The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on Friday became the first university to formally reject President Donald Trump’s proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” a controversial pledge that critics across the political spectrum have called an “extortion” agreement linking ideological conformity to federal funding.
Nine universities—including the University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia—were invited earlier this month to sign the 10-page document. Under the proposal, participating institutions would receive “multiple positive benefits,” including “substantial and meaningful federal grants.”
In exchange, universities would agree to a sweeping set of commitments aligning with the Trump administration’s political agenda. The compact would require institutions to freeze tuition for U.S. students for five years, eliminate race, sex, and other characteristics from admissions decisions, and mandate that all applicants submit SAT or ACT test scores. It would also impose a binary definition of gender for campus facilities and athletics programs and require universities to “transform or abolish institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”
Schools were asked to submit limited feedback by October 20 and to make a final decision by November 21. Most invited institutions have not publicly commented, but MIT’s response was immediate and unequivocal.
MIT President Sally Kornbluth published her rejection letter Friday morning, addressed to U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon and White House officials. The letter, now posted on MIT’s website, made clear that the university’s values of academic merit and independent inquiry could not be reconciled with the compact’s conditions.
“The institute’s mission of service to the nation directs us to advance knowledge, educate students, and bring knowledge to bear on the world’s great challenges. We do that in line with a clear set of values, with excellence above all,” Kornbluth wrote. MIT, she continued, “prides itself on rewarding merit” and “opens its doors to the most talented students,” while valuing “free expression.”
“These values and other MIT practices meet or exceed many standards outlined in the document you sent,” Kornbluth said. “We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission—work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health, and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law.”
But, she added, the proposal’s premise conflicted fundamentally with the principles of academic freedom. “The document also includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution. And fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone,” Kornbluth wrote. “Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.”
Kornbluth emphasized MIT’s commitment to merit-based access and affordability. The institute was the first elite university to reinstate standardized testing requirements after the COVID-19 pandemic, and it admits students based on “talent, ideas, and hard work.” Families earning less than $200,000 annually pay no tuition. “We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission,” she said.
Human rights and academic organizations immediately praised the university’s stance. Amnesty International USA commended MIT “in its decision to reject President Trump’s proposed ‘compact.’ In refusing to cave to political pressures, MIT has upheld the very ideals higher education is built on—freedom of thought, expression, and discourse.” The group warned that “the federal government must not infringe on what students can read, discuss, and learn in school. It is a violation of their academic freedom. MIT did the right thing: It put its students first and preserved the social fabric of its university life. We hope other universities will follow suit.”
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) similarly praised the decision. “The ability to teach and study freely is the bedrock of American higher education,” said AAUP President Todd Wolfson in a statement to The New York Times. “We applaud MIT for standing up for academic freedom and institutional autonomy rejecting Trump’s ‘loyalty oath’ compact. We urge all institutions targeted by the administration’s bribery attempt to do the same.”
Within MIT, faculty described a mix of relief and apprehension. “Faculty are relieved by the school’s position,” said Ariel White, a political science professor and vice president of MIT’s AAUP chapter, “but they expect to see Trump employ his whole-of-government approach against the university in response. This offer looked like an invitation, but it wasn’t. It was a ransom note. Now there is some risk that we will face reprisal.”
While the potential consequences remain unclear, the White House quickly pushed back. Spokesperson Liz Huston said Friday that “any university that refuses this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to transform higher education isn’t serving students or their parents—they’re bowing to radical, left-wing bureaucrats.” Huston added, “The truth is, the best science can’t thrive in institutions that have abandoned merit, free inquiry, and the pursuit of truth. President Trump encourages universities to join us in restoring academic excellence and commonsense policies.”
Even some conservative voices criticized the compact’s reach. Frederick Hess, director of education policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, called it “profoundly problematic” and said the government’s requests are “ungrounded in law.”
Meanwhile, local officials and campus organizers across the country are mounting broader opposition. The mayor and city council of Tucson, home to the University of Arizona—another invited institution—formally opposed the compact as “an unacceptable act of federal interference.” Student and faculty organizations at multiple universities are mobilizing “tooth and nail” to resist the initiative, while the national legal advocacy group Democracy Forward announced an investigation into the administration’s effort to strong-arm universities, describing it as part of a broader campaign to target institutions not aligned with the president’s political agenda.
The compact’s language, and the administration’s rhetoric accompanying it, have heightened fears that the White House is attempting to transform academic funding into an ideological weapon. Kornbluth’s letter hinted at those concerns, invoking the decades-long partnership between research universities and the federal government that helped shape U.S. scientific leadership. “Eight decades ago, MIT leaders helped invent a scientific partnership between America’s research universities and the U.S. government that has delivered extraordinary benefits for the American people,” she wrote. “We continue to believe in the power of this partnership to serve the nation.”
As MIT stands alone—for now—its decision has created a litmus test for higher education in the Trump era: whether America’s universities will defend the independence of research and thought, or risk becoming instruments of political loyalty.