The Rise and Fall of the Compact for Academic Excellence
The Trump administration's initial approach to reshaping higher education came in the form of the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, proposed in early October 2025. This voluntary agreement was extended to nine prominent universities, including MIT, Brown University, the University of Virginia, and the University of Texas at Austin. In exchange for signing on, institutions were promised preferential access to federal grants, higher reimbursement rates for research overhead costs, and continued eligibility for student loans and tax-exempt status. However, the compact demanded significant concessions: a five-year freeze on tuition increases, a cap of 15 percent on international undergraduate enrollment, adoption of a binary definition of sex, commitments to viewpoint diversity on campuses, and institutional neutrality on political and social issues.
University leaders swiftly rejected the offer, labeling it a 'one-sided deal' that threatened institutional autonomy and academic freedom. MIT President Sally Kornbluth was among the first to decline, followed by presidents at Dartmouth, Penn, and others, who argued the terms ignored economic realities like inflation and faculty salary pressures while imposing unfeasible mandates. By mid-October, seven of the nine institutions had formally turned it down, sparking a pivotal shift in the administration's strategy from incentives to enforcement.
This rejection highlighted deep tensions between federal oversight and university self-governance. Presidents like UVA's Paul Mahoney emphasized that excellence stems from internal merit, not government compacts, setting the stage for more aggressive tactics.
Punitive Investigations: Over 150 Probes Target Campuses
Following the compact's failure, the administration pivoted to punitive measures, launching more than 150 federal investigations into colleges and universities by the end of 2025. These probes, primarily under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, focused on allegations of antisemitism, race-based scholarships, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, and transgender athletes competing in women's sports. The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights issued guidance in February 2025 warning institutions that race-conscious programming could jeopardize federal funding, though courts later struck down some directives.
Elite institutions bore the brunt. Columbia University faced a funding freeze leading to a $221 million settlement, which included commitments to report admissions data and reduce reliance on international tuition. The University of California system grappled with a proposed $1 billion fine over antisemitism claims at UCLA, described by critics as a 'billion-dollar shakedown.' Harvard endured 13 investigations across 10 agencies but successfully challenged funding halts in court.
These actions created widespread anxiety, prompting some campuses to proactively shutter DEI offices, rebrand cultural centers, and oust leaders. The University of Virginia, for instance, replaced its president amid pressures, while others like Ohio State and Johns Hopkins tightened policies on gender and race discussions to preempt scrutiny.
International Student Visas: 8,000+ Revocations Reshape Enrollment
A particularly disruptive tactic involved the State Department revoking over 8,000 student visas in 2025, targeting international students accused of activism, particularly pro-Palestinian views, or terrorism sympathies. Cases like Tufts doctoral student Rumeysa Öztürk, detained for six weeks without charges, and Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil underscored the chilling effect.
Institutions reported immediate enrollment drops and heightened fear among immigrant and international communities. The policy expanded Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) powers, with temporary court reversals in April 2025, but ongoing lawsuits highlight First Amendment concerns. This has raised alarms about a 'lost generation' of talent, potentially harming U.S. innovation and the economy long-term.
Universities responded by scrubbing event traditions and advising caution on speech, while associations like the American Council on Education condemned the overreach.American Council on Education
Funding Freezes and Research Disruptions
The administration froze billions in federal grants and contracts, including over $5 billion across universities, often tied to investigations. Research overhead reimbursements were capped at 15 percent by agencies like NIH and NSF, though courts blocked these moves. The FY 2026 budget proposed 21 percent cuts to scientific research, slashing NSF to $3.9 billion and NIH significantly, but Congress rebuffed most reductions.
Six universities settled to restore funds, paying over $400 million collectively and agreeing to DEI prohibitions through 2028. This pattern of 'extortion,' as critics called it, forced compliance but sparked legal pushback, with Harvard regaining access via injunctions.
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
Department of Education Overhaul: Staff Cuts and Outsourcing
Efforts to dismantle the Department of Education (ED) included firing 1,300+ employees in March 2025, reducing staff from 4,100 to 2,800, and further cuts amid shutdowns. An executive order facilitated outsourcing: State Department took Fulbright-Hays (canceled for FY2025), Labor handled workforce grants. Full closure requires Congress, stalling progress.
These moves weakened oversight, shifting focus to enforcement against non-compliant institutions.
The Accreditation Revolution: AIM Committee and New Rules
Trump's 'secret weapon' emerged in January 2026: the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) committee for negotiated rulemaking. Aimed at easing recognition for new accreditors, eliminating DEI standards, emphasizing student outcomes (graduation, jobs), and promoting intellectual diversity, it addresses perceived protectionism and bloat.
$14.5 million in grants supported new agencies; states like Florida and Texas challenge regional accreditors. Fears abound: loss of accreditation means no federal aid eligibility, threatening finances. Experts warn of federal overreach on faculty diversity metrics, conflicting with laws on peer review.Forbes on Accreditation
Broader Policy Shifts: Student Loans and Title IX
Proposed rules simplify student loan repayment while tying aid to outcomes. Title IX revisions ban transgender athletes in women's sports and curb DEI. In-state tuition for undocumented students faces DOJ suits in seven states.
University Leaders' Fears and Strategic Responses
Higher ed leaders report unprecedented uncertainty, with self-censorship rampant. A Chronicle survey showed presidents grappling with chaos; some lobby privately, others advocate collectively. Grand Canyon University noted improved ties post-compliance.
- Proactive reforms: DEI rebranding at Emory, Texas A&M.
- Legal defenses: Harvard, UC victories.
- Collective action: AAC&U, ACE statements.
Implications for Higher Education Careers
These actions ripple through job markets: faculty fear speech reprisals, admins navigate compliance, researchers face grant instability. International talent shortages hit STEM. For career navigators, check higher-ed-jobs for resilient opportunities or higher-ed-career-advice for adaptation strategies.
Outlook: Midterms, Courts, and Paths Forward
2026 brings accreditation rules, loan reforms, possible compact revival. Midterm losses could temper agendas. Constructive steps: strategic lobbying, outcome-focused innovations, diversified funding. Institutions fostering free inquiry while aligning with accountability may thrive. Explore rate-my-professor, university-jobs, and higher-ed-jobs for informed career moves.
