Former President Donald Trump has consistently voiced strong criticism against the nation’s elite universities, often branding some as “anti-American” and their leaders as “Marxist maniacs and lunatics.” His administration took concrete steps, including withholding billions in federal research funding, to pressure colleges into aligning with his political agenda.
These assertive measures are now making it difficult for the administration to enact broader changes within higher education. Recently, several prominent institutions declined to endorse a “compact” proposed by Trump. This compact aimed to link federal research funds to support for his policies, such as a strict definition of gender and limits on international student enrollment.
Universities Push Back
The White House initially approached nine leading academic institutions, including MIT, Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania, University of Southern California, the University of Virginia, and Dartmouth. Out of these, six formally rejected the proposal. Brown and Penn, in particular, faced significant internal pressure from faculty and students, especially following earlier settlements that had restored previously frozen research funding.
According to sources familiar with the discussions, financier Marc Rowan, who championed the compact, was adamant about including Brown and Penn despite their hesitations. In contrast, other institutions like the University of Texas, responded more favorably, and the administration extended invitations to Arizona State University, the University of Kansas, and Washington University in St. Louis for further discussions.
This strategy yielded only limited success. While officials from the latter three schools participated in a virtual meeting with the White House, described as preliminary yet productive, both Virginia and Dartmouth publicly announced their refusal to sign the compact just hours later. Paul Mahoney, Virginia’s interim president, stated that tying research funding to policy compliance would undermine the integrity of academic research. Similarly, Dartmouth’s president, Sian Leah Beilock, emphasized that the compact “would compromise our academic freedom, our ability to govern ourselves, and the principle that federal research funds should be awarded to the best, most promising ideas.”
Pressure Tactics and Unintended Consequences
The administration defended its approach by citing the need to protect Jewish students and to address what it perceived as ideological biases on campuses. Liz Huston, a White House spokeswoman, warned that institutions unwilling to implement these reforms risked losing government support. May Mailman, a senior adviser involved in crafting the compact, suggested that the core issue was a decline in public trust in universities, rather than the administration’s methods.
However, these rejections highlight the inherent risks of employing aggressive political tactics. Leaders in higher education argue that punitive measures and last-minute initiatives have hindered the formation of necessary alliances for substantial reforms. The White House largely bypassed traditional legislative processes, opting instead for investigative and regulatory tools to compel universities into compliance. Actions like banning hundreds of library books at the US Naval Academy, which were deemed inconsistent with the administration’s political agenda, further alienated potential partners.
Ohio State University’s president, Ted Carter, who previously led the Naval Academy, acknowledged an openness to some of the administration’s proposals. However, he stated that the book bans forced him to take a defensive stance, remarking, “If they had tried to remove books on my watch, it would have been over my dead body.”
A Broader Clash Over Academic Freedom
Harvard University, a prime target of the administration’s campaign, had already been advocating for intellectual diversity before Trump’s election. Following these events, hundreds of college presidents signed letters condemning what they saw as unprecedented government overreach and political interference. Numerous institutions, including prominent Ivy League universities and MIT, supported Harvard’s lawsuit challenging the freeze on federal research funding.
The invitations for colleges to join the compact were sent after business hours and provided minimal public explanation, fueling skepticism. Corey Brettschneider, a political science professor at Brown University, observed that the compact revealed “an administration that is not really looking out for intellectual inquiry.”
The Road Ahead
Despite these considerable challenges, the White House continued to portray the compact as a collaborative initiative. According to Huston, university leaders “have been invited to the table to share ideas with the administration, and we look forward to discussing transparent ways that, together, we will produce future generations of American excellence.”
This entire episode underscores a fundamental tension within American higher education: the delicate balance between political oversight and academic autonomy. The Trump administration’s forceful approach challenged this balance, prompting universities to vigorously defend principles of merit-based research, intellectual freedom, and institutional independence. While the long-term impact on the relationship between the federal government and higher education remains to be seen, this situation clearly demonstrates how aggressive political tactics can disrupt established educational norms.