Boldly standing against the White House's demands, MIT has firmly rejected the proposed 'compact' laid out by President Donald Trump's administration—an action that could reverberate across American higher education. But here's where it gets controversial: the university insists that funding for science must be awarded solely on the merit of the research, not political agreements or ideological strings attached.
MIT President Sally Kornbluth voiced a strong objection to the document’s core assumption, saying, “The premise of the document conflicts directly with our fundamental principle that scientific funding should be determined purely by scientific excellence.” This rejection marks the most explicit pushback so far from a major academic institution to the 10-point proposal that Trump sent out last week. The compact demands universities cap their international student enrollment, freeze tuition rates for five years, adopt specific definitions of gender, and ban any actions that could “intentionally punish, belittle, or even incite violence against conservative ideas.”
The federal government is still waiting on responses from eight other prestigious universities, handpicked partially because they are considered "good actors" by the administration. These institutions include Brown University, Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania, Vanderbilt University, the University of Virginia, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, and the University of Arizona—all expected to respond by October 20.
MIT’s faculty greeted the school’s stance with relief. Ariel White, a political science professor and vice president of MIT’s American Association of University Professors chapter, explained that while the offer appeared to be an innocent invitation, in reality, “It felt more like a ransom note. There’s now a real possibility of retaliation.” White also predicted Trump might leverage the full force of government resources against MIT in response.
What form such retaliation could take remains uncertain, but White House spokesperson Liz Huston issued a sharp retort, claiming that refusing this "once-in-a-lifetime" offer shows universities aren’t serving their students or parents but instead are bowing to "radical, left-wing bureaucrats." Huston added, “Great science can’t prosper in places that abandon meritocracy, free thought, and pursuit of truth. President Trump urges universities to join in restoring academic excellence and sensible policies.”
MIT's rejection has sparked a wider movement among university communities—from Cambridge to across the nation—where faculty and staff are rallying to resist what they see as a federal overreach into academic freedom.
Robert Kelchen, a professor specializing in education policy at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, remarked, “This compact treats every institution like they're public state universities, which naturally answer to state oversight—but the federal government does not have that same jurisdiction.”
Last week alone, dozens of student groups at MIT voiced that accepting the Trump administration’s "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education" would betray the university’s principles. Two academic departments even sent formal letters to President Kornbluth expressing their strong opposition.
Resistance isn't isolated to MIT. Over 500 Dartmouth faculty members signed a petition urging their leadership to reject the compact, while both Brown and Dartmouth hosted rallies demanding their universities stand firm against the proposal.
Most of the other schools invited to consider the compact have remained quiet, with the University of Texas board chairman saying their leaders “enthusiastically look forward” to reviewing the agreement, while the University of Virginia has formed a committee to examine it.
At Brown University, President Christina H. Paxson broke her silence in a letter just before MIT’s response was publicized, emphasizing the importance of community input. She reminded everyone that Brown has recently affirmed commitments to academic freedom, openness, and diversity of thought, even as it negotiated a $50 million research funding deal with the Trump administration earlier this year.
Meanwhile, Dartmouth’s history professor Bethany Moreton praised MIT’s stance, calling it “a powerful refusal of an unconstitutional and unlawful attempt to seize control over higher education.” She highlighted that MIT’s decisive “no” is inspiring, reiterating that “American higher education is not for sale.”
Harvard University is embroiled in its own negotiations with the White House, after facing severe consequences such as temporary withdrawal of research funds, threats to its tax-exempt status, and even warnings about the potential loss of accreditation—a crucial status for federal financial aid access.
Higher education experts like Kelchen warn that MIT might soon confront similar federal pressures. Despite MIT’s strong financial and community support, the stakes are high: the federal government awarded MIT $648 million last year for research and related activities, ranking it among the top beneficiaries in the country. Any cutbacks, combined with a newly introduced 8 percent tax on their endowment, which already has them bracing for $300 million in budget reductions, could be devastating. Hiring freezes and departmental budget cuts of 5 percent have already been implemented since January.
In the face of these challenges, MIT has turned to legal avenues to contest some of the federal funding reductions.
In her letter explaining MIT’s position, Kornbluth highlighted that the university already meets many of the compact’s standards. For example, it doesn't employ legacy preferences in admissions; it reinstated SAT/ACT requirements following their temporary suspension during the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting MIT’s commitment to merit-based evaluation. The institute also offers free tuition to families earning under $200,000 annually and hosts an undergraduate body comprising roughly 10 percent international students—well within the compact’s 15 percent cap.
Kornbluth expressed hope the long-standing, mutually beneficial bond between MIT and the federal government, which dates back eight decades, would continue despite this conflict. "MIT’s leadership was instrumental in establishing the partnership between American research universities and the federal government that has fueled groundbreaking innovations benefiting the entire nation," she wrote. "We remain confident in the strength of this collaboration to serve the country going forward."
However, the heightened tensions mean that the future of academic independence hinges on unified resistance. Carla Garcia, a PhD candidate and president of MIT’s Latinx Graduate Student Association, spoke passionately at a campus rally, warning, “Though the compact’s initial offer targeted only nine universities, this fight will not end here. The only way through is for all nine to stand together with MIT in outright rejection—no negotiations, no compromises. Unity is our strongest weapon.”
So, what does this clash say about the state of academic freedom in America? Are universities meant to be arenas for open inquiry and merit, or pawns in broader political battles? And most importantly, how should academic institutions navigate government pressure while preserving their core values? This debate is just hitting the surface, and the question is: where do you stand?
