- “If any California university signs this radical agreement, they’ll lose billions in state funding – including Cal Grants – instantly. California will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers, and surrender academic freedom.” – Governor Gavin Newsom
By Vanguard Staff
SACRAMENTO — Governor Gavin Newsom escalated California’s defiance of the Trump administration’s higher education agenda Thursday, warning that any California university that signs the proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” would immediately lose state funding.
In his statement, Newsom said, “If any California university signs this radical agreement, they’ll lose billions in state funding — including Cal Grants — instantly. California will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers, and surrender academic freedom.”
The compact, sent to nine public and private universities nationwide, including the University of Southern California, ties access to federal funding to sweeping conservative policy conditions.
According to an Associated Press report, the compact demands that universities adopt government definitions of gender, ban consideration of race or sex in admissions and hiring, freeze tuition for U.S. students, cap international student enrollment, and exert greater control over campus speech and endowments.
USC is the only California institution that received the compact letter. In response, the university said it is “reviewing the administration’s letter.”
Newsom’s threat places USC and other campuses in the crossfire of competing funding pressures: comply with federal demands or face loss of state backing.
State financial data indicates USC received $28.4 million in Cal Grant funds for fiscal year 2024-25, benefitting 3,198 students, according to the California Student Aid Commission. Across all independent institutions in California, total Cal Grant disbursements reached $227 million in the same period, while public university systems and community colleges collectively received $2.2 billion.
Newsom’s statement follows a pattern of resistance against the Trump administration’s education policy pressure.
In August, he publicly backed the University of California system in response to a proposed $1.2 billion federal fine for UCLA over alleged civil rights violations, calling for legal action and rejecting any capitulation.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson criticized Newsom’s stance in a statement, saying the governor should “worry about the disaster he’s created in his own state” and adding, “By opposing the compact, Newscum is opposing efforts to cap wild tuition hikes and to protect free speech.”
As the showdown intensifies, the compact is being viewed by many observers as a coercive attempt to remake university governance and academic norms. USC deans and faculty have expressed alarm at the proposal’s implications for intellectual autonomy.
Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, who chairs the Assembly Education Committee, added that no self-respecting university should “live down a reputation of selling out their principles of academic freedom and free speech” for federal inducements.
Even staunch advocates of higher education reform have warned against the compact. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, called it “a Faustian bargain” that undermines institutional autonomy.
As the November decision deadline approaches, California’s universities face mounting pressure to pick between divergent allegiances to state funding or federal incentives.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Here’s what I found about the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”
It doesn’t look all that radical to me.
The document, part of a response to universities’ failure to fight antisemitism, includes ten provisions:
1. Maintain “equality in admissions,” with no preference for race, gender, or other categories of identity
2. Maintain a “marketplace of ideas” and “civil discourse” that reflects a variety of viewpoints and protects freedom of speech
3. Nondiscrimination in hiring of faculty and administrative staff
4. Institutional neutrality on political and social issues, except those that affect the university itself
5. Integrity in student grading systems, to fight grade inflation
6. Equal treatment for students, including recognition that there are only two biological sexes, and protecting women’s locker rooms and sports
7. Financial responsibility, which includes avoiding costs that burden students with debt, providing financial advice about potential majors, and using endowments to help students in “hard sciences”
8. Avoiding “foreign entanglements” by scrutinizing foreign donations and vetting foreign students to exclude those with “with noxious values such as anti-Semitism and other anti-American values”
9. Maintaining preferences for American students, and allowing religious institutions to use sex-based preferences
10. Agreeing to enforcement by an external monitor who reports to the Department of Justice
California Governor Gavin Newsom has a history of using state funding as leverage to influence policy at public colleges and universities. Has Newsom been considered as acting authoritarian for doing so?
So it’s okay for Newsom to put demands on college policies in order to get state funding but not okay for Trump to do the same in order to get federal funding?
Do you support both?
You can’t complain now about Trump putting provisions on federal funding if you didn’t complain about Newsom doing the same in the past. That’s so hypocritical.
Do you support both policies?
Did the Vanguard have an article complaining about Newsom putting ties in order to get funding in the past?
Do you support both policies?
If you’re okay with Newsom doing it then why complain about Trump doing the same?
You can’t answer my question?
I asked first, I repeat the question:
So it’s okay for Newsom to put demands on college policies in order to get state funding but not okay for Trump to do the same in order to get federal funding?
1. This was not an opinion piece
2. This was not written by me
3. You never asked my opinion on it, you just assumed things.
4. Your assumption about my opinion is wrong.
Okay, give me your opinion.
Answer my question first