partnership to the goose that laid the golden egg for the U.S.,” Hanlon said. “So let’s not kill it.”
