Boldly rejecting the proposed agreement from the White House, MIT has made it crystal clear that it will not compromise its core principles. This stance comes amid a controversial push by the Trump administration to reshape American higher education through a 10-point plan that has stirred significant debate across the academic community. But here’s where it gets controversial: should universities stand firm on academic freedom, or is cooperation with government mandates a necessary trade-off for funding?
MIT President Sally Kornbluth expressed that the foundational idea behind the White House document conflicts directly with MIT’s deep-seated belief that funding for scientific research must be awarded solely based on the merit of the science itself, not political considerations. This statement is the most definitive academic rebuttal so far to President Donald Trump’s compact, sent to nine prestigious schools last week, which calls for restrictions like capping international student enrollment, freezing tuition for five years, adhering strictly to certain gender-related definitions, and outlawing activities deemed to "intentionally demean or incite violence against conservative viewpoints."
The federal government awaits responses by October 20 from the other universities on the list—institutions selected partly because the administration views them as cooperative leaders in higher education. These include Brown, Dartmouth, the University of Pennsylvania, Vanderbilt, the University of Virginia, USC, the University of Texas, and the University of Arizona.
For MIT’s faculty, the university’s rejection is a relief, said Ariel White, a political science professor and vice president of MIT’s AAUP chapter. Yet she warned of potential retaliation under the Trump administration’s so-called 'whole-of-government' strategy. "This was not a genuine offer," White commented. "It felt more like a ransom note, and now there’s a real risk we’ll face consequences."
The exact nature of any backlash is still uncertain, but White House spokesperson Liz Huston responded on Friday, accusing universities that refuse this "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" of failing students and parents by succumbing to "radical, left-wing bureaucrats." She further claimed that true scientific progress cannot flourish in institutions that have abandoned meritocracy, free inquiry, and the quest for truth. "President Trump urges universities to join efforts to restore academic excellence and sensible policies," Huston stated.
MIT’s defiance is gaining momentum as more faculty and staff from Cambridge and beyond rally against what they see as a federal overreach into higher education. Robert Kelchen, a professor of educational leadership and policy, highlighted a key point: the compact seeks to impose oversight reminiscent of state public universities but does so through federal authority, which traditionally lacks such reach.
Since the compact’s release, MIT faculty and students have voiced strong opposition, condemning the deal as a betrayal of the institution’s values. Over a dozen student organizations publicly urged rejection, and multiple academic departments formally shared their concerns with Kornbluth in letters. Similar activism is appearing at other universities targeted by the compact—Dartmouth faculty recently signed a petition opposing the agreement, and Brown saw rallies from both students and faculty protesting the terms.
So far, most of the other institutions have remained relatively quiet. The University of Texas board chair expressed enthusiasm for reviewing the compact, while the University of Virginia formed a committee to evaluate it. At Brown, President Christina H. Paxson issued a public letter emphasizing the importance of community input and reaffirmed Brown’s commitment to academic freedom, diversity of ideas, and openness. Brown had also reached a $50 million federal settlement in July to recover previously lost research funding.
At Dartmouth, history professor Bethany Moreton praised MIT’s strong stand against what she called "an unconstitutional and unlawful attempt to wield power over higher education." She expressed hope for similar leadership from other campuses, stating, "It’s inspiring to see one institution take a definitive 'no.' American higher education must not be for sale."
Meanwhile, Harvard University remains embroiled in negotiations with the Trump administration, which has recently suspended research funding, threatened its tax-exempt status, and even suggested revoking the university’s accreditation—a vital endorsement for receiving federal student aid.
Experts like Kelchen warn that MIT could face similar pressures. Although MIT has considerable resources and community support to weather these storms initially, the possibility of the federal government withdrawing financial aid is a powerful threat.
Federal funding is a major lifeline for MIT, with $648 million granted last year for research and other sponsored activities—among the highest in the country. Combined with a new 8% tax on university endowments, which could force MIT to cut around $300 million from its budget, the school has already implemented hiring freezes and reduced departmental budgets by 5% this year.
MIT is challenging some of these federal measures in court. In her recent letter, Kornbluth stressed that many compact conditions are already met by MIT. For example, MIT never had legacy preferences in admissions, reinstated SAT/ACT requirements only after pandemic-related holds, and waives tuition for families earning under $200,000 annually. Additionally, MIT’s international student body is about 10%, below the compact’s proposed 15% limit.
Kornbluth closed her letter by underscoring the longstanding partnership between MIT and the federal government, which for over 80 years has fueled groundbreaking scientific advances benefiting the nation. She expressed hope that this cooperative spirit will continue despite the current tensions.
Carla Garcia, a PhD candidate and president of MIT’s Latinx Graduate Student Association, pointed out that the compact’s implications extend far beyond the initial nine universities. Speaking at a campus rally, she urged all institutions to unite in rejecting the compact outright. "This collective resistance is the only way we can protect the integrity of American higher education," Garcia said.
The battle lines are drawn, and the coming weeks will reveal whether more universities will follow MIT’s courageous lead—or bow under political pressure. What do you think? Should institutions uphold academic independence even if it risks funding, or is compliance the pragmatic path forward? Share your thoughts below and join the conversation!
