The Dismal Application Record of the Trump Compact

The Trump administration hoped to get accepted by some prestigious universities. It didn't work out well.

Photo by Cole Parsons on Unsplash

The hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World has written previously about the Trump administration’s multiple broadsides against American higher education. Whether it’s been slashing research funding, imposing burdensome restrictions on international student visas, imposing taxes on endowments, or taking even more punitive actions against selected universities, the current administration has seemed bound and determined to destroy the U.S. university system root and branch. The situation for those of us tasked to manage these universities is… not great.

In recent weeks, however, the Trump administration has tried to apply a carrot along with its bundle of sticks: a proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” Earlier this month the administration asked nine universities to sign the compact: Brown, Dartmouth, M.I.T., Penn, the University of Arizona, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt. It is the same kind of list one might see from an ambitious 17-year old senior: a bunch of reach schools, some schools where the odds of acceptance are better, and one or two safety schools.

So what’s in the compact? Inside Higher Ed’s Katherine Knott provides a useful summary of the proposal:

Across eight sections that include “equality in admissions,” “marketplace of ideas and civil discourse,” “student equality,” and “financial responsibility,” Trump officials outline a number of new requirements for institutions that sign on, including that they:

• Ban consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions processes.

• Freeze tuition for a five-year period. (In addition, those with an endowment worth more than $2 million per undergraduate can’t charge tuition for admitted students pursuing hard science programs, with some exceptions.)

• Limit international undergraduate enrollment to 15 percent of the student body.

• Commit to institutional neutrality.

• Define and interpret “male,” “female,” “woman” and “man” according to reproductive function and biological processes.

• Require applicants to take standardized tests, such as the SAT or ACT.

• Clamp down on grade inflation.

• Restrict employees from expressing political views on behalf of the institution.

• Shut down departments that “punish, belittle” or “spark violence against conservative ideas.”

• Anonymously poll students and employees on compact compliance and publish the results.

The Justice Department would enforce the terms of the agreement, which are vague…. Colleges that sign and are found to violate the compact could face significant fiscal consequences.

Noncompliant universities would “lose access to the benefits of this agreement” for a year. Subsequent violations would lead to a two-year punishment. And the federal government could claw back “all monies advanced by the U.S. government during the year of any violation.” Private donations would also be required to be returned, upon request.

So what are the benefits, exactly? The cover letter floats, “substantial and meaningful federal grants” to those who sign on. It further notes that the Trump compact was “supported by philanthropists equally committed to the pursuit of this vision,” thereby hinting that private donors would help out universities that signed on. So maybe universities that sign on might receive preferential treatment for research grants or other federal money. At the same time, universities that choose not to sign on receive less than bupkis.

According to the New York Times’ Alan Blinder and Michael C. Bender, the compact is the brainchild of financier Marc Rowan: “Mr. Rowan has been keenly interested in higher education and, as the University of Pennsylvania was mired in acrimony over antisemitism and pro-Palestinian activism in 2023, he wielded his wealth and influence to help oust his alma mater’s president.” Rowan himself penned an op-ed in the NYT justifying the compact:

The system is broken. Over the past year, I have spoken with countless university presidents, directors and advisers; scholars and academics; and lawmakers, policy experts and activists. The one thing they all agree on is that our university system, which was once one of the nation’s greatest strategic assets, has lost its way.

The evidence is overwhelming: outrageous costs and prolonged indebtedness for students; poor outcomes, with too many students left unable to find meaningful work after graduating; some talented domestic students and scholars have been crowded out of enrollment and employment opportunities by international students; and a high degree of uniformity of thought among faculty members and administrators, which can result in a hostile environment for students with different ideas.

[Just a side note here: I bet that the people Rowan have spoken with have confirmed his priors! I have said it before and I will say it again: if you think speaking truth to power is hard, try speaking truth to money. Rowan’s failure to recognize just the slightest possibility of selection bias is a huge tell on his ability to think like a social scientist.¹]

Rowan defends the principles of the compact as uncontroversial and chock-filled with common sense:

How do colleges and universities demonstrate that they are making decisions and carrying out policies that serve the public good by promoting excellence in their teaching and research? By agreeing to a few common-sense policies laid out in the compact.

These include: selecting students and faculty members based on individual merit instead of group characteristics; holding the line against grade inflation; providing transparency to students about the economic potential of the academic programs on offer; prohibiting discrimination, harassment and intimidation of students; neutrally enforcing “time, place and manner” guidelines for protest activities; refraining from taking institutional positions on political controversies unrelated to a school’s core mission, while encouraging all members of the community to speak out and debate in their personal capacities; reporting and following all applicable rules on foreign contributions; and enrolling and educating primarily American students, so that schools remain U.S. institutions with foreign diversity instead of becoming global institutions that happen to be based in the United States.

