In a First, MIT Rejects Trump’s Proposal Linking Federal Funding to Campus R...

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has come out strongly against a White House proposal that ties access to federal funding to a set of politically driven campus reforms aligned with U.S. President Donald Trump’s agenda.

In a letter sent Friday to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and other White House officials, MIT President Sally Kornbluth said she "cannot support" the proposal, citing concerns over free speech, institutional autonomy, and the principle that federal scientific funding should be awarded based on merit alone.

“Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education,” Kornbluth wrote.

The proposal, circulated last week to nine prominent universities, outlines a wide-ranging “compact” that the administration says would renew the “mutually beneficial relationship” between universities and the federal government. In exchange for signing on, schools were promised “multiple positive benefits,” including “substantial and meaningful federal grants.”

But critics argue that the 10-page document amounts to a political loyalty test, requiring universities to adopt controversial positions on issues ranging from admissions policies and free speech to gender definitions, student discipline, and women’s sports.

MIT is one of the first institutions to publicly take a clear stance on the compact. Kornbluth emphasized that while the university already aligns with several values outlined in the document—such as merit-based admissions and affordability—it cannot accept the broader terms, which she said threaten core academic values.

She noted that MIT reinstated standardized testing requirements post-pandemic and provides free tuition to undergraduates from families earning under $200,000 per year, but stressed these policies reflect MIT’s independent choices, not government mandates.

“We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission,” she wrote.

Among its more sweeping conditions, the compact asks universities to: freeze tuition for U.S. students for five years; eliminate tuition altogether for “hard science” majors at institutions with endowments over $2 million per undergraduate; mandate the use of SAT or ACT in admissions; remove race, sex, and other demographic factors from admissions decisions; adopt a binary definition of gender for all campus policies and eliminate or reform campus units deemed hostile to conservative viewpoints.

The administration framed the compact as an alternative to its ongoing crackdowns on universities it accuses of fostering antisemitism and left-leaning bias. However, many in higher education view it as a politicized attempt to control campus governance and limit academic freedom.

Several universities have faced internal and external pressure to reject the compact. Leaders at the University of Virginia said certain terms would be “very difficult” to accept, and emphasized the importance of protecting academic freedom. Virginia Senate Democrats warned the university could lose state funding if it signs the deal.

It remains unclear why these nine institutions were chosen: MIT, Vanderbilt, University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth College, University of Southern California, University of Arizona, Brown University, University of Virginia, and the University of Texas at Austin.

The University of Texas System expressed gratitude for its flagship university’s inclusion. Brown University President Christina H. Paxson said the school is gathering internal feedback before responding. Brown previously reached an agreement with the administration in July related to separate federal investigations.

Universities have been invited to submit limited feedback by October 20, and a final decision is expected by November 21.

A Moment of Reckoning for Higher Education

The compact represents a new tactic in the federal government’s increasingly fraught relationship with American universities. It follows significant cuts to research funding and intensified scrutiny of campus policies, particularly around free expression and antisemitism.

While MIT stopped short of outright declining the compact, Kornbluth’s letter signaled that the university views the proposal as fundamentally incompatible with its values.

As universities weigh whether to accept or reject the offer, the debate underscores a deeper national rift over the purpose of higher education—and the extent to which it should be shaped by political forces.