Op-Ed |
Please note that the following op-ed discussion is based on the authors’ analysis of the Compact and not a reflection of the editors’ or SRAI’s views.
The Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education is a proposal by the Trump administration to offer universities preferential access to federal funding and benefits in exchange for adopting a wide range of policies aligned with the administration's agenda. This two-part article breaks down the Compact and discusses its potential long-term impact.
Part One: Overview and Current State of the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education
The Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education (“Compact”) is a U.S. proposal by the Trump administration to offer Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) preferential access to federal funding and benefits, including higher overhead payments where feasible, substantive and impactful federal grants, and “other” partnerships with the federal government, in exchange for adopting a wide range of policies aligned with the administration's political agenda (PEN America, 2025; Barnes et al., 2025). The compact was initially proposed on October 1, 2025, to nine universities (Brown, Dartmouth, MIT, University of Arizona, University of Pennsylvania, USC, UT Austin, University of Virginia, and Vanderbilt University). On October 14th, the offer was extended to all U.S. higher education institutions on a voluntary basis (Meckler & McDaniel, 2025). The nine-page Compact outlines numerous conditions for participating institutions, covering admissions, campus life, finance, and international relations, including:
- Admissions and Hiring: Eliminating the consideration of protected characteristics like race and sex in admissions and faculty hiring, and requiring standardized testing for all applicants. (PEN America, 2025).
- Campus Speech and Governance: Requiring "institutional neutrality" on political or social issues and allowing for the abolition or transformation of departments deemed hostile to "conservative ideas.” (Barnes et al., 2025)
- Student Equality: Mandating a binary definition of sex based on "reproductive function and biological processes" for single-sex spaces and sports. (Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 2025)
- Financial Responsibility: Freezing tuition for five years and requiring universities with large endowments to offer free tuition for hard science programs. (Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 2025)
- International Students: Capping international student enrollment at 15% of the undergraduate population and screening foreign students for "anti-American values.” (Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 2025)
Most of the nine universities publicly rejected the Compact, citing concerns over academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and the principle that federal research funding should be based on merit, not politics. (Coster, 2025). The University of Texas-Austin expressed support but did not sign on (Conner & Cuellar, 2025) and Valley Forge Military College and New College of Florida, neither of which was in the initial group, have expressed an intent to sign the Compact. (Knott, 2025).
White House officials are framing the agreement as voluntary; however, this is at odds with the fact that language in the Compact either expressly or impliedly threatens access to federal funding, including by freezing billions in funding previously approved by Congress. Additionally, colleges and universities already need to comply with federal law and adhere to other conditions in order to access federal funds so the Compact’s proposed conditions appear, at least on their face, to extend beyond current statutory funding requirements, prompting questions regarding the permissible scope of executive conditioning authority and requiring the government to cajole and incentivize institutions into aligning their practices with the Compact’s terms.
Legal experts point out that the Compact raises serious constitutional issues, potentially violating the First Amendment rights of institutions, faculty, and students by not only conditioning federal benefits on the surrender of constitutional freedoms, (Shanor & Myeri, 2025) but also empowering the federal government to claw back all funding that was previously advanced during the year that a violation occurs. Indeed, the Compact follows multiple federal actions, including the freezing of billions in research funding and civil rights investigations (Scholtes, 2025). The fact that several universities—including Columbia, Brown, Cornell, UPenn, and Northwestern—entered into settlement agreements with the U.S. Government to restore frozen federal funds (U.S. Department of Justice, 2025) points to a shift toward using federal leverage to effect widespread institutional change.
Notwithstanding the differing views on the constitutionality and enforceability of the Compact, there can be no dispute that the Compact has sparked an overdue conversation about the need for internal reforms in higher education and acts as a catalyst for a national debate on the future and governance of American higher education. Even officials at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brown University, Dartmouth, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, and UVA , among others, who reject the Compact’s insistence on compliance with the administration’s priorities rather than merit as the basis for determining entitlement to federal grant funding, generally support some of the Compact’s goals, such as lowering the cost of college and ensuring a vibrant exchange of ideas across the ideological spectrum.
