A group of Big Ten universities is moving toward a formal alliance aimed at resisting Trump-era policies they claim threaten academic freedom—but critics say it’s just another partisan stunt disguised as “free speech.”
Key Facts:
- Rutgers University’s Senate passed a resolution to create a “Mutual Defense Compact” among Big Ten universities.
- The resolution passed recently and is being circulated to other Big Ten schools.
- It claims Trump-era policies threaten academic freedom, institutional autonomy, and free speech.
- Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway was urged to lead the initiative. Dr. Kevin Jon Williams, a Temple University professor, criticized it harshly.
- Trump revoked $400M in federal funds from Columbia and cracked down on DEI programs and race-based admissions.
The Rest of the Story: How Big Ten Schools Are Uniting Against Trump-Era Policies
The Resolution to Establish a Mutual Defense Compact was introduced at Rutgers University and is gaining traction among members of the Big Ten Academic Alliance.
The compact aims to pool legal and policy resources among member schools in opposition to what it describes as politically motivated federal actions—particularly those attributed to the Trump administration.
The resolution criticizes actions such as cuts to university funding, scrutiny of DEI programs, and limitations on campus speech and academic freedom.
It calls for a summit of legal and academic leaders across the Big Ten to develop shared strategies for legal defense.
So far, it’s unclear how many universities will formally adopt the compact or contribute financially.
This move follows recent actions by the Trump administration, including defunding Columbia University and launching investigations into 50 colleges over racial discrimination and antisemitism.
A key focus of the administration has been dismantling DEI efforts and reducing the Department of Education’s influence, while preserving core functions like Pell grants and student loan programs.
Commentary: The Hypocrisy of the Anti-Trump Mutual Defense Compact
It’s beyond belief that universities claiming to defend “free speech” are the same institutions that spent years silencing conservative voices.
These elite schools banned right-leaning speakers, punished students for minor offenses, and rescinded acceptances over trivial past behavior.
Now they claim to be guardians of academic freedom?
This so-called defense compact is not about defending free speech—it’s about defending the progressive monopoly on campus culture.
These universities, many of which rely on taxpayer dollars, are forming what amounts to an anti-Trump mutual defense compact under the guise of protecting education.
They are reacting to Trump’s attempts to bring fairness and accountability to higher education.
Cutting DEI bloat and investigating antisemitism aren’t assaults on education—they’re necessary corrections.
Yet these schools portray themselves as victims, while continuing to allow hostility toward conservative and Jewish students.
Dr. Williams said it well: these aren’t just hypocrites—they’re liars.
They are masking their political agenda as a civil liberties crusade.
And if they’re going to be partisan actors, then their taxpayer-funded, tax-exempt status needs to be questioned.
The fact that this resolution is being passed around the Big Ten—one of the most prestigious academic alliances in the country—shows just how far left the academic establishment has drifted.
This isn’t about protecting education.
It’s about protecting power.
The Bottom Line: Why This Matters for America’s Universities
The Big Ten compact shows how deeply politicized higher education has become.
Elite schools are openly resisting reforms aimed at curbing leftist orthodoxy, all while enjoying billions in federal funding.
Taxpayers deserve transparency—and accountability.
Read Next
– CBP Reveals How Much In Tariffs Its Been Collecting Each Day, So Far
– Another State Set to Approve Over the Counter Ivermectin
– Federal Appeals Court Decides if DOGE Can Access Sensitive Government Data
– Trump Reveals His Conditions For a China Trade Deal: Fix This $1 Trillion Problem First