The University of California is once again caught in a high-stakes financial crossfire as President Donald Trump attempts to level up his influence on university operations — this time, by dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, controlling enrollment and tuition rates, and threatening increased restrictions on student activism disguised as a compact agreement. As Trump ups the ante, it is crucial that the UC does not submit to his demands.
On Oct. 1, the Trump administration released the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which offered preferential federal funding to universities that agreed to a list of terms that align with its political priorities. Initially, this compact was offered to a select group of nine public and private universities. Two weeks later, it was extended to all universities in the country.
In response, California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently issued a statement vowing to pull billions in state funding from any university who agrees to Trump’s compact. Across California, this will especially jeopardize Cal Grants, which provide state-funded financial aid to undergraduate and vocational students.
Stuck at a crossroads — where non-compliance risks losing federal funding but compliance risks losing state funding — UC San Diego and the UC system must make the choice to reject the federal compact for two key reasons: acceptance would reduce affordability and compromise UCSD’s guiding principles.
The compact includes 10 guidelines for universities, some of which include:
“Equality in Admissions”: Banning the consideration of race, gender, or national origin “explicitly or implicitly” in admissions and reinstating standardized tests for all admissions.
“Nondiscrimination in Faculty and Administration Hiring”: Similar to the first policy, but in the context of hiring.
“Financial Responsibility”: Freezing tuition rates for all American students for five years.
“Foreign Entanglements”: Capping international undergraduate enrollment at 15%.
“Enforcement”: Using “lawful force” and “swift, serious, and consistent sanctions” to handle “disruptive” campus protests.
Firstly, accepting the finance-related guidelines would be catastrophic. Newsom’s threat is not a bluff. The loss of billions in state funding — and crucially, the loss of Cal Grants — would be a direct and devastating financial blow to our student body, far outweighing the potential unspecified loss of federal dollars. It would fundamentally damage the accessibility and affordability of university for thousands of Californians.
With respect to the compact’s tuition freeze, Trump’s plan sounds like a win for students — but it would actually degrade the quality of our education. A hard freeze would strip the university of its primary tool for managing inflation and state budget cuts. This change would force universities to account for lost revenue by cutting academic programs, increasing class sizes, and slashing institutional aid that makes college affordable for low and middle-income students.
In combination with capping international enrollment at 15%, these two guidelines alone would be financially devastating for campuses like UCSD, where international students — who pay at least twice as much as in-state students — are a critical source of revenue that subsidizes programs for all students, especially those from low-income backgrounds.
Though out-of-state students’ tuition is also a potential source to level this loss, the top UCs — UCSD, UCLA, and UC Berkeley — agreed in 2021 to maintain an 18% maximum out-of-state student enrollment to make more room for in-state students until 2025. It is more than likely that this percentage will change. If so, the UC will be signaling a new potential prioritization of out-of-state students and a shift toward becoming more of a tuition-driven institution that values profit over students.
Secondly, the implications of agreeing to the compact contradict UCSD’s principles regarding DEI and student voices.
Banning “implicit” consideration of race or gender, mentioned in guidelines one and three, is a legal weapon aimed at dismantling all DEI programs, diverse-hire initiatives, and even application essays where students discuss their personal backgrounds. Similarly, reinstating standardized tests directly contradicts the UC’s landmark decision to remove SAT and ACT requirements — a policy implemented after years of research to improve equity. Both actions would no longer guarantee a holistic approach to admissions — polarizing the ideas, perspectives, and potential contributions of the student body.
Even worse, a federal mandate on the use of “lawful force” against protests, as specified in guideline 10, would strip the University of its autonomy to manage its own campus safety and student affairs — effectively deputizing university police to act on behalf of a federal political agenda. It indirectly endangers our freedom of speech and further minimizes student voices on political matters.
The University of Virginia and University of Texas at Austin have signaled they may accept the terms, sending an alarming message for the future of federal involvement in higher education. The UC system must refuse these terms to convey that the federal government cannot impose its agenda on higher education.
UCSD, as a public university, should have the autonomy — free from federal meddling — to set its own admissions policies, support a diverse student body, and manage its own campus. The UC system must reject the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” to maintain our intellectual freedom — setting a monumental precedent for other universities across the country.
