In a bold stand against what it described as an overreach into higher education, the University of Southern California (USC) has formally rejected a sweeping "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education" proposed by the Trump administration. The decision, announced on Thursday, positions USC as the fourth major institution to spurn the deal, intensifying a growing backlash from academia over the proposal's demands for ideological alignment in exchange for federal funding preferences.
USC Interim President Beong-Soo Kim conveyed the university's refusal in a letter to U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, emphasizing that the compact, though voluntary, would inevitably erode core principles of academic integrity. "We are concerned that even though the Compact would be voluntary, tying research benefits to it would, over time, undermine the same values of free inquiry and academic excellence that the Compact seeks to promote," Kim wrote. USC, home to more than 49,000 students across its undergraduate and graduate programs, joins the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Brown University, and the University of Pennsylvania in declining the offer. These rejections highlight a deepening rift between the administration and elite universities, amid broader efforts to reshape higher education along conservative lines.
The compact, a nine-page document drafted in late 2024 and finalized earlier this year, outlines 10 key commitments that institutions must adopt to qualify for "preferential access" to federal grants, contracts, and partnerships. Among its most contentious provisions are mandates to reinstate mandatory SAT or ACT standardized testing for admissions, impose a five-year tuition freeze, cap international student enrollment at 15% of the total student body, and adopt a binary, government-defined view of gender that prohibits transgender athletes from competing in women's sports. It also requires universities to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, disregard race, sex, or ethnicity in admissions, hiring, and financial aid decisions, and restructure governance to ensure "institutional neutrality" – effectively banning administrative endorsements of political causes. Proponents argue these measures combat "woke" ideologies and restore meritocracy, but critics, including faculty from across the political spectrum, decry them as unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment and Title IX.
The proposal was initially extended on October 1 to nine prominent universities: Vanderbilt University, Dartmouth College, USC, MIT, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Arizona, Brown University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Virginia. White House officials, including McMahon, Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley, and Senior Adviser May Mailman, framed it as a "forward-looking agreement" to usher in a "Golden Age of Academic Excellence." Signatories would gain "substantial and meaningful federal grants," increased overhead reimbursements on research funding, and invitations to exclusive White House briefings. However, the document warns that non-compliant institutions risk forgoing these benefits, raising fears of de facto coercion.
At USC, the response was swift and unified. The university's Academic Senate convened an emergency virtual meeting on October 6, where over 20 faculty members, department chairs, and researchers voiced vehement opposition. "This is egregiously invalid, probably unconstitutional, and antithetical to principles of academic freedom," one professor declared, likening the compact to a "Trojan horse" designed to smuggle conservative mandates into campus life. Sanjay Madhav, an associate professor at USC's Viterbi School of Engineering, hailed the rejection as a triumph of collective action: "This shows that when a broad coalition of faculty, students, staff, and workers comes together … we can effect institutional change." Kate Levin, an associate professor of writing, echoed this sentiment, crediting sustained pressure from campus labor groups and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) chapter for the outcome. "Everybody came together with a unified voice to say that this compact with the Trump administration would be a disaster on a number of levels," she told LAist.
The decision comes at a precarious time for USC, which is navigating a significant budget shortfall exacerbated by declining enrollment and rising operational costs. Federal research grants, totaling over $300 million annually for the university, are a lifeline for programs in engineering, medicine, and the humanities. Yet, Kim underscored USC's unwavering commitment to independence: "USC remains dedicated to fostering a vibrant marketplace of ideas and contributing values to an important national conversation about the future of higher education." This stance aligns with broader faculty sentiments, as evidenced by a joint statement from student body presidents at several targeted universities, including USC, urging outright rejection to preserve institutional autonomy.
