UA won’t sign Trump compact but offers ‘commitment to collaboration’

The University of Arizona will not sign on to a “compact” for higher education laid out by the Trump administration, said UA President Suresh Garimella in a campus-wide email Monday.

In his email, Garimella said the UA has “not agreed to the terms outlined in the
draft proposal,” but instead asked to be part of the “national conversation about the future relationship between universities and the federal government.”

“We seek no special treatment and believe in our ability to compete for federally funded research strictly on merit,” he wrote in a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon. “As a demonstration of our commitment to collaboration with the federal government, I have included below the University of Arizona’s Statement of Principles,” he wrote in the letter, dated Monday.

Garimella letter: University of Arizona’s Statement of Principles

“It is critical for the University of Arizona to take an active role in this discussion and to work toward maintaining a strong relationship with the federal government while staying true to our principles,” Garimella said in his email to faculty, staff and students.

Earlier this month, the White House gave nine universities — including  UA — until Monday, Oct. 20 to send “limited, targeted” feedback on a “compact” for higher education, agreeing to suppress campus criticism of conservatives and abandon DEI efforts in exchange for preferential treatment in federal funding.

Telling university leaders the document was “largely in its final form,” the White House sent UA officials a letter on Oct. 1 along with a nine-page document labeled the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”

Garimella said he spoke to Trump administration officials who said they
“were seeking constructive dialogue rather than a definitive written
response.”

Last week, White House officials invited UA and other university leaders to discuss the compact, the Wall Street Journal reported.

For weeks, UA officials were tight-lipped about how they would respond to the compact, saying originally only that they were “reviewing it carefully” and refusing to provide the document for days. A week later, UA leaders sent an email to staff and faculty with little more, saying only they were “thoroughly reviewing the compact to understand its full scope and implications.”

On Friday, Garimella met with the Arizona Board of Regents in an hour-long executive session, but no action was taken.

“The Arizona Board of Regents has been in regular consultation with the University of Arizona since it received the draft Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, and we support President Garimella’s response to it,” said ABOR Chair Doug Goodyear. 

“Given that the federal government is the system’s largest single funder, our universities have a responsibility to provide thoughtful feedback,” Goodyear said. “The board is committed to protecting the values of Arizona higher education that have made it the best in the world – most importantly academic freedom, institutional independence and merit-based research. And that remains our focus.”

As the UA reviewed the compact, six other universities rejected the document, while officials with the University of Texas at Austin announced they were “honored” to join the compact.

Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Virginia have declined to sign the agreement.

Vanderbilt University officials didn’t announce a decision to sign or not, saying “despite reporting to the contrary, we have not been asked to accept or reject the draft compact. Rather, we have been asked to provide feedback and comments as part of an ongoing dialogue, and that is our intention.”

Meanwhile, the White House expanded the pool, sending the compact to other universities, including Arizona State University, as well as the University of Kansas and Washington University in St. Louis.

“Arizona State University has long been a voice for change in higher education and as President Trump’s team seeks new and innovative approaches to serve the needs of the country, ASU has engaged in dialogue and offered ideas about how to do so,” said a spokesman by email on Monday.

‘Damned if we do’

After the compact became public, faculty and staff criticized the document and urged the UA not to sign. 

On Oct. 6, the UA Faculty Senate voted overwhelmingly to send a
resolution to Garimella and ABOR opposing the deal, which they said
would “endanger the independence, excellence, and integrity” of the
university.

A day later, the Tucson City Council passed their own
resolution urging the UA to reject the compact, followed by a similar resolution from the Pima
County Board of Supervisors.

More than 80 UA regents professors weighed in, signing onto a 20-page analysis of the White House’s document that concluded the university should not join the compact.

“There are institutionally significant legal and practical flaws in the compact that we regard as compelling reasons not to sign,” the regents professors wrote. “Among the most serious of these is that the alleged new benefits of compliance are unclear — they are implied, but there is no explanation of how this “priority to federal funds” would operate, or assurance that University of Arizona would actually benefit,” they wrote.

“Without clarification, UA thus could be ceding authority over internal operations and academic policies for no enforceable or concrete new benefits,” they wrote, adding Trump administration officials could simply give the UA a preview of funding opportunities, but not actual funding. “There is no clear ‘quid’ for the requested, institution-altering ‘quo.'”

“Other compact terms are vague, overbroad, and potentially unconstitutional; some may not be easily squared with other laws and policies that already bind UA, including state laws,” they added.

Lars Fogelin, an associate professor of anthropology, said last week,
the UA has a “hard decision to make, we’re damned if we do, and damned if
we don’t. They’re going to take away money—in fact the Trump
administration already has—but if we say yes, it’s worse.”

