American universities are at a crossroads.

Their business model, which is overwhelmingly dependent on the twin pillars of federal grants and taxpayer-backed student loans, is failing in the face of declining public trust, financial malfeasance, a looming demographic cliff, and their publicly acknowledged discrimination, contrary to civil rights law.

The contract sent by the administration to a select few universities offers a reform offramp from barreling over the cliff: rein in escalating costs, primarily serve American students and follow the law.

They would be wise to take the olive branch, even as they mostly seem poised to reject it.

The first reason taking the Trump deal makes sense is simple: Universities are guilty as hell of the things the administration is accusing them of doing — illegally using racial preferences in admissions and hiring, as well as flouting Title IX and Title VI requirements that protect the opportunities of women in sports and religious minorities on campus, respectively.

They may be able to put up a temporary administrative fight and delay federal investigations. Still, the outcomes are ultimately not going to favor institutions that bragged about racial quotas, which have been illegal in hiring since 1964, publicly in 2020 in the name of “racial reckoning.” That public evidence (let alone what can be retrieved from their email servers during court battles) is why high-profile Ivies like Harvard and Columbia have already settled, and are looking to downsize departments in response to those large settlements, grant cuts and raised endowment taxes in the One Big, Beautiful Bill.

Some of the provisions of the Trump contract deal with enforcing these obligations universities already have under federal law, over which they can be sued and forced into compliance, as have Harvard and Columbia. Universities have a simple choice: affirmatively accept the provisions of this contract or wait their turn to be sued.

The other provisions of the Trump contract are eminently reasonable. For example, the administration asks universities to freeze runaway tuition for several years, cap foreign student enrollment at 15 percent, and provide those foreign students instruction on American civic values to help them conduct themselves appropriately while guests in the United States.

It demands that universities uphold their already existing obligation to respect the First Amendment and ensure that campuses are physically safe for conservative students and ideas to be debated.

In light of Charlie Kirk’s murder on university grounds in Utah, this provision should be updated to demand that universities pay for all necessary security for speakers invited to campus, rather than use security costs as a smokescreen for censorship and an assassin’s veto.

Some have argued that the compact is an incursion on academic freedom. A joint op-ed from liberal and conservative scholars in the Chronicle of Higher Education expresses concern about the autonomy of universities to maintain their truth-seeking mission, but this is laughable. Elite American universities are neither free-market entities unaccountable to the democratic process, nor does the idea that they’re currently engaged in “truth seeking” pass the smell test.

Instead, universities have used the massive investment from taxpayers to advance their gatekeeping position at the start of pipelines to the elite, while failing typical Americans with outrageous prices, far-left activism, and fewer slots for their children. The fact is that voters are now asserting that this formula isn’t remotely worth the investment. If this is the model universities want to keep, they can do it without billions in loans and grants from the federal government.

If, however, they want to keep their privileged position, one way or another, they will have to submit to reforms like those in Trump’s compact and offer a better deal to the American people who foot their bills. Their unaccountable age is at an end, and they would be smart to accept this olive branch and reform themselves before they are forced into it by lawsuits, budget cuts and popular opinion.

_____

ABOUT THE WRITER

Inez Stepman is a senior policy and legal analyst at Independent Women. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.

_____

©2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC