The Trump administration has issued a stark ultimatum to nine of America’s most prestigious universities: align with a conservative agenda or risk losing all federal funding. A 10-point “compact” sent from the White House offers substantial federal grants as a reward for compliance. This move has ignited a firestorm of criticism from academics and free speech advocates who see it as an unprecedented assault on academic independence.
The proposal demands that institutions like MIT and Brown University actively create a “vibrant marketplace of ideas,” which includes elevating conservative voices and eliminating academic departments perceived as hostile to right-wing thought. The document leaves no room for negotiation, stating that universities are free to reject the compact but must simultaneously relinquish all federal financial support, a move that would cripple their research capabilities.
Further conditions include a complete ban on considering race or sex in admissions and hiring, a five-year freeze on tuition, and a strict 15% cap on international undergraduate students. Critics argue these stipulations amount to a government-led “hostile takeover” of higher education, designed to impose a specific political ideology onto campuses that have historically been centers of independent thought and diverse perspectives.
The reaction has been swift and severe. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, labeled the implications for free speech as “horrifying,” questioning the federal government’s role in determining a campus’s intellectual environment. Similarly, California Governor Gavin Newsom has threatened to pull state funding from any university in his state that agrees to what he calls a “radical agreement,” vowing not to “bankroll schools that sell out their students.”
This compact is the latest escalation in a broader pressure campaign against elite universities, framed by the administration as a fight against campus antisemitism. While the White House claims the nine selected universities are “good actors” with reform-minded leaders, the move is widely seen as a coercive tactic to force ideological conformity, using the immense leverage of federal research dollars as a weapon.