In his email, Garimella gave a nod to the widespread criticism.

“Since receiving the draft, we have engaged in a robust consultation process with the Arizona Board of Regents, our faculty, staff, and students and shared governance groups, campus leadership, higher education associations, community members, alumni, and leaders in the state and federal governments, as well as from universities across the nation,” Garimella said. “Thank you to everyone who has provided constructive and detailed feedback. Your input helped inform our response.”

“Given the importance of the issues at stake, engagement is in the best interest of the university,” Garimella said, adding some of the strictures in the document “deserve thoughtful consideration as our national higher education system could benefit from reforms that have been much too slow to develop.”

“In fact, many of the proposed ideas are already in place,” at UA, Garimella wrote. “At the same time, principles like academic freedom, merit-based research funding, and institutional independence are foundational and must be preserved.

“We will continue to collaborate with other higher education institutions and associations, as well as with our community, Gov. Katie Hobbs, our state legislature, Congress, and the administration,” Garimella said. “Strengthening higher education and reaffirming the values that make the UA one of the country’s preeminent educational and research institutions requires that we all work together.”

‘Multiple positive benefits’

“Schools that show clear alignment and a strong readiness to champion this effort will be invited to the White House to finalize language and to be initial signatories,” said White House officials in the letter to Garimella, which was also sent to the leaders of the other eight universities.

“We are aiming to have a signed agreement by no later than November 21, 2025,” the White House said.

The letter signed by McMahon and other Trump administration officials told universities that signing the deal will “signal to students, parents, and contributors that learning and equality are university priorities.”

Further, the federal government would receive an “assurance that signatory schools are complying with civil rights law and pursuing Federal priorities with vigor.” 

In exchange, the agreement will “yield multiple positive benefits for the school, including allowance for increased overhead payments where feasible, substantial and meaningful federal grants, and other federal partnerships.”

The compact would require signatories to agree to a 10-point plan, including a series of demands that squishes together a litany of conservative bugbears about the nation’s universities.

Among the requirements is a ban on consideration of race, sex, ethnicity, political views, or sexual orientation for hiring and student admissions; policies that protect “conservative ideas”; a freeze of tuition for the next five years; require students to take standardized tests like the SAT and ACT; limit the number of international undergraduate students to 15 percent of students; a commitment to “institutional neutrality”; and agreeing to allow the Justice Department to enforce the agreement and financially-punish schools that fail to follow the agreement.

The document also requires university leaders to “certify” they are following the compact, and must poll students, faculty and staff to evaluate their adherence to the rules.

Under the terms announced by the White House, if Trump officials found any infraction by a university then it would be forced to pay back all federal funding, and offer to return private donations. 

The document allows religious institutions to maintain preferences in hiring and admissions, while “single-sex” institutions can keep sex-based preferences. And “any institution may maintain preferences in admissions for American citizens,” under the outlined agreement.

Universities are “free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forego federal benefits” according to the document.

‘Inflection point’

Garimella also sent a 4-page “Statement of Principles” to Education Secretary McMahon.

“Your letter, and the initiative it launches, identifies the need to redefine higher education’s relationship with the American public,” Garimella wrote. “Our nation is at an inflection point that requires us to take necessary actions to ensure that American higher education excellence is preserved, and indeed strengthened, for our rising generation of students and citizens.”

Garimella said the UA, with “strong concurrence and support” from ABOR, “share your vision of continuing to strengthen our higher education system for the betterment of the country – a vision rooted in a merit-based pursuit of excellence that directly or indirectly benefits all Americans.” 

Garimella told McMahon he’d been at the job for a year, and during that time, he reduced administrative spending by 22 percent, froze in-state tuition, set research priorities with “national and economic security needs” and affirmed a campus culture “rooted in civil discourse and willingness to engage all points of view.”

In his letter, Garimella’s argument relied on the idea of merit, writing the UA holds student success as its “North Star” as a defense against the Trump administration’s demands, while highlighting the presence of the Center for the Philosophy of Freedom on campus.

He also said the UA has sought to “curb administrative costs.” 

He wrote while the UA “values the rich contributions” from international students and faculty, the university also “recognizes potential risks” and will “continue to comply with applicable and lawful obligations and requirements of the federal government.”

“We have much common ground with the ideas your administration is
advancing on changes that would benefit American higher education and
our nation at large,” Garimella said. “At the same time, a federal
research funding system based on anything other than merit would weaken
the world’s preeminent engine for innovation, advancement of technology,
and solutions to many of our nation’s most profound challenges.”