In a growing wave of resistance, the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) and the University of Southern California (USC) announced on Thursday that they would not sign President Trump’s proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” a policy framework designed to give preferential funding to universities that comply with specific federal conditions. The decision brings the total number of universities that have publicly rejected the compact to four, underscoring mounting opposition across the U.S. higher education landscape.

The compact, which was distributed to nine prominent institutions—including Ivy League schools and major public universities—outlines several key expectations in exchange for prioritized federal support. These include imposing caps on international student enrollment, freezing tuition rates, and introducing formal protections for conservative speech on campus. While the proposal is officially voluntary, critics argue that connecting government research funding to compliance could exert undue influence over institutional autonomy.

Penn and USC Join MIT and Brown in Refusing the Compact

Penn’s interim president, J. Larry Jameson, sent a message to faculty, students, alumni, and trustees confirming that the university had informed Education Secretary Linda McMahon of its decision not to participate. His announcement followed internal resistance from faculty groups and criticism from state lawmakers, two of whom took the unusual step of proposing legislation to counteract the compact.

Just hours later, Beong-Soo Kim, the interim president of USC, issued a similar statement explaining that he had notified McMahon that USC, too, would decline to sign. Kim noted that the proposal raised concerns meriting deeper discussion but ultimately warned that linking federal research benefits to the compact—even on a voluntary basis—risked eroding fundamental principles of academic independence.

“We worry that over time, these conditions could undermine the very values the compact claims to support, including academic excellence and free inquiry,” Kim wrote in his communication to the federal government.

Defending Institutional Independence and Academic Values

The backlash against the compact reflects a broader debate over federal intervention in higher education. University administrators, faculty associations, and state leaders have argued that tying research funding to ideological or demographic requirements—such as limits on international student enrollment—could compromise institutional missions and discourage global engagement.

In his letter addressing the Penn community, Jameson emphasized the importance of maintaining academic standards based on merit, accountability, and open inquiry. He stated that while the university shares certain goals highlighted in the compact, it ultimately could not accept terms that may restrict intellectual independence or enforce government-driven academic priorities.

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat and a nonvoting member of Penn’s board of trustees, publicly praised the university’s stance. In a social media post, he characterized the proposal as “dangerous” and applauded Penn for defending academic freedom.

The Penn chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which had circulated a petition rejecting the compact, also celebrated the administration’s decision. The AAUP chapter emphasized that the university’s choice was aligned with protecting faculty governance and scholarly independence.

National Momentum Builds Against the Proposal

Earlier in the week, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) President Sally Kornbluth became one of the first leaders to reject the compact publicly. She argued that scientific funding should be allocated solely based on scientific merit rather than political conditions. Kornbluth warned that the proposal could restrict freedom of expression and threaten institutional independence.

Christina H. Paxson, President of Brown University, expressed similar concerns. In her statement, she cautioned that the compact’s terms could curtail academic freedom and undermine Brown’s established governance structures, thereby hindering the institution’s ability to carry out its mission effectively.

The rejection by MIT and Brown helped set the tone for a broader response among U.S. universities, many of which view the compact as an attempt to impose political priorities on academic institutions in exchange for financial incentives.

Supporters Argue for Accountability, Critics Warn of a Two-Tiered System

Despite the opposition, the compact has vocal supporters, including some policymakers and influential donors who argue that universities have grown disconnected from public accountability. Marc Rowan, a billionaire private equity executive and Penn alumnus, emerged as one of the compact’s leading advocates. Rowan, who previously played a role in pressuring Penn’s former president to resign in 2023, contributed to drafting early versions of the proposal before it was distributed by the White House.

White House spokesperson Liz Huston defended the plan, stating that institutions unwilling to accept “overdue and necessary reforms” may face consequences in future federal funding allocations. Supporters claim that the compact aims to ensure transparency, promote financial responsibility, and support ideological diversity on campuses.

Critics, however, argue that the proposal establishes a punitive funding structure by creating what amounts to a two-tiered higher education system. Universities that decline to comply could be penalized through reduced access to federal research dollars and taxpayer-funded programs, even if their academic performance and research output remain strong.

Texas Shows Openness While Others Stay Cautious

Among the invited institutions, the University of Texas at Austin has expressed some willingness to consider the compact as part of a broader dialogue on higher education reform. However, university faculty and academic coalitions have raised concerns, urging careful scrutiny before any acceptance.

The timeline set by the White House required initial responses by October 20, pushing universities to make rapid decisions on a proposal with potentially far-reaching implications.

A Larger Battle Over the Future of Higher Education

The controversy over the compact has reignited longstanding debates about federal oversight, tuition affordability, academic freedom, political bias on campuses, and the role of international students in American universities. The issue has also raised questions about whether government funding should be leveraged to enforce ideological compliance or reward institutions that align with specific political perspectives.

International student enrollment, in particular, remains a central point of contention. Critics argue that imposing artificial caps could limit diversity, reduce global competitiveness, and harm U.S. research ecosystems that benefit from international collaboration.

The tuition freeze requirement has also been met with skepticism, as administrators warn that without corresponding increases in funding, universities may face financial shortfalls that could affect faculty hiring, program quality, and access to student services.

A Defining Moment for Higher Education Institutions

As the list of universities declining to sign the compact grows, the Trump administration faces increasing resistance from some of the country’s most prestigious institutions. While the proposal remains voluntary for now, education leaders worry that future funding decisions may become conditional on political conformity.

Universities are left grappling with a central question: Should they accept federal incentives in exchange for compliance with standards that may conflict with their academic values, or should they stand firm in defense of autonomy, even at the risk of financial disadvantage?

For now, institutions like Penn, USC, MIT, and Brown have made their positions clear. By refusing to sign, they are signaling their intent to preserve academic freedom, institutional governance, and the principle that higher education should not be shaped through political pressure.

As this debate unfolds, the response of other universities—and the reaction from the public and policymakers—will play a crucial role in shaping the direction of U.S. higher education policy in the years to come.