MIT Rejects Trump Administration Proposal Tying Federal Funds to Restrictive Campus Policies
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has firmly rejected a Trump administration proposal that sought to impose controversial restrictions on universities in exchange for preferential access to federal funding.
In a strongly worded letter to U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, MIT President Sally Kornbluth said the proposal would “restrict freedom of expression” and undermine the university’s independence, values, and academic integrity.
The proposed deal, called the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” outlined a series of politically charged requirements. It called on universities to cap foreign student admissions, restrict campus leaders from commenting on political events, and adopt a binary definition of gender. It also urged schools to rely on standardized testing for admissions and “commit to using lawful force if necessary” to prevent or respond to campus protests.
In addition, the agreement demanded that universities limit international undergraduate enrollment to 15%, with no more than 5% from any single country, and to screen foreign students for hostility toward the U.S. It also required universities to report disciplinary actions to federal authorities and return federal and private funds if they failed to comply with the compact’s terms.
Kornbluth said MIT could not accept a framework that compromised its principles of free inquiry and academic independence. “We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission,” she wrote. She emphasized that MIT already uses standardized tests and fosters open debate on campus, noting that its international student enrollment — currently around 10% — aligns with its global vision.
“The compact includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution,” Kornbluth said. “And fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.”
She added, “America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence. Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.”
MIT is not alone in rejecting the proposal. The University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, and the University of Texas were also approached by the administration but have not agreed to the terms. Other universities reportedly contacted include the University of Arizona, Dartmouth College, Vanderbilt University, the University of Southern California, and the University of Virginia.
The Trump administration’s “Compact” reflects a long list of conservative grievances with higher education, including claims that universities have become hostile to conservative voices. The proposal, however, has drawn sharp criticism from academics and political leaders who view it as an attack on academic freedom and university autonomy.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has already warned that any university in his state that accepts the federal proposal will lose billions in state funding. “If any California university signs this radical agreement, they’ll lose state funding — including Cal Grants — instantly,” Newsom said. “California will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, and academic freedom.”
The tension between the Trump administration and U.S. universities has been escalating. Earlier this year, MIT and several other institutions filed lawsuits challenging federal cuts to health research funding. MIT also joined Harvard University in legal briefs opposing similar funding restrictions that critics said were politically motivated.
MIT’s latest rejection underscores the growing resistance among top universities to what they view as federal overreach into academic governance. By taking a public stand, the prestigious university reaffirms its commitment to open inquiry, global collaboration, and freedom of expression — values it says are vital to maintaining America’s leadership in research and innovation.
As the debate continues, the administration’s push for ideological control over federal funding is expected to face legal challenges and widespread opposition from the academic community. For MIT and other leading universities, the message remains clear: academic excellence cannot exist without academic freedom.