The “Compact for Academic Excellence鈥� Will Have Ripple Effects For Higher Ed
November 7, 2025
On October 1st, the U.S. Secretary of Education sent a 鈥溾�� to nine universities. The administration鈥檚 proposed compact is a wide-ranging agreement between universities and the federal government, which will require universities to comply with the government鈥檚 priorities or risk losing federal funding. The response to the compact by the higher education community was , with the vast majority of universities and associations denouncing the compact as federal overreach and extortion.
The initial nine universities鈥擬IT, Brown, University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, University of Southern California, Vanderbilt, University of Virginia, University of Arizona, and UT Austin鈥攚ere not immediately asked to sign the compact, but were invited to provide 鈥渓imited, targeted feedback to ensure mutual alignment鈥� by October 20th. By that date, seven out of the nine institutions had formally rejected the compact outright. The remaining two, and , are providing feedback to the administration, without yet accepting or rejecting the agreement.
The administration intends to have a finalized and signed version of the compact by November 21st. While White House officials have said that Trump has now extended the invitation to all colleges and universities (if only by means of a Truth Social post), it isn鈥檛 currently clear how institutions are supposed to go about signing the agreement. Over the next several weeks, we will likely learn more about the final version of the compact, as well as which universities are willing to agree to its demands.
What does the Compact include?
The Compact for Academic Excellence begins by acknowledging the mutually beneficial relationship between the federal government and the university system. It then goes on to explain that the benefits universities receive from the federal government (including access to student loans, grant programs, federal contracts, research funding, visa approval, and tax benefits) are conditional on their compliance with the administration鈥檚 priorities. The rest of the compact outlines these priorities, as well as the ways the federal government will enforce their compliance.
The priorities touch on many areas of university policy and procedure, including admissions, hiring, tuition, speech, and protest. Some of the specific points include:
- Admissions and Hiring: Barring a consideration of 鈥渟ex, ethnicity, race, nationality, political views, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious associations, or proxies for any of those factors鈥� in admissions or financial aid, with similar reassertions regarding university hiring.
- Ideology: Committing to 鈥渢ransforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.鈥�
- Institutional neutrality: Forbidding university faculty and staff from 鈥渁ctions or speech relating to societal or political events.鈥�
- Gender policy: 鈥淒efining and otherwise interpreting 鈥渕ale,鈥� 鈥渇emale,鈥� 鈥渨oman,鈥� and 鈥渕an鈥� according to reproductive function and biological processes.鈥�
- Financial responsibility: Freezing tuition for the next five years, and reimbursing students who leave the institution after their first term.
- 鈥淔oreign Entanglements”: Instituting a 15% cap on international students, and greater oversight of foreign donations.
The compact goes on to say that universities who 鈥渨illfully or negligently violate this agreement shall lose access to the benefits of this agreement鈥� for at least a year, and will have to immediately return any federal funds advanced during the year of the violation. It鈥檚 not entirely clear if the 鈥渂enefits鈥� mentioned here are those outlined in the opening of the compact, or some additional benefits not currently included, like , which was alluded to in the invitation to the original nine universities.
One main concern about the compact, as it is written right now, is that many of its terms are vague enough to invite confusion or misinterpretation. This could mean that the Department of Justice, who the administration has tapped to enforce the compact, could interpret the requirements broadly enough that even universities who are attempting to comply may find themselves in violation. Especially when it comes to the First Amendment concerns of free speech and free association, universities and their faculty, staff, and students may feel the need to be even more cautious in order to avoid repercussions. This is likely to have a chilling effect across the board, and especially on the 鈥渧ibrant marketplace of ideas鈥� that the compact mentions as such an important part of a college campus.
What does the law say?
According to legal experts, the current version of the Compact for Academic Excellence is unconstitutional on a number of important fronts. To start, Congress is the branch of government with the constitutional powers of legislation and spending. The president (and his executive departments) do not have the power to create new legal obligations or make sweeping decisions regarding university funding. In a by UPenn law professors Amanda Shanor and Serena Mayeri, they explain the executive branch鈥檚 limitations further: 鈥淯nder [the Supreme Court鈥檚 major questions] doctrine, an agency does not have power to take action on a question of major 鈥渆conomic and political significance,鈥� unless Congress clearly authorizes the agency to do so.鈥� The future of the country鈥檚 university system is certainly a matter of economic and political significance, and one that requires congressional and judicial oversight.
Another major constitutional issue with the compact is its treatment of the signatories鈥� First Amendment rights. This includes not only the universities鈥� administrators, who may make the decision to sign, knowing they are relinquishing the right to communicate and make decisions in certain ways (which is issue enough). Universities will also be signing on behalf of鈥攁nd implicating鈥攖heir entire institution, including faculty, staff, and students who likely have no say at all in these new restrictions. As Shanor and Mayeri write: 鈥淎ll viewpoints鈥攃onservative, liberal, or otherwise鈥攁re afforded the same constitutional protection and cannot be selectively favored or censored by the government.鈥�
In another , this one by Genevieve Lakier, a law professor at the University of Chicago, she identified an additional issue with the compact鈥檚 constitutionality: the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Those aforementioned university administrators, knowingly signing their rights away, would not exactly be doing so freely. According to this doctrine, 鈥渢he government may not condition access to government benefits on the recipient鈥檚 agreement to waive their constitutional rights, including the rights protected by the First Amendment.鈥� In other words, the government is not allowed to force individuals to choose between retaining a right and receiving a government benefit.
Unfortunately, the fact of the compact鈥檚 unconstitutionality doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean that it can鈥檛 or won鈥檛 be used as a tool to control universities anyway. This compact is just the latest in a variety of messaging from the administration over the past year鈥攆rom executive orders and memos, to speeches and social media posts鈥攖hat are shaping attitudes inside and outside of higher education. So whether or not the compact is finalized by the intended date of November 21st, and regardless of who signs it, the administration is going to continue to find ways to pursue its polarizing priorities.
What are the wider implications?
Now that the Compact for Academic Excellence has technically been extended to all U.S. colleges and universities, it鈥檚 unclear what the repercussions will be for institutions that refuse to sign. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson that 鈥渢he Administration does not plan to limit federal funding to schools that sign the compact.鈥� Theoretically, this means that universities who refuse to sign are still eligible for federal funding, but whether they will receive less funding or less priority in comparison to signatories is unclear. The current version of the compact does state, rather ominously, that: 鈥淚nstitutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forego [sic] federal benefits.鈥�
Depending on how the compact shakes out, and whether and how enforceable its terms are, it has the potential to lead to the widespread reorganization of U.S. higher education, and the redirection of billions of dollars in federal funds. On an individual level, the compact鈥檚 terms will be sure to impact faculty, staff, and students in a variety of ways, with the steepest effects felt by trans and queer students, international students, and students of color.
While a seemingly critical mass of education organizations and university administrators have signed onto statements denouncing the compact鈥攊ncluding those from the and the 鈥攊t鈥檚 hard to know if widespread refusal to comply will be enough to defang the compact and stymie its reach. But widespread refusal may be the best tool that higher education has, along with a continued steadfast commitment to intellectual freedom and the free exchange of ideas, unencumbered by government interference.
Final Thoughts
In 1957, during the era of McCarthyism, the Supreme Court heard the case of , regarding academic freedom. In Justice Felix Frankfurter鈥檚 concurring opinion for that case, he enumerated the 鈥渇our essential freedoms鈥� of a university: 鈥渢o determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.鈥� These four freedoms are still vitally relevant today, and our colleges and universities deserve to exercise those freedoms to the fullest extent, and without fear.
