In a controversial move that could reshape higher education in the United States, the Trump administration has reportedly asked several top universities to agree to a strict set of rules in exchange for preferential access to federal funding. The policy, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, outlines sweeping changes to admissions, hiring, tuition policies, and even the makeup of student bodies.
According to the report, nine prestigious universities—including Vanderbilt University, Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, MIT, the University of Texas, the University of Arizona, Brown University, and the University of Virginia—received a 10-point memorandum from the administration. The memo spells out specific requirements these schools must follow if they wish to secure enhanced federal support.
Key Proposals in the Trump Administration’s 10-Point Memo
The list of conditions presented to the colleges covers areas ranging from admissions standards to international enrollment limits. Here are the most notable points:
- Ban on Race or Gender Consideration in Admissions and Hiring: Colleges would be prohibited from factoring in race or sex when admitting students or hiring faculty. This proposal directly challenges diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives that have become central to many universities’ missions.
- Tuition Freeze for Five Years: Universities would be required to hold tuition at current levels for at least five years. While this could provide relief for students and families burdened by rising education costs, critics warn it might strain university budgets and limit financial flexibility.
- Cap on International Enrollment: The administration proposes capping international undergraduate enrollment at 15%. This move would significantly reduce the number of foreign students—many of whom pay full tuition—that universities rely on for revenue.
- Mandatory Standardized Testing: Applicants would need to take the SAT or an equivalent standardized test, rolling back the growing “test-optional” movement that many colleges embraced during and after the pandemic.
- Measures to Address Grade Inflation: Universities would have to demonstrate efforts to curb grade inflation, a trend critics say devalues academic achievement.
According to the memo, institutions that agree to these conditions would receive “multiple positive benefits,” including access to what it described as “substantial and meaningful federal grants.”
The Bigger Picture: Federal Funding and Political Pressure
Since the beginning of his term, former President Donald Trump has frequently clashed with higher education institutions. He has threatened to cut federal funding for universities over issues such as pro-Palestinian protests during the Gaza conflict, policies supporting transgender students, climate action initiatives, and diversity programs.
By tying federal grants to political and cultural priorities, critics argue the administration is undermining academic freedom. Rights advocates warn that these directives could amount to political interference in university governance and compromise the independence of institutions that have long served as incubators of diverse thought and free expression.
The memo’s release comes at a time when debates around higher education are intensifying nationwide. Universities are under scrutiny for rising tuition costs, admission practices, free speech controversies, and their handling of hot-button political issues. Against this backdrop, the administration’s demands appear designed to push universities into closer alignment with Republican political goals.
Reaction from Rights Advocates and Education Leaders
The reaction to these proposals has been swift. Free speech advocates and education leaders have voiced concerns that the administration is attempting to use federal funding as leverage to impose an ideological agenda.
Critics argue that banning consideration of race and gender in admissions would roll back decades of progress in building diverse and inclusive campuses. Affirmative action and DEI programs have been critical for opening doors to underrepresented groups, and many fear that such restrictions would reverse those gains.
Others warn that capping international student enrollment could harm the U.S. higher education system’s global reputation. International students not only contribute financially through tuition and living expenses but also bring valuable perspectives that enrich academic and cultural life on campus.
On the tuition freeze, while families might welcome relief from the rising costs of college education, university administrators caution that such a freeze would limit their ability to respond to inflation, invest in research, or improve facilities. Without the ability to adjust tuition, many institutions could face financial strain, particularly those that already operate on tight margins.
The Standardized Testing Debate
Another contentious issue is the push to reinstate mandatory standardized testing. Over the past decade, hundreds of universities have adopted test-optional policies, arguing that standardized tests often disadvantage students from lower-income and marginalized backgrounds. Critics of the Trump administration’s plan say that forcing colleges to require SAT scores could worsen inequalities in access to higher education.
Supporters, however, argue that standardized tests provide a consistent measure of academic ability and can help ensure fairness in admissions. The move highlights the ongoing debate about how best to evaluate student potential and readiness for college.
What’s Next for the Targeted Universities?
The nine universities that received the memo are being asked to provide both feedback and agreement. While the administration hopes these schools will view the requests as “reasonable,” it remains unclear how many—if any—will comply.
Universities must weigh the potential financial benefits against the risk of compromising their institutional values and autonomy. Given the reputations of the schools involved, resistance is likely. However, smaller institutions with fewer resources may feel greater pressure to accept such terms if similar policies are extended beyond the initial group.
Potential Impact on the Future of Higher Education
If these proposals were to be widely adopted, they could have profound and lasting effects on U.S. higher education:
- Reduced Diversity: Eliminating consideration of race and gender in admissions and hiring could drastically change the demographic makeup of campuses.
- Financial Strains: A tuition freeze and international student cap would impact universities’ financial health, potentially reducing their ability to fund research and student services.
- Increased Political Oversight: Accepting these conditions could set a precedent for future administrations to impose politically motivated requirements on academic institutions.
- Global Competitiveness: Restrictions on international students could diminish the global standing of U.S. universities, many of which rely on their international reputation to attract top talent.
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s push to tie federal funding to sweeping new rules for universities has sparked a heated debate about academic freedom, diversity, and the future of higher education in America. While the proposals promise increased financial support, they also come with conditions that many see as an overreach of political influence.
As the targeted universities consider their response, the broader higher education community—and indeed, the nation—will be watching closely. The outcome could determine not only the direction of federal higher education policy but also the values that shape American universities for years to come.
