The president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sally Kornbluth, has stated that she cannot support a White House proposal that would require MIT and eight other universities to adopt President Donald Trump’s political agenda in exchange for favorable access to federal funding.
In a letter addressed to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and White House officials, Kornbluth said that MIT disagrees with parts of the proposal, particularly those limiting free speech and university independence. She emphasized that scientific funding should be based solely on merit. “Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education,” Kornbluth wrote.
The White House described its agreement as providing “multiple positive benefits,” including “substantial and meaningful federal grants.” While leaders at the University of Texas system expressed appreciation for their invitation, most other institutions have not commented publicly as they review the document.
The compact circulated by the administration asks universities to make commitments on topics such as admissions policies, women’s sports, free speech, and student discipline—aligning them with Trump’s policy positions. The nine invited universities were asked to provide feedback by October 20 and decide by November 21 whether to join as initial signatories. Other recipients include Vanderbilt University, University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, University of Southern California (USC), University of Arizona, Brown University, and University of Virginia.
University officials across several campuses are under pressure from students, faculty members, advocacy groups for free speech and higher education organizations to reject the compact. Some university leaders have referred to it as extortion. In Tucson—the home city for the University of Arizona—the mayor and city council formally opposed it as an “unacceptable act of federal interference.”
Frederick Hess from the American Enterprise Institute criticized the proposal as “profoundly problematic” and said its demands lack legal foundation.
At the University of Virginia (UVA), campus leaders sought community input before making a decision. They noted it would be “very difficult” to accept some terms in light of principles like academic freedom. Democratic state senators in Virginia warned UVA they could lose state funding if they agreed to the deal; similar threats came from California Governor Gavin Newsom toward USC.
Brown University’s president Christina H. Paxson said she is gathering campus feedback before responding further; Brown had previously resolved separate investigations through an agreement with federal officials earlier this year.
According to administration communications sent last week, this compact represents a new attempt at reform amid ongoing reductions in research funding over allegations against certain campuses related to antisemitism or liberal bias.
While Kornbluth did not explicitly reject participation in her letter—she called some conditions unworkable—she noted MIT already upholds values cited in parts of the proposal: emphasizing merit-based admissions and affordability initiatives such as reinstating standardized test requirements post-pandemic and waiving tuition for families earning less than $200,000 annually. “We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission,” she wrote.
Among other stipulations outlined in the compact: universities would need to freeze tuition for U.S. students for five years; those with large endowments would eliminate tuition entirely for students pursuing science programs; all undergraduate applicants would need SAT or ACT scores; race or sex could not factor into admissions decisions; schools must recognize only binary gender definitions regarding facilities and athletics; campuses must also take steps against institutional units perceived as hostile toward conservative ideas—all framed under fostering a broader marketplace of viewpoints.
