In th latest iteration of culture contoversy between the Trump administration and academia — faculty across the University of Southern California responded with visible anger and deep concern after the administration was approached with a proposal from the Trump White House. That “proposal” would tie federal funding to sweeping policy changes on campus. At a virtual meeting attended by roughly 500 professors, department chairs, and researchers, the university’s Academic Senate heard a flood of objections and pleas that USC refuse to comply.
Many faculty described the proposed “compact” as a direct assault on academic freedom, arguing that it would force the university to adopt metrics and policies constructed by the White House rather than by scholars. They warned that accepting federal dollars in exchange for agreeing to ideological conditions—on admissions, gender identity definitions, and curricular oversight—would amount to adding political strings to educational autonomy. One professor called it a “Trojan horse,” while others said agreeing would betray the university’s mission and legacy.
During the meeting, interim President Beong-Soo Kim attended but declined to pledge support or opposition, stating that USC had not requested the compact and was studying it carefully, with “wide-ranging perspectives” to hear. Still, faculty leaders made clear they expected defense of free inquiry to remain nonnegotiable. They urged the administration to align with other universities rejecting the deal and to coordinate a collective rejection across higher education institutions.
Critics of the proposal have seized on the clauses that would restrict international student enrollment, impose a tuition freeze for five years, eliminate consideration of race or gender in admissions, and define gender in strictly binary terms. At USC, where a significant portion of undergraduates hail from other countries, those limits would reshape campus culture and cut funding tied to global scholarship programs. The proposal also demands universities eliminate or transform units that are deemed to “punish or belittle conservative ideas.” To many on campus, that language itself smacks of censorship.
The faculty backlash grew louder in the context of broader pressure. In Sacramento, Governor Gavin Newsom warned that if USC were to comply, it would instantly forfeit state funding, including Cal Grant scholarships. State leaders framed it as a fight for institutional sovereignty, saying California would not support universities that relinquish their academic integrity in exchange for federal favor. Newsom has called the compact a “code red” moment for public institutions, and his threat underscores the financial peril USC may face.
Observers note that USC is already under strain. The university faces a budget deficit of more than $200 million, and in recent months has imposed hiring freezes and budget cuts. For a campus dependent on federal research funding and student financial aid, the allure of favorable grant access could be tempting. But faculty warn the calculus is flawed: the cost to institutional independence would be irrevocable.
Some faculty drew historical comparisons, warning that universities have long served as safeguards of democracy, not as vessels for political agendas. They argued the compact would create a precedent: once one institution accepts these terms, others would be under increased pressure to follow, eroding the wall between scholarship and partisanship. They framed their opposition not as political resistance but as defense of the very idea of the university.
In public statements following the meeting, USC faculty groups circulated a petition demanding that university leadership reject the compact outright. More than 500 signatories—faculty, alumni, and students—pledged to stand in solidarity for academic freedom. Messages emphasized that the university must not choose expediency over principle.
As the university moves forward, its leadership faces a fraught decision: whether to sacrifice control over curricula, hiring, and governance in return for fiscal incentives. USC’s reputation, to many on campus, cannot be traded for dollars. The coming weeks will show whether this university chooses to protect its values or yield to political pressure.