USC's move follows a pattern of resistance that began with MIT on October 10. MIT President Sally Kornbluth cited the compact's restrictions on free expression and institutional independence as irreconcilable with the university's merit-based funding ethos. Brown University followed on October 15, with President Christina H. Paxson declaring the proposal incompatible with academic self-governance, despite the school's recent $50 million settlement with the administration over prior funding disputes. The University of Pennsylvania sealed the quartet of rejections the same day as USC, with President J. Larry Jameson affirming the school's dedication to "merit-based achievement" without federal strings attached.
Not all responses have been defiant. Vanderbilt and the University of Arizona have formed working groups to review the compact, with Arizona's president noting "a wide range of reactions." The University of Texas at Austin expressed initial enthusiasm, with its system board chair calling the invitation an "honor" for potential funding advantages. Dartmouth and the University of Virginia have remained publicly silent, though UVA faculty overwhelmingly voted against the compact in a special meeting.
The compact's rollout is part of President Trump's escalated second-term offensive against higher education, which he has lambasted as a hotbed of "woke, socialist, and anti-American ideology." Since January, the administration has withheld $2.2 billion in grants from Harvard University over refusals to overhaul admissions and combat campus antisemitism, and launched probes into Ivy League schools for alleged DEI violations. Trump amplified the pressure on October 12 via Truth Social, extending the compact to all U.S. institutions and vowing to enforce federal law against "illegal discrimination." White House spokesperson Liz Huston defended the initiative, insisting that "universities funded by American taxpayers should absolutely serve the national interest" by ending discrimination and prioritizing conservative viewpoints.
Critics, including the AAUP and the American Council on Education, have decried the compact as "extortion" and a "federal takeover," arguing it contravenes Supreme Court precedents on academic freedom, such as the 1957 Sweezy v. New Hampshire ruling. California Governor Gavin Newsom amplified this chorus on October 3, urging state universities to reject the pact and threatening to withhold state funds from compliant institutions. "This is not about excellence; it's about control," Newsom stated, challenging USC directly to "do the right thing." His intervention, coupled with campus protests – including a rally at USC's Tommy Trojan statue on October 14 – underscored the proposal's polarizing impact.
The backlash has ripple effects beyond the nine initial targets. A CNN analysis revealed that universities under scrutiny have doubled lobbying expenditures in 2025, spending 122% more in the second quarter compared to 2024 to safeguard funding streams. At the University of Virginia, 97% of faculty at a special forum voted to oppose the compact, while student groups at Brown staged walkouts chanting "Education, not indoctrination." On X (formerly Twitter), the hashtag #RejectTheCompact trended nationally on October 16, with posts from educators and alumni praising USC's resolve: "Go Trojans! Educate, don't dictate," one user wrote, garnering thousands of likes.
Experts warn that the compact could exacerbate enrollment declines and stifle innovation. International students, who contribute $45 billion annually to the U.S. economy, face caps that might deter talent from fields like STEM, where foreign-born researchers file 40% of patents. Tuition freezes, while appealing amid $1.7 trillion in national student debt, ignore inflation and infrastructure needs, potentially forcing cuts to scholarships and faculty hires. Frederick Hess, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, described the document as a "Rorschach test": conservatives see a blueprint for reform, while liberals view it as authoritarian overreach.
As the November 21 signing deadline looms, the administration's strategy appears to be shifting toward broader recruitment. Trump's Truth Social post invited "any institution" to join, but early signs suggest limited uptake. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, predicted that "most major institutions will reject it," citing the high cost to academic autonomy. The Department of Education, hampered by a partial government shutdown, declined immediate comment, with furloughed staff unable to respond.
USC's rejection, framed as a defense of "a vibrant marketplace of ideas," resonates amid global concerns over democratic backsliding. From Istanbul, where universities grapple with similar authoritarian pressures, the episode serves as a cautionary tale: when governments wield funding as a weapon, the pursuit of knowledge becomes the first casualty. As Kim concluded, USC's choice reaffirms that true excellence thrives not through mandates, but through unfettered inquiry. The coming weeks will test whether this defiance sparks a broader academic resistance – or if financial incentives ultimately bend more institutions to the administration's will.
