In early October, the Trump administration sent letters to nine universities urging them to pledge support for key administrative priorities in exchange for access to benefits like federal funding and visa approvals, outlined in a document called “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” The compact has since been offered to all colleges and universities nationwide. PEN America believes this compact signals an alarming acceleration in the White House’s agenda to erode the values and commitments of academic freedom and free expression that have historically been foundational to higher education in the United States.
What is the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education?
The “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” is a nine-page document initially sent to nine U.S. universities by the Department of Education on October 1, 2025. The document outlines a list of demands for continued partnership with the U.S. government under the guise of “reform.” It states that universities are not required to agree to these conditions, though it does not specify whether rejecting them would exclude these institutions from some or all federal benefits going forward.
The compact’s conditions cover a wide range of partisan concerns in higher education. Among other things, universities would have to agree to adopt government-approved definitions of sex, cap international student enrollment, enact strict policies of institutional neutrality, and abolish any institutional units (i.e., academic departments, centers, or offices) that “purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.” The compact states that adherence to the agreement will be subject to review by the Department of Justice, and universities found to have violated the terms of the agreement will have to return monies received and lose access to benefits for no less than one year.
The nine universities were invited to provide feedback on the document by October 20, with a final decision required by November 21. During the week of October 13, the White House opened the compact to any university interested in signing on.
What Does the Compact Ask Universities to Do?
The compact covers a wide range of partisan concerns in higher education, inserting the federal government’s agenda into numerous areas that have historically been considered to be the purview of individual universities. These concerns are categorized within eight vague themes reflecting the Trump administration’s areas of concern in higher education reform. Among other demands, the compact requires signatories to:
- Eliminate consideration of protected characteristics such as race and sex in admissions or financial aid awards.
- Require standardized testing in admissions and publicly report anonymized data for admitted and rejected students.
- Foster “a vibrant marketplace of ideas” by changing governance to allow for “transforming or abolishing” departments or offices that are hostile to “conservative ideas.”
- Institute restrictive speech and expression policies—like limiting protest and using law enforcement to respond to any infringements— to establish “conditions of civility.”
- Prohibit employees from making statements on social or political matters on behalf of the university.
- Use a binary definition of sex “according to reproductive function and biological processes” in single-sex spaces and sports.
- Freeze tuition for the next five years.
- Waive tuition for students pursuing the “hard sciences,” if the university has an endowment exceeding $2 million per undergraduate student.
- Cap international enrollment at 15% of the undergraduate student population.
- Screen international students for “anti-American values.”
What is PEN America’s Position on the Compact?
PEN America believes the compact is nothing short of an effort by the Trump administration to extend direct ideological control over colleges and universities, and thereby, the entire higher education sector. Its demands would erode institutional autonomy, the principle that universities should be broadly free to govern themselves without overbearing interference from politicians or lawmakers. Indeed, institutional autonomy is what helps ensure universities do not become propaganda machines for their governments, given their extraordinary influence over knowledge, education, and the exchange of ideas.
Taken in combination with the numerous other steps the administration has taken since January 2025 to erode free expression across the U.S., including issuing executive orders to surveil international student and staff expression, decimating research funding, detaining international students for protected protest and expression, and ordering the review of library collections at military academies, we see no other way to interpret the intentions of this document than an attempt at authoritarian control of higher education. We are heartened by the university leaders who have already rejected the compact and call on other universities and leaders in higher education to do so as well.
Why does PEN America think the Compact Threatens Free Expression on Campus?
Beyond the unacceptable suggestion that the federal government ought to be able to dictate the operations of U.S. universities, the vagueness and intimidating tone of the compact set the stage for dangerous overcompliance and chilled expression.
The compact suggests numerous policy commitments for participating universities to adopt and stipulates that universities’ adherence will be monitored by the Department of Justice for potential violations, a serious overstep of government involvement in higher education. The compact regularly leaves terms and conditions loosely defined and unspecific: one example of many is the directive that universities do not “allow demonstrators to heckle or accost individual students or groups of students,” without defining what “heckle” or “accost” would comprise. At the same time, the compact also requires commitments that appear blatantly unconstitutional: for example, the suggestion that international students be screened for “anti-American values.” The overwhelming ambiguity in the compact would leave universities vulnerable to arbitrary, inconsistent, and unpredictable enforcement. This is especially concerning when it comes to the elements of the compact related to speech of students, faculty, or administrative leaders, whose expression would likely be chilled amid the uncertain expectations.
