Universities' Continuous Battle with the Trump Administration

credits: Brown Daily Harold

This article is a direct follow-up of my previous post, "Harvard vs Trump", which delves into the background and core details of the court disagreements between the elite university and the Trump Administration. The objective is to resume where the last article finished and reveal the court's decision, the possible effects on Universities and the Federal Government, what has happened since.

Decision on Funding Freeze

On September 3rd, 2025, Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled in favor of Harvard

credits: New York Post

University, citing the almost 2 Billion dollar funding freeze to be amounted to “retaliation, unconstitutional conditions, and unconstitutional coercion” To Harvard, the freezing of funds was violation of their first amendment rights and life threatening due to the level of funding taken from medical research, and they were pleased when the case’s decision ordered the federal government to return funds to the university.

Within Judge Burrough’s opinion, she claims that the Trump administration used the current uptick in antisemitism on college campuses as a “smokescreen” to hide an ideological movement on the United States’ elite universities. She goes as far as to classify the actions of the administration have jeopardized the lives of the hundreds who will one day rely on the research being conducted currently at top tier universities, the frozen funds set back a majority of the studies conducted. 

International Students

The administration's attempts to impose limits on the number of possible international students accepted to the university was barred, also by Judge Burrough. She granted the

credits: Harvard Magazine

university’s request for a preliminary injunction, on June 23rd, 2025. She claims the actions of the administration raised serious concerns regarding constitutionality and legality. She says that this case safeguards essential pillars of freedom which protect the country from an authoritarian future. 

For this particular issue, the battle is ongoing, however, because of the blocks placed by federal judges like Judge Burrough, there is currently no ban in effect.

Spreading to New Universities

The White House sent a letter to 9 more universities on October 1st, requesting they sign documents agreeing to follow the administration’s standard for higher education with the

credits: reason magazine

loss of preferential access to federal funding as a potential consequence of not signing. The 9 schools include, University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), University of Southern California (USC), University of Texas, University of Virginia (UVA), and Vanderbilt University. 

The agreement states, “Institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forego federal benefits," and universities or colleges which agree will receive allowance for “increased overhead payments with feasible, substantial and meaningful federal grants, and other federal partnerships.” The point in this letter, where a majority of university students and faculty hold reservations, are the restrictions of the free expressions of students. This includes the capability to speak against policy and to share individual political opinions.

The letter is signed by the White House’s Domestic Policy Council Director, Vince 

credits: NYT

Haley, and the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon; responses are expected by Monday, October 20th. It is announced that once the government receives feedback, the colleges which show an acceptance of these conditions will be invited to the White House to discuss exact language in the agreement. Currently, the administration’s goal is said to have a fully signed agreement by November 21st 2025.

Current Responses

On Friday, October 10th, MIT became the first school to reject the letter, and its promises of funding in exchange for university wide policy changes. The president of MIT, Sally Kornbluth, claims that the offer by the Trump administration, "is inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.”

President Kornbluth shared her letter to the White House publicly claiming that MIT was already in line with a multitude of the letter's stipulation. The preposed agreement would

credits: MIT department of Biology

require the return of requiring test scores, like ACT and SAT, for admission. MIT reinstated required test scores in 2022 after Covid-19. Additionally, the letter dictates a policy where only 15% of a university's enrollment could be international, currently MIT caps their international enrollment at 10%. Finally, the compact focuses on the affordability of university, requiring the schools with large endowments to offer free tuition for students studying the "hard sciences", unless from well-off families. President Kornbluth responded by saying that MIT tuition is free for families earning less than $200,000, with 94% of students graduation from the university holding a degree in a STEM field. She finishes by claiming that the reason MIT has refused to sign the letter is due to restrictions of free expression, which she states is a core value of the university.

The other eight universities have not published their full response to the letter like MIT, but some have made comments. University of Texas has claimed to be honored as a recipient of the letter, claiming they are excited to review the letter's contents. Similarly, University of Arizona claims that the letter is an opportunity for dialogue with the Administration. USC has confirmed they have received the letter and is currently under review. Brown University has confirmed they have received it, but the students in The Brown Daily Harold are strongly urging their university to reject the letter. The other universities, UPenn, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, and UVA, have either claimed to be reviewing it, or refused to comment.

Roles and Responsibilities

If, and when, the government continues to deliver letters to universities around the country, we, the people, can only expect continuous push and pull between the power held by individual universities, the White House, and the Judicial branch. If your university is approached by the government, I encourage you to engage and advocate for what you believe to be the best option for your education. Student voices are only as loud as we make them.