MIT president opposes proposal to adopt Trump administration priorities for funding benefits.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has publicly opposed a controversial compact proposed by the Trump administration, which seeks to align the policies of nine prestigious universities, including the University of Pennsylvania and several others, with the administration’s political agenda in exchange for favorable access to federal funding. MIT President Sally Kornbluth stated on Friday her institution “cannot support” the proposal, highlighting concerns over its implications for academic freedom and institutional independence.

Kornbluth’s firm stance places MIT among the first higher education institutions to reject the terms outlined in the administration’s initiative, which promises “multiple positive benefits,” including substantial federal grants. While some universities, such as the University of Texas system, expressed a degree of honor in being invited to participate, many others remain silent, contemplating the ramifications of the document.

The higher education compact presented last week requires participating universities to commit to specific measures that reflect the administration’s policies. These measures span a range of contentious topics, including admissions processes, students’ eligibility in women’s sports, and the handling of student discipline. The White House has invited feedback from these institutions by October 20, with decisions needed by November 21.

In her written response to White House officials, Kornbluth criticized elements of the compact that she believes would undermine free speech and infringe upon the university’s autonomy. This is consistent with MIT’s belief that funding for scientific endeavors should be determined purely on merit. Her letter conveyed a clear message: the proposed approach fails to address the pressing issues prevalent in higher education today.

University and higher education leaders face increasing pressure to reject the compact, spurred on by opposition from students, faculty members, and advocates for free speech. Some leaders have branded the compact as a form of extortion, with local government officials in Tucson, home to the University of Arizona, officially denouncing the initiative as a grave infringement on federal authority.

Even within conservative circles, there is criticism of the compact’s approach. Some prominent figures in education policy have described the government’s conditions as profoundly flawed and lacking legal grounding. Kornbluth’s response implies that while the mechanics of the compact are untenable, MIT upholds many of its underlying principles—such as merit-based admissions and affordability initiatives, as exemplified by their tuition waivers for families earning below 0,000 annually.

The compact stipulates that participating universities must maintain tuition freezes for U.S. students and bars institutions with substantial endowments from charging tuition for students in hard science programs. It also mandates standardized testing for all undergraduate applicants while eliminating consideration of race and gender in admissions assessments. Furthermore, it advocates for conservative interpretations of gender in relation to campus facilities and athletics.

Overall, the discourse surrounding the Trump administration’s proposal highlights a critical intersection between federal policy and higher education. As universities navigate these politically charged waters, the implications for autonomy, funding, and academic freedom continue to provoke widespread debate among stakeholders in the educational landscape.