Additionally, there are at least five distinct components of the compact which raise concerns for free expression on campus:
- Viewpoint Discrimination and Unconstitutional Censorship: Under the section “Marketplace of Ideas & Civil Discourse,” the compact directs universities to privilege conservative viewpoints in service of fostering a “vibrant marketplace of ideas.” To this end, signatories are required to revise their governance structures to create an environment in which no single political or other ideology is dominant, which would inherently require unacceptable viewpoint discrimination in admissions, programming, academics, and more across the campus. The compact is unspecific in addressing how an “intellectually open campus environment” would be assessed, leaving campuses vulnerable to political litmus tests. Furthermore, the compact outlines overly restrictive and potentially unconstitutional policies in service of “civility,” requiring signatories to establish speech and demonstration codes which go well beyond the narrow limits of expression unprotected by the First Amendment. This would cause distinct challenges for public universities who, under the First Amendment, cannot discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.
- “Abolishing” Academic Units: Also under the same commitment, the compact requires signatories to commit to “transforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.” (In this case, “units” may refer to academic departments, as well as centers, programs, or areas of study.) It is unclear what body would make the determination to “abolish” any unit and how such a decision would be made. Closing entire areas of study as proposed would clearly undermine academic freedom, and could deprive a campus of important disciplinary viewpoints. Likewise, the compact’s conditions related to free tuition for STEM fields could influence how universities maintain non-STEM academic departments, subtly diverting students—and thereby, resources—from fields of study in the Humanities.
- Institutional Neutrality: The compact stipulates that universities adopt a policy of “institutional neutrality,” a practice under which the university and its representatives (anyone speaking on behalf of the institution, including academic units as well as employees in their professional capacity) refrain from making statements on social and political issues. The concept of institutional neutrality is something that requires careful articulation, and the adoption of such policies, what they should encompass, and how they should be implemented are challenging questions that require nuance and care on the part of administrators, if such rules are not to become de facto forms of censorship. It is one thing for institutions with their leaders to adopt these policies; it is another to have them dictated by the government.
- Definition of Sex: The compact requires signatories to commit to using a binary definition of sex according to “reproductive function and biological processes” with regard to single-sex spaces like bathrooms and sports teams. This condition does not allow institutions to determine their own definitions of sex and gender as they might relate to institutional values of diversity and respect for difference. Furthermore, while the condition does not specify how a binary definition of sex might apply to teaching, research, or access to healthcare, previous actions by this administration in both settlements with individual universities as well as executive orders suggest other possible intentions. This is a bold ideological assertion which reflects the administration’s efforts to dictate how institutions—both private and public—define sex and gender.
- Screening for “Anti-American” Values: In addition to including a cap on the number of international students admitted to a university, the compact also states that signatories will “screen out students who demonstrate hostility to the United States, its allies, or its values.” Elsewhere, the compact suggests that insufficient vetting of international students can lead to a campus saturated with “anti-American values.” This suggests that universities should be screening the political views of potential students, a direct violation of the First Amendment, which protects non-citizens’ right to free speech in the U.S. Once admitted, the compact also suggests that there could be ongoing monitoring of these students’ expression, and it remains unclear what this would entail and what it would achieve, other than chilling speech.
How Does the Compact Threaten the Existing Relationship Between Universities and the Federal Government?
There are a few significant ways in which institutions of higher education in the U.S. benefit from a relationship with the federal government. Most, but not all, relate to funding. To the extent the enforcement of the compact disrupts these functions, it could cause significant disruptions to the sector. These functions include:
- Access to federal student loans
- Grants for research and programs from federal agencies like the US Department of Agriculture or National Institute of Health
- Federal contracts for goods or services provided by the university, for example research & development contracts for the U.S. military
- Tax-exempt status
- Visa approval for international students and employees
Why Did the Trump Administration Issue the Compact?
While the Trump administration has tried to paint the compact as an effort to “reform” the higher education sector and a “renewed commitment to the time-honored principles that helped make American universities great,” in reality, it is another effort in a series of aggressive attempts by the administration to exert control over colleges and universities in unprecedented ways. Since the beginning of Trump’s second term, the administration has used executive power to unilaterally cut grant funding, rescind and reject visas of international students and scholars, and attempt to exert ideological control over faculty and curricular decisions. Frequently, these actions have been taken in response to viewpoints the administration finds objectionable, including areas of research it opposes, like race and gender diversity, transgender healthcare, and climate change. Taken as a whole, the administration’s actions aim to undermine the entire system of higher education in the U.S., including its political independence from the state.
If Universities Take Federal Funding, Why Shouldn’t the Government Have a Say in How They Are Run?
Beginning with World War II and the Manhattan Project, and continuing through the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. government found they could stimulate immense technological growth by nurturing long-term, sustained research within the university system. This funding benefitted not only the government directly, but also society as a whole, but it was dependent on leaving the research to those who understood it best—the researchers.
To get the best bang for their buck, it was in the interest of the U.S. government to respect the principle of academic freedom. Established by the American Association of University Professors in 1915 and outlined in their 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, academic freedom asserts that university teachers are entitled to full freedom from government or institutional interference in their research, teaching, and public speech. The belief is that practices of research and teaching are best governed by those with expertise in their fields, rather than politicians or lawmakers.
