MIT Rejects White House Proposal to Align with Trump's Education Agenda

Sat Oct 11 2025 00:34:12 GMT+0300 (Eastern European Summer Time)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology's president, Sally Kornbluth, announces refusal to support a controversial federal higher education compact proposed by the Trump administration, citing concerns over academic freedom and merit-based funding.

Sally Kornbluth, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), has publicly stated her opposition to the Trump administration's higher education compact, which would require MIT and several other universities to adopt elements of Trump's political agenda in exchange for federal funding. In a letter addressed to the administration, Kornbluth expressed concerns over provisions that would undermine free speech and the university's independence, emphasizing that scientific funding should be merit-based. The proposal has faced backlash from various educational institutions, advocacy groups, and even some conservative analysts who view it as extortion.

In a significant development that could reshape the landscape of higher education funding, MIT President Sally Kornbluth declared on Friday that the institution cannot endorse a White House proposal compelling it along with several other universities to conform to President Trump’s political agenda for financial benefits.

The proposal, which MIT is among the first to publicly reject, was touted by the White House as offering numerous benefits, including substantial federal grants. While the University of Texas system expressed its willingness to participate, many other institutions have opted for silence as they deliberate their positions on the document.

In her letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and other White House officials, Kornbluth highlighted her dissatisfaction with the proposal’s provisions, particularly those that would restrict free speech and compromise MIT’s organizational independence. Being aligned with MIT’s values means that funding decisions should be made based on merit alone, she asserted.

Thus, with deepest respect, we cannot support this proposed approach to addressing higher education's challenges, Kornbluth emphasized in her correspondence.

This higher education compact presented last week entails a variety of commitments from the universities concerning topics such as admissions policies, women's sports, and student discipline, all in line with the administration's aims. Universities were invited to offer feedback by October 20 and to make their decisions by November 21.

Other institutions included in this initiative are prominent educational entities such as Vanderbilt University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Virginia, among others. There has yet to be clarity on the criteria used to select these schools or the motivations behind it.

Leaders of several universities find themselves under immense pressure to reject the compact, facing strong opposition from students, faculty members, and free speech advocates, some of whom have described the proposal as akin to extortion. For instance, Tucson's local government adopted a formal opposition stance to the compact, branding it unacceptable federal interference.

Even conservative commentators have voiced concerns, deeming the compact problematic, as remarked by Frederick Hess from the American Enterprise Institute, who criticized the government’s requests as ungrounded in law.

Kornbluth’s letter did not explicitly reject the compact but did express that its terms were increasingly difficult to reconcile with MIT's core principles. Even so, she noted that the university already reflects some of the values outlined in the compact, such as prioritizing merit in admissions and striving to make college more accessible for all.

Moreover, the compact called for a freeze on tuition fees for U.S. students for five years and proposed that institutions with significant endowments waive tuition for students in ‘hard science’ programs. It also suggested mandatory standardized testing for undergraduate admissions while eliminating demographic characteristics from consideration.

The terms indicated a push towards fostering conservative viewpoints on campuses, aiming to transform institutional units that discourage dissenting ideas.