Key takeaways

• Top U.S. universities push back on a plan tied to federal funding.
• Brown, Penn, USC join MIT in rejecting the education compact.
• Leaders warn the compact limits academic freedom and self-governance.
• Critics call the proposal a loyalty oath and a threat to higher education.
• The Trump administration risks strained ties and possible funding battles.

Trump’s Education Compact Faces Major Rejection

Three more leading U.S. universities have said “no” to President Trump’s education compact. Brown University, the University of Southern California, and the University of Pennsylvania joined MIT in refusing to sign by the October 20 deadline. Critics label the compact an “extortion agreement” and a “loyalty oath” in exchange for priority access to federal research funding and other perks. So far, none of the nine schools initially invited have officially signed on.

What is the education compact?

The education compact aims to tie federal support to certain rules on campus. The White House offers expedited grants, more research money, and administrative perks. In return, schools must agree to new reforms, including accountability measures and curriculum oversight. Supporters say the plan boosts performance and ties taxpayer dollars to results. However, opponents warn it could limit free speech, hamper faculty governance, and weaken the historic autonomy of American colleges.

Why universities oppose the education compact

Brown University’s president stressed that the compact conflicts with the school’s core values. Christina Paxson noted that Brown already agreed in July to a voluntary resolution with the government. That deal protected academic freedom and self-governance. She wrote that the new education compact would “restrict academic freedom and undermine our autonomy,” thus harming the university’s mission. In clear terms, Brown declined to join and offered no compromises.

Similarly, the University of Pennsylvania declined the offer. President J. Larry Jameson said Penn’s 285-year history rests on self-improvement, merit-based achievement, and open inquiry. He gathered input from students, faculty, alumni, and trustees to ensure the response reflected the community’s values. Penn’s Faculty Senate had earlier passed a resolution urging rejection. They warned that the education compact “erodes the foundation on which higher education in the United States is built.”

The University of Southern California also said it would not sign. Interim president Beong-Soo Kim told the campus newspaper that USC would nonetheless share its views in the national debate. He emphasized Trojan values and a desire to improve higher education. Still, USC officials made clear they could not accept a plan seen as political leverage for funding.

Voices from campus leaders

Senators and faculty groups have joined the outcry. One prominent senator praised Brown for defending timeless principles over “temporary improper pressures.” The American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers co-authored a letter. They urged all governing boards and academic groups to reject any collusion with the White House plan. They called the education compact a threat to free expression and a betrayal of democracy.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration warned that schools unwilling to sign would “find themselves without future government and taxpayers’ support.” Officials hinted at funding cuts and restrictions. In response, university leaders argue that a robust partnership already exists. They believe shared goals and investments in research and ideas drive progress far better than top-down mandates.

Possible impact on funding and higher education

If key universities stick to their word, the administration faces a tough choice. Cutting research funds to top schools could slow major discoveries in science and technology. It might also spark legal fights over the limits of executive power. On the other hand, schools worry that signing would set a dangerous precedent. They fear future administrations could use similar compacts for political aims.

Some insiders say the White House may broaden the offer to all institutions. Reports suggest the plan could open to any college willing to sign. Still, leading universities stand firm. They note that genuine accountability grows from within, through peer review, rigorous study, and open debate—not through one-size-fits-all mandates.

What comes next

The October 20 deadline has passed without new signatories. Now, the administration must decide whether to enforce penalties or revise the compact. Universities will likely continue to share feedback, highlighting areas of alignment on affordability and accountability. At the same time, they will protect their traditions of academic freedom and shared governance.

Across the country, stakeholders from students to state legislators are watching closely. The debate could reshape how federal dollars support higher education. It may also influence how colleges balance public priorities with institutional independence. Regardless of the outcome, this clash marks a defining moment in the relationship between the government and American universities.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Trump’s education compact?

The education compact is a proposal to link federal funding and research grants to new accountability rules. It offers priority funding in exchange for compliance with oversight and reform measures.

Why are colleges rejecting the education compact?

Many institutions say the compact threatens academic freedom and self-governance. They worry it imposes a loyalty oath and limits their mission to foster open inquiry and excellence.

Could universities lose funding if they refuse?

The Trump administration has warned that refusal could lead to fewer grants and reduced support. However, top schools believe cutting funds would harm both research progress and national interests.

Will the administration revise the compact?

Some insiders expect a new version after widespread pushback. Universities may help shape any future proposals to ensure they respect core principles of autonomy and free expression.