Trump’s higher education ‘compact’ is an attempt to extort universities | Opinion

In the first nine months of his second term, President Donald Trump has cut off billions of dollars of federal assistance for research, including for vital medical research. Federal district courts in Massachusetts and California have found that the termination of money to Harvard and the University of California violated the Constitution and federal law.

The Trump administration’s latest assault on higher education is a proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” that was sent to nine universities on Wednesday, Oct. 1.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said that the compact would ultimately be extended to all schools.

The proposed compact is a stunning and unprecedented effort by the federal government to assert control over colleges and universities. It is inconsistent with the most basic notions of academic freedom and institutional integrity. On Friday, Oct. 10, Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth informed Secretary McMahon that her school would not agree to terms of the compact.

Following in MIT’s footsteps, every university should reject this proposal.

Any institution that violates the compact would lose all federal funding for a year. The compact provides that only universities that agree to the compact will receive federal funds — implying that those rejecting it will not have access to this money. No major university can afford to forego federal funds.

Violation of the First Amendment

So just what is so objectionable about Trump’s compact? First and foremost, it violates the First Amendment.

The compact requires that universities revise their governing structures and abolish institutional units that “belittle . . . conservative ideas.” Treating conservative ideas differently from liberal ones clearly violates the First Amendment, and there is a First Amendment right to belittle or criticize any idea.

The compact requires that there be a “broad spectrum of views not just in the university as a whole, but within every field, department, school and teaching unit.” Although this is a laudable goal, it would violate the First Amendment for schools to admit students or hire faculty — or refuse to do so — based on their views.

The compact says that “all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives, will abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases which external events have a direct impact on the university.” Does this mean that faculty in their classes cannot discuss social or political events because, by definition, they are acting in their official capacity? Does an opinion piece like this violate the compact because it lists my official title and institutional affiliation?

Harming students’ education

The compact would impose great financial harm on universities, prohibiting them from raising tuition for five years and limiting the number of international students. It requires that schools with large endowments provide free education for students in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields.

This will mean a substantial loss of revenue for schools. Campuses raise tuition because costs are increasing. International students bring invaluable perspectives, and they are also a crucial source of revenue for schools. At Harvard, for example, international students make up 27% percent of the student body. When schools’ revenue decreases while costs rise, there is no choice but to cut the quality of educational programs.

Discrimination against trans students

The compact includes a requirement that universities adhere to the Trump administration’s strict definitions of gender, which deny the existence of transgender students and prohibit the provision of gender-affirming care.

I would hope that no university would throw its transgender students under the bus in this way. It would also likely be illegal to do so, as the Supreme Court has held that the prohibition of sex discrimination in federal laws — such as employment discrimination statutes — forbids discrimination based on gender identity.

Denying institutional autonomy

The compact is an attempt by the federal government to control choices that should be made by educational institutions. This is an effort by the Trump administration to use federal funds to force schools to adhere to its ideological agenda.

Nothing like this ever has been seen in the United States. If schools capitulate to this, the Trump administration can come back next year — or even next month — with another series of demands.

The proposed compact is nothing but extortion. My hope is that every school will reject it. Unfortunately, the University of Texas quickly indicated a willingness to agree to its terms. Perhaps if the other schools join MIT in saying no, Texas will reconsider.

But if any school agrees to the compact, its faculty and students should go to court immediately and have it declared unconstitutional. The future of higher education in the United States is gravely at stake.

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean and professor of law at the UC Berkeley School of Law.

This story was originally published October 14, 2025 at 6:00 AM with the headline "Trump’s higher education ‘compact’ is an attempt to extort universities | Opinion."