From Access to Ideology: The Evolution of Federal Involvement in American Higher Education

Photo via Ivywise

***

On October 1, 2025, President Donald Trump introduced the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” This agreement will tie federal funding to new policies at nine public and private colleges that choose to participate in the initiative. The 10-page Compact was sent to University of Southern California, University of Arizona, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Brown University, Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia. 

Under the Compact, these universities are asked to revise their approaches to various subjects in higher education to adopt “academic neutrality.” In return, these institutions would receive “multiple positive benefits,” according to a letter signed by Education Secretary Linda McMahon and included with the Compact. While the Compact for Academic Excellence for Higher Education is framed as a neutral “academic standards” policy, several of its sections reveal an agenda rooted in conservative thought.

The Compact calls for universities to “commit to using lawful force if necessary” in response to protests on campus. It also outlines a commitment to creating an environment where conservative ideas can be freely expressed by “transforming or abolishing institutional units that

purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” according to Section 2 – MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS & CIVIL DISCOURSE.

Another section restricts student demographics, limiting the international student population to 15 percent, with no more than 5 percent coming from one country. This requirement is justified by calling any greater number of international students a “national security risk,” claiming that an abundance of international students leads campuses to become saturated with “anti-American values.”

Additionally, universities would be required to interpret words such as “male,” “female,” “man,” and “woman” in accordance with reproductive function and biological processes. This aspect of the Compact, outlined in Section 6 – STUDENT EQUALITY, goes beyond what is traditionally left to academic debate, research, and institutional discretion, dictating how subjects like gender studies and biology can be discussed and taught in the future.

Throughout time, colleges have served as spaces of academic discovery, research, and debate. Although the Compact is technically voluntary, the financial incentives raise questions about the federal government’s evolving role in academia. 

Historically, federal involvement has differed significantly from what it is today. It primarily focused on expanding access and enforcing compliance with the law. An example of this is the G.I. Bill of 1944, one of the most significant federal programs of educational support. It increased access to higher education by helping World War II veterans with tuition and housing, ultimately sending nearly 8 million veterans to college. 

The Cold War also sparked the development of federal education legislation. The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) was passed in 1958 in response to the Soviet Union launching Sputnik (Earth’s first artificial satellite) in 1957. The goal of NDEA was to improve education in the United States to compete with the Soviets, ensuring national security and protection. It provided fellowships and loans for students while also focusing on improving science, mathematics, and foreign language programs. Unlike national security policies of this nature, the current administration aims to control who is present on campus and what ideas circulate through academic discourse.

Additionally, Title IX compliance agreements, as required by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, linked federal funding to nondiscrimination based on gender. While this intervention shaped university policies, it did not implement or erase specific political views from campuses. Institutions maintained discretion over their agendas, while the federal government solely enforced standards of equality in education.

The Trump administration’s actions are unprecedented, moving beyond legal compliance and access expansion. Historically, federal involvement in higher education has not sought to influence ideology on campuses, but rather aimed to strengthen national competitiveness and ensure access. In contrast, the Compact’s provisions, such as the requirement to define gender according to reproductive function, conflict with academic freedom and established scientific and medical definitions of gender. 

As of mid-October 2025, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) was the first university to respond to the federal funding deal with the Trump Administration. MIT president Sally Kornbluth publicly rejected the proposal, saying that these policies would “restrict freedom of expression” on campus and were inconsistent with the university’s core values. In the coming weeks, the remaining eight universities will weigh the benefits of federal funding against adopting policies that alter campus policies, curricula, and definitions.

***

This article was edited by Karol Quinde.