Bottom-line, the release of the Compact has generated anxiety among academic institutions, faculty, and research administrators, concerned about the continued threat to academic freedom, research, and the structure of educational institutions. This generalized anxiety has been compounded by earlier threats of reduction in overhead rates, new priorities for research grants, and threats of funding suspensions due to unrelated concerns. The likelihood that the Compact will take root as initially proposed is small, given the lack of support for its terms at this time. However, we believe that the Compact has succeeded in its intent to stimulate conversation about the issues raised in the Compact, which could lead to some changes at the level of each institution. No matter what each of us believes about the relative pros and cons of the proposed Compact, there’s no denying that the world of academia looks much different in 2026 than it did in 2024, and likely will look substantially different in 2028 than it does today.
Part Two: Potential Long-term Impact of the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education
Following an overview of the Compact’s structure and initial institutional responses, we analyze its potential long-term impacts on institutional stratification, governance, research administration, and funding distribution.
If the Compact were widely adopted, universities would likely see a substantial change in focus on how academic freedom is handled (Barnes et al., 2025). For example, departments in some institutions would be more inclined to hire faculty, especially conservative scholars, to broaden ideological representation. While this may empower some on campus to express non-progressive political views, it could simultaneously have a “chilling” effect on others (Shanor & Mayeri, 2025). Political protests could become more tightly regulated to avoid violating the Compact’s “anti-disruption” rules, further limiting at least certain forms of academic freedom (Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 2025). Broad adoption could also create a new Federal standard and funding environment and standardize admissions nationally. Removal of race-based selection combined with a mandatory standardized test score emphasis could diminish racial and ethnic diversity (PEN America, 2025), and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) infrastructure could shrink, resulting in substantial declines in representation of certain groups (Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 2025). And last, but not the least, adoption of the Compact could undermine institutions’ ability to attract top talent from around the world, resulting in decreased revenue for institutions (Knott, 2025).
In the long term, significant divides could emerge between “Compact” universities (IHE that embraced the Compact) and “independent” universities (IHE that avoided or openly resisted the Compact). On the one hand “Compact” universities would have to reckon with lower international enrollment and the associated decrease in revenue but would likely benefit from greater ideological diversity in some disciplines, leaner administrations, and greater federal research support. “Independent” universities, on the other hand, may become magnets for students, both within the U.S. and internationally, who want DEI-heavy programs or campuses with fewer speech restrictions and greater academic freedom. At the same time, these institutions will likely have restricted access to federal funding and higher tuition costs (Kuang, 2025)
Supporters of the Compact point out that it promotes standardization and equity in both admissions and funding, while opponents maintain that its proposed mechanisms would substantially modify established academic governance structures. Much like the current political divide in the U.S., a successful move toward the Compact’s goals would also create a divide in academia, with a more conservative and limited federally-supported system. Reflecting the broader sociopolitical divides, wide adoption of the Compact could accelerate the development of two distinct models of American higher education: one conservative and federally aligned, the other progressive, autonomous, and niche-oriented. More progressive institutions will narrowcast their focus to expanding what exists today for students and academics who prefer a pedagogic system of academia.
Thus, this scenario could theoretically produce a two-tiered higher education landscape: one that meets the Compact’s agenda (and is the dominant form of education across most institutions) and second, a smaller, more “liberal” set of institutions that are more niche-oriented in their approach. In this scenario, a generation of academics in Compact institutions may operate within a more regulated and politically scrutinized environment, changing incentives for research topics and departmental structures. Meanwhile, the federal government becomes a central actor in setting higher-education norms, a major paradigm shift away from the historically decentralized model.
One could further argue that the Compact’s legal challenges would result in court rulings that remove limits on the federal government’s ability to impose ideological conditions on funding, shaping future policy for education for generations (U.S. DOJ, 2025). Likely, Federal funding would shift to support these institutions, thus drawing more talent and creating a more standardized education for those interested in academia. Conversely, a counter-movement results in academic-freedom standards set by a subset of “liberal” universities themselves (likely State university systems in more progressive states such as California and New York). These institutions would survive on State funding, private funding, donations, and substantially higher student tuition rates. These would become “niche” institutions, likely more creative, possibly thought incubators for seeking a more progressive environment (both from the education and research ends).
