Massachusetts Institute of Technology has outright rejected a federal proposal from the Trump administration that would grant preferential funding to universities in exchange for adopting ideological and policy constraints. The university’s leadership argues the offer undermines academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
MIT President Sally Kornbluth issued a letter addressed to Education Secretary Linda McMahon in which she affirmed the institution’s commitment to merit-based scientific funding and independent governance. She noted that while MIT already adheres to many principles cited in the proposal, compliance with it would compel the university to abandon its core mission and yields no real benefit given the risks.
The so-called “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” was circulated among nine elite institutions, demanding adherence to sweeping terms such as limiting international student enrollment, banning the consideration of race or gender in admissions and hiring, freezing tuition for several years, enforcing strict gender definitions, and preventing institutional statements that might “belittle” conservative viewpoints. The administration framed it as a choice: comply and gain privileged research funding; decline and risk loss of access.
Kornbluth expressed strong reservations about tying funding to political compliance, saying the compact’s language conflicts “with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.” She warned the arrangement would “restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution.” She also pointed to MIT’s already robust adherence to merit, access, and open inquiry as a counter to the assumptions underlying the compact.
MIT is the first among the nine institutions to publicly decline. Other universities named—Brown, Dartmouth, University of Virginia, University of Texas at Austin, USC, Vanderbilt, University of Pennsylvania, and University of Arizona—are still reviewing the terms. Some have issued cautious or noncommittal statements; Texas, meanwhile, has indicated openness to exploring the administration’s proposal.
Critics from academia, legal scholars, and free-speech advocates have denounced the compact as an unprecedented federal overreach into higher education. Many contend it flouts foundational norms about university self-governance, academic freedom, and the separation between politics and scholarship. Some note that earlier disruptions in funding and oversight policies by the current administration had already strained relations with major research universities.
Kornbluth’s letter arrives amid broader tensions between the administration and university campuses. The White House has previously frozen billions in research grants to some institutions, citing concerns over diversity, equity and inclusion programmes, campus protests, and ideological leanings. Observers view the compact as the administration’s latest attempt to leverage funding for policy alignment.
Faculty and student responses at MIT have been largely supportive. Several campus scholars described the decision as a vital defense of institutional integrity. Some expressed relief that leadership chose to draw a firm line rather than negotiate under pressure.
The White House and the Department of Education have yet to issue detailed responses to MIT’s publicly released rejection. University presidents at the remaining institutions face mounting pressure from stakeholders—faculty, students, state governments, and public opinion—as they weigh whether to accept, modify, or reject the compact’s terms.
Political dynamics are already shaping reactions: some state leaders have threatened to withhold local funding from campuses that sign the compact, while certain conservative groups have lauded the administration’s approach as a needed corrective to perceived ideological bias in higher education. Legal analysts warn of potential constitutional challenges if the compact is enforced as a condition for funding.