Academic freedom has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a “special concern of the First Amendment” for its importance in protecting universities from political agendas or orthodox thinking. The federal government has historically observed this value in their relationship with scholars by respecting principles of peer review, expertise, and institutional autonomy, leaving researchers to do their work largely free from government control. The compact seeks to radically alter this arrangement.
Another related tradition in higher education is the concept of shared governance, which refers to the joint responsibility of faculty, administrators, and boards of trustees to govern institutions of higher education. Like the three branches of government, these three actors within the university do not always agree. But that is precisely the point. Each has its separate area of competence, and it is through debate and deliberation within and between them that sound educational policy is made, and academic freedom is upheld. Historically, the influence of the U.S. government, even at public universities, has respected this structure of power, because it recognized that universities were best run by those who understood their missions, values, and educational aims, not by those seeking to advance political and ideological agendas. Without shared governance and academic freedom, universities are vulnerable to becoming propaganda institutions that take their cues from politicians and their special interests.
How Have the Original Nine Schools Responded?
As of Nov. 10, of the original recipients, seven have declined to participate in the compact:
- Brown University
- Dartmouth College
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- University of Arizona
- University of Pennsylvania
- University of Southern California
- University of Virginia
Meanwhile, two have not made a formal decision:
- University of Texas at Austin provost William Inboden shared in an interview that the university aligned with many principles of the compact, but was hashing out procedures, enforcement, and conflicts with Texas law in closed-door discussion with the Trump administration.
- The chancellor of Vanderbilt University signaled the demands were out of line with university principles, but has not formally declined.
Why are Universities Rejecting the Compact?
In general, university leaders believe that signing the compact as currently written could restrict academic freedom and the ability of their institutions to function independently, as well as contradict interests in merit-based admissions, assessment, and grant distribution. Additionally, some highlights from these universities’ statements are below:
Sally Kornbluth, President of Massachusetts Institute of Technology: “…fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.”
Christina H. Paxson, President of Brown University: “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 compromising our ability to fulfill our mission…The Brown community will remain focused on meeting the established commitments under the July 30 agreement, while safeguarding our mission and foundational academic values.”
Paul Mahoney, Interim President of University of Virginia: “The integrity of science and other academic work requires merit-based assessment of research and scholarship. A contractual arrangement predicating assessment on anything other than merit will undermine the integrity of vital, sometimes lifesaving, research and further erode confidence in American higher education.”
Sian Leah Beilock, President of Dartmouth: “I do not believe that the involvement of the government through a compact — whether it is a Republican- or Democratic-led White House — is the right way to focus America’s leading colleges and universities on their teaching and research mission.”
Has any University Accepted the Compact?
As of Nov. 10, two colleges, New College of Florida, a public liberal arts college in Sarasota, and Valley Forge Military College, a two-year junior college in Wayne, Pennsylvania, have announced their interest in signing on. Those two schools were not included in the original nine recipients and have voluntarily agreed to the compact conditions.
New College of Florida has been a bellwether for intense conservative reform in the sector since Governor Ron DeSantis appointed a slate of allies to their board of trustees. Meanwhile, Valley Forge Military College is a private two-year college with no research focus, unlike the original nine universities, drawing curiosity as to how it stands to benefit from a deal focused on research funding.
What Have Experts Said About the Compact?
Responses to the statement from professionals in higher education have been almost unanimously negative.
- Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school of University of California, Berkeley and co-author of the 2017 book Free Speech on Campus, wrote that the compact is “extortion, plain and simple.”
- The American Association of University Professors called for universities to reject the compact, characterizing it as a “loyalty oath” (a loaded phrase in the history of American academic freedom).
- A joint statement from a group of scholars of academic freedom, hosted on the substack of Tom Ginsberg of the University of Chicago, argued that the compact would require signatories to sacrifice academic freedom commitments.
- The American Association of Colleges & Universities published a statement, endorsed by over 100 current and former college presidents and chancellors, as well as other educational leaders, highlighting the risk in offering up institutional autonomy to “the changing priorities of successive administrations.”
- The Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges cautioned board members against accepting the terms of the compact, saying that “linking core federal funding to sweeping national directives turns institutions into compliance machines rather than mission-driven centers of learning and discovery.
- A statement on behalf of three dozen leading higher education organizations, including American Association of Colleges and Universities, American Council on Education, and Association of Research Libraries asserts that the compact “offers nothing less than government control of a university’s basic and necessary freedoms—the freedoms to decide who we teach, what we teach, and who teaches…”
Some politicians have reflected positively on the compact, and urged their state universities to sign on, including lawmakers in Iowa. However, others, like Lamar Alexander, former Republican governor of Tennessee and trustee member of Vanderbilt University, criticized the compact as “federal overreach.” Some Democrats have also threatened funding for universities in their states if they sign, a tactic that in fact echoes what they oppose.