Operationally, adoption of the Compact would necessitate substantial restructuring within research administration offices. Pre-award teams would be required to implement eligibility screening aligned with Compact conditions, compliance offices would have to undertake expanded monitoring responsibilities concerning speech policies, admissions compliance, and international student caps, and institutions could encounter revised indirect cost negotiations if “increased overhead payments” are formalized.
Regardless of whether IHE adopt or resist the Compact, there can be little dispute that the Compact represents a fundamental recalibration of the federal–institutional relationship. The central issue is not solely whether institutions will sign, but how they will adapt their governance, compliance, and funding models in response to a more centralized and politically contingent funding environment. The structural implications for research administration, academic freedom, and institutional autonomy are likely to persist beyond the Compact’s duration.
AI Use Statement: Artificial intelligence tools, including ChatGPT, were employed to organize and format the references.
References
Barnes, M., Hallward-Driemeier, D., Sencer, S.D., & Thornton, L. A. (2025, October 8). White House invites nine universities to enter “compact” in exchange for access to federal funds and other benefits. Ropes & Gray. https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2025/10/white-house-invites-nine-universities-to-enter-compact-in-exchange-for-access-to-federal-funds
Conner, S., & Cuellar, C. (2025, October 20). From silence to rejection: How 9 universities are responding to Trump’s higher-ed compact. AZ Luminaria. https://azluminaria.org/2025/10/20/from-silence-to-rejection-how-9-universities-are-responding-to-trumps-higher-ed-compact/
Coster, H. (2025, October 20). University of Arizona declines to sign onto Trump administration compact. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/university-arizona-declines-sign-onto-trump-administration-compact-2025-10-20/
Knott, K. (2025, October 24). How universities are responding to Trump’s compact. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/2025/10/24/how-universities-are-responding-trumps-compact
Kuang, J. (2025, October 2). Newsom threatens to cut USC funding if it complies with Trump demands. CalMatters. https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/10/newson-trump-usc-financial-threat/
Meckler, L., & McDaniel, J. Colleges weight whether to sign on to Trump plan or forgo federal benefits. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/10/03/trump-administration-college-funding-compact
PEN America. (2025, November 11). What is Trump’s Compact for Higher Education? - FAQ. https://pen.org/trumps-compact-for-higher-education-faq/
Penn Today. (2025, October 16). An update on Penn’s response to the Compact for Academic Excellence. https://penntoday.upenn.edu/announcements/update-penns-response-compact-academic-excellence
Powell, A. (2025, September 4). Court victory for Harvard in research funding fight. The Harvard Gazette. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/09/court-victory-for-harvard-in-research-funding-fight
Priest, J. (2025, November 17). UT-Austin still silent on Trump compact as deadline passes. Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2025/11/17/university-of-texas-trump-policy-changes-federal-funding/
Scholtes, J. (2025, January 28). Funding freeze throws education programs into chaos. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/28/funding-freeze-education-programs-chaos-00201111
Shanor, A., & Mayeri, S. (2025, October 15). A brief legal analysis of the Department of Education’s proposed Compact for Higher Education. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/a-brief-legal-analysis-of-the-department-of-educations-proposed-compact-for-higher-education
Steptoe & Johnson LLP. (2025, October 23). White House looks to seize control of higher education policy through “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” https://www.steptoe.com/en/news-publications/white-house-looks-to-seize-control-of-higher-education-policy-through-compact-for-academic-excellence-in-higher-education.html
Supiano, N. (2025, October 15). Why does the Trump compact talk about grading? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-does-the-trump-compact-talk-about-grading
U.S. Department of Education. (2025, October 1). Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. American Association of University Professors. https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/2025-10/Compact%20text%20with%20Commentary%20by%20Isaac%20Kamola%2010.16.25.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice. (2025, July 30). Justice Department releases guidance for recipients of federal funding regarding unlawful discrimination. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-guidance-recipients-federal-funding-regarding-unlawful
Authored by:
Mark Lucas, CRA
Chief Administrative Officer
UCLA Depts of Neurobiology and Computational Medicine
SRAI Distinguished Faculty & Catalyst Feature Editor
Gloria W. Greene, MA, CRA
Assistant Vice President
Contracts and Grants, Research Compliance
University of Alabama in Huntsville
SRAI Distinguished Faculty & Catalyst Feature Editor