White House Memo to Nine US Universities Sparks Debate Over Higher Education and Politics
The White House has quietly sent a controversial document titled the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” to nine US universities, outlining strict requirements they must follow if they want to secure preferential access to federal funding.
The memo, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, has raised alarm across the higher education sector, as it calls for sweeping changes in admissions, diversity programmes, tuition policies, and even the ideological environment on campuses. Critics argue the proposal is politically motivated, while supporters say it aims to restore fairness and balance in academic institutions.
What the White House Memo Demands
The 10-point agreement lays out several conditions universities must adopt in order to receive federal benefits. Key points include:
-
Race and gender neutrality: Admissions and hiring decisions must ignore race and sex. Universities would also have to publish anonymised admissions data broken down by race, gender, and national origin.
-
Mandatory standardised testing: Every applicant must take a test such as the SAT before being considered for admission.
-
Foreign student cap: International students cannot exceed 15% of undergraduate enrolments.
-
Campus neutrality: Universities must remain “a vibrant marketplace of ideas” without one dominant political ideology. Departments that “punish or belittle conservative ideas” would have to be abolished.
-
Financial restrictions: Institutions must freeze tuition fees for five years, reduce administrative costs, and publicly share graduate earnings by programme.
-
Endowment conditions: Universities with more than $2 million in endowment funds per student would be required to waive tuition fees for students in hard science programmes.
The memo makes it clear that non-compliance could lead to the loss of federal funding, while participating institutions would be rewarded with financial advantages.
Which Universities Were Targeted?
Nine institutions received the memo on October 1:
-
University of Arizona
-
Brown University
-
Dartmouth College
-
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
-
University of Pennsylvania
-
University of Southern California
-
University of Texas
-
University of Virginia
-
Vanderbilt University
The White House has not explained why these specific universities were chosen, but the list includes both elite Ivy League institutions and large public universities.
Early Responses From Universities
Most of the universities said they were still reviewing the proposal.
-
University of Arizona spokesperson Mitch Zak confirmed the school only became aware of the compact when it was delivered, adding that it is under careful review.
-
University of Texas Board of Regents Chairman Kevin P. Eltife welcomed the inclusion of UT Austin, saying the university was “honoured” to be selected and would review the compact “enthusiastically.”
-
Brown University announced it was creating a special Committee on Diversity and Inclusion to draft long-term recommendations for sustaining diversity on campus, suggesting the school may push back against some of the memo’s demands.
Strong Opposition From Educators and Unions
Reactions from educators and academic unions have been sharp and critical.
The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) accused the administration of political interference, calling the memo “an attempt to bribe universities into adopting partisan policies.” Similarly, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) warned that the compact represents a shift from punishment to “carrot-and-stick” manipulation of universities.
“It seems to have a very broad and troubling theory of what causes political violence,” said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He pointed out that the memo explicitly mentions departments focusing on race and gender, raising concerns that academic freedom could be restricted.
The Broader Political Context
This move is the latest in a series of actions by the Trump administration targeting universities. Since early 2025, the White House has made higher education reform a central political issue.
In January, Trump issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to track incidents of alleged anti-Semitism on campuses. Soon after, he warned that foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian protests could face deportation, and threatened to revoke visas from those he described as “Hamas sympathisers.”
By February, the administration had already pulled $400 million in federal funding from Columbia University, citing its failure to protect Jewish students. A similar freeze was imposed on Harvard University in April, although Trump later said negotiations with Harvard were nearing resolution. Reports suggest the university may have to pay around $500 million as part of an undisclosed settlement.
These moves followed months of student protests over the Gaza conflict, particularly at Ivy League schools, where encampments and demonstrations drew national attention. The White House has repeatedly argued that such protests spread extremism and undermine campus safety.
Why Now?
Analysts say the memo reflects the administration’s broader strategy to reshape American higher education, both ideologically and financially.
By demanding caps on foreign enrolment, eliminating DEI programmes, and freezing tuition fees, the Trump administration appears to be addressing voter concerns about fairness, affordability, and ideological bias. However, critics argue the real goal is to impose political control over universities and silence dissent.
The timing also suggests a political calculation. With the 2026 midterm elections approaching, positioning universities as “liberal strongholds” in need of reform could energise Trump’s conservative base.
What Happens Next?
For now, the nine universities have not confirmed whether they will accept or reject the compact. Any decision will likely trigger legal challenges, especially if funding is withheld. Civil rights groups and education advocates are already preparing to fight the requirements in court, arguing they violate principles of academic freedom and equal opportunity.
Meanwhile, faculty, students, and advocacy groups are calling on universities to resist political interference. Protests have already taken place at Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Texas, signalling that the issue will remain highly contentious in the months ahead.
Final Thoughts
The White House memo marks a turning point in the relationship between politics and higher education in the United States. By linking federal funding to strict ideological and financial conditions, the administration has opened a new front in the battle over the future of universities.
Whether the nine institutions comply, resist, or take the fight to court, the outcome could reshape not just their policies, but the broader landscape of American higher education for years to come.