When the Trump administration proposed a compact with nine institutions last week, requesting sweeping reforms in exchange for preferential treatment, most leaders of the impacted campuses had little to say publicly beyond acknowledging they had received the proposal and were “reviewing” it.

Kevin P. Eltife, a former Republican lawmaker who now leads the University of Texas system Board of Regents, was among the few to respond positively to the proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which asks universities to make significant changes to admissions and hiring practices, commit to institutional neutrality, freeze tuition for five years, cap international enrollment, and suppress criticism of conservatives.

He wrote that he was “honored” that the flagship Austin campus—along with Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University—had been invited to sign on. “We look forward to working with the Trump Administration on it,” he wrote.

On Friday, Dartmouth president Sian Beilock became the first leader of the group to indicate she was unlikely to go along with the plan. “I am deeply committed to Dartmouth’s academic mission and values and will always defend our fierce independence,” she wrote in a message to the campus community.

“You have often heard me say that higher education is not perfect and that we can do better. At the same time, we will never compromise our academic freedom and our ability to govern ourselves.”

USC interim president Beong-Soo Kim offered a noncommittal response to the proposal, saying it covers important issues and he would be consulting with the Board of Trustees, assorted faculty and advisory groups, and other stakeholders before responding.

“In this moment, and in all others, the Board’s and my responsibility is to advance USC’s mission and uphold our core values, and we are committed to doing just that,” he wrote.

Elsewhere across higher education, multiple associations and faculty members quickly excoriated the proposal, with critics arguing that the compact would impose the Trump administration’s viewpoints on colleges and universities, strip academic freedom, override governance standards, and gut campus diversity, among a litany of other concerns.

Now that they’ve had time to digest the details, others have also weighed in. Here’s a look at what they’ve said.

Robust Responses

American Council on Education president Ted Mitchell and other officials spoke out against the compact in media coverage before the proposal was fully unveiled and continued to do so afterward. Mitchell referred to the proposal as “a naked exercise of power, lacking internal coherence,” which would set “a horrible precedent to cede power to the federal government.”

Ed Trust president and CEO Denise Forte warned that the compact posed “an existential threat to all institutions of higher learning,” arguing that the Trump administration was trying to intimidate universities and impose its preferred ideology by using federal funding as a bargaining chip.

“This action targets funding for things like cancer research, Pell Grants for students from low-income backgrounds, and criteria for hiring faculty. This displays a complete disregard for the role that higher education plays in advancing dialogue and debate from various viewpoints, and jeopardizes the success of students, the economy, and our competitiveness as a nation. For universities to take this ‘deal’ sets a dangerous precedent for the future of higher education,” Forte wrote.

American Association of Colleges and Universities officials also put out a statement arguing that the proposal was effectively an ultimatum that asked universities to surrender their autonomy.

AAC&U warned college presidents against trading academic freedom for federal funding and abandoning “the American model of self-governance, which guarantees meaningful roles for faculty, administration, and governing boards in academic and institutional decision-making.”

Ross Mugler, interim president and CEO of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, told members that the proposed compact undermines their independence.

“Governing boards are meant to act as fiduciaries for their institutions, not as extensions of political parties or federal agencies. Linking core federal funding to sweeping national directives turns institutions into compliance machines rather than mission-driven centers of learning and discovery. This is ultimate overreach by the federal government into the boardroom, usurping the role of trustees whose job is to govern in the best interest of their institutions,” Mugler wrote.

Few critics were as pointed or passionate as faculty members in speaking out against the idea.

Catherine D’Ignazio, a professor of urban studies and planning at MIT, told The Boston Globe that the compact agreement is essentially “a loyalty oath” to the Trump administration. Universities are being asked to sacrifice science, international students, trans students and “our whole idea of shared governance,” she said. “No amount of money is worth that great long list.”

Speaking broadly for the sector, Todd Wolfson of the American Association of University Professors and Randi Weingarten at the American Federation of Teachers issued a joint statement in opposition.

They wrote that institutions agreeing to the compact “would be a profound betrayal of your students, staff, faculty, the public, higher education, and our shared democracy—one that would irretrievably tarnish your personal reputation and compromise your institution’s legacy. We urge you not to capitulate and not to negotiate but to unite now in defense of democracy and higher education.”

Other College Presidents

Campus officials have kept pretty quiet about the compact, with the exception of some notoriously outspoken leaders who have pushed back on the proposed compact.

Trinity Washington University president Pat McGuire characterized it as “sheer political extortion,” writing in a social media post Thursday that “no institution that calls itself a college or university should agree to this blatant attack on higher education’s purpose.”

Wesleyan University president Michael Roth also shared a post calling the compact “extortion” and linked to an op-ed in The New York Times written by a legal scholar who urged institutions to push back on the proposal and band together to resist broader federal control over the sector.

Former presidents, including Larry Summers of Harvard University, also weighed in.

“I believe that in very important and costly ways America’s elite universities have lost their way over the last generation. Nonetheless, the @realDonaldTrump Administration’s proposed compact with universities is like trying [to] fix a watch with a hammer—ill conceived and counterproductive. The backlash against its crudity will likely set back necessary reform efforts,” Summers wrote on X.

Newsom Fires Warning Shot

California governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, blasted the proposal in an all-caps social media post warning of consequences for any university in his state that signs the compact.

“IF ANY CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY SIGNS THIS RADICAL AGREEMENT, THEY’LL LOSE BILLIONS IN STATE FUNDING — INCLUDING CAL GRANTS — INSTANTLY,” Newsom wrote on X. “CALIFORNIA WILL NOT BANKROLL SCHOOLS THAT SELL OUT THEIR STUDENTS, PROFESSORS, RESEARCHERS, AND SURRENDER ACADEMIC FREEDOM.”

While no New York universities were asked to sign on to the compact, Newsom’s message caught the attention of Empire State lawmakers as well.

“We should say the same thing about New York colleges and universities, too,” State Senator Andrew Gounardes wrote on X.

Democratic lawmakers in Pennsylvania also announced plans to introduce legislation prohibiting institutions that receive state funding from “signing onto this compact or similar agreements.” In a joint statement, state representative Rick Krajewski and Councilmember Jamie Gauthier, who represent the district where the University of Pennsylvania is located, urged Penn’s leaders to “stand firm and reject this disastrous plan.”

“Accepting these dollars would mean unprecedented policing and control of the curriculum and campus culture of universities like Penn,” they wrote. “This is not a peace offering, this is a hostile takeover.”

Conservative Critics

Some conservative voices expressed support for the idea.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Adam Kissel, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former Department of Education official during Donald Trump’s first term, argued that it was “reasonable to offer additional benefits of partnership” to colleges that “voluntarily agree to higher standards.”

But multiple conservative critics panned the compact as government overreach.

Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute, struck a critical tone, arguing in the same Wall Street Journal article that the Trump administration’s approach is “profoundly problematic.” He suggested that it opened the door for the next administration to impose additional demands for federal funding.

And Neal McCluskey, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Education Freedom, wrote on X, “Trump is not getting the feds out of education. He is taking control, and it is unconstitutional.”

While the proposal yielded few vocal supporters in Congress after it became public, that may be a function of the government shutdown, which began Wednesday. Among GOP lawmakers who work on higher education, the focus in social media posts and statements has been on blaming Democratic colleagues for voting down a continuing resolution to keep the government open.