These are not politically partisan requirements—

And here I must apologize: I have no idea what Rowan’s op-ed said after reading those paragraphs. See, I was laughing too hard at the conceit that he was not proposing “politically partisan requirements.”

To be fair, I’m not opposed to some of what is proposed in the compact. Fighting grade inflation is a good idea, for example. But so much of what Rowan and Trump are proposing is so obviously affirmative action for mediocre American conservatives that the claim of “selecting students and faculty members based on individual merit” gets contradicted at least three different times.

To say this is a poisoned chalice with little upside would be an understatement. Politico’s Bianca Quilantan reported on this point a few weeks ago:

It’s an arrangement former college presidents are urging their schools to reject.

“It’s pretty vague what the advantages are of signing the compact,” said Teresa Sullivan, the former president of the University of Virginia, one of nine colleges the Trump administration is trying to court. “If you’re thinking of this as a deal, it’s a one-sided deal.”

The benefits of Trump’s “compact” include “increased overhead payments where feasible” and “substantial and meaningful federal grants,” according to a cover letter sent to university leaders alongside the agreement. But the White House is offering things colleges enjoyed until just a few months ago.

Sullivan and others say the offer is all sticks and no carrots. And while the compact itself makes no mention of the benefits the White House is offering, it does spell out what costly financial penalties schools will face if they fall short of what the administration deems as compliance….

Former presidents, including some who once led those institutions, are urging current leaders to resist what they see as unworkable mandates and severe penalties.

“The potential sanctions are existential,” one former university president told POLITICO. “To me, it feels like a federal takeover of higher education.”

A White House official on Thursday said the administration has received widespread engagement on the compact and there is some flexibility to negotiate the terms.

That last paragraph was super-interesting to read — because as it turns out, the “widespread engagement” appears to consist primarily of rejections from most of the universities that received this proffer. MIT President Sally Kornbluth responded first with a statement that exposed many of the logical contradictions contained within the Trump administration proposal:

These values and other MIT practices meet or exceed many standards outlined in the document you sent. We freely choose these values because they’re right, and we live by them because they support our mission – work of immense value to the prosperity, competitiveness, health and security of the United States. And of course, MIT abides by the law.

The document also includes principles with which we disagree, including those that would restrict freedom of expression and our independence as an institution. And fundamentally, the premise of the document is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.

In our view, America’s leadership in science and innovation depends on independent thinking and open competition for excellence. In that free marketplace of ideas, the people of MIT gladly compete with the very best, without preferences. Therefore, with respect, we cannot support the proposed approach to addressing the issues facing higher education.

And then the rejections for Trump started to pile up: other reach schools like Brown and Dartmouth but also schools like the University of Arizona that I’m sure Trump thought he would gain acceptance. As the number of rejections mounted, the administration scrambled to expand their application list; the Wall Street Journal reported that the Trump team expanded their offers to include three additional schools: Arizona State University, Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Kansas. In a social media post, Trump offered this deal to all U.S. universities.

Unfortunately for Trump, the New York Times’ Alan Blinder reports, it was a dismal acceptance season for the administration:

Seven of the nine universities that the White House initially approached about a plan to steer more federal money toward schools aligned with President Trump’s priorities have refused to endorse the proposal.

On Monday evening, an eighth signaled that it had reservations about it.

Only one, the University of Texas, suggested it might be open to signing on quickly….

Although the Trump administration floated the possibility of greater federal funding for schools that endorsed the plan, one university after another said they could not accept the terms.

I don’t think a lot of other schools will be eager to jump in to fill the void. Blinder previously reported that, “when the leaders of 10 schools not included in the White House’s solicitation — including Arizona State, Baruch, Cornell, Virginia Tech and William & Mary — were asked, at a gathering in New York this week, who among them would sign the compact if asked, no one lifted a hand.” And they ain’t alone. Even traditional conservatives are not enthused by the compact.

Back in the spring a lot of folks were wondering why universities were not standing up to Trump more. In this instance, it appears that Trump’s second-term track record has caught up to him. No one outside of the state of Texas thinks Trump is proffering a square deal. It is almost as if Trump’s track record as an erratic bargainer is catching up to him.

In any case, the hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World wishes the Trump team the best of luck in making themselves happy with only gaining acceptance from their safety school.

1. The lack of any hyperlinks in his Times op-ed to back up his sweeping assertions is another red flag.