New Call to Action Seeks Alignment Between Institutions and Department of Education Priorities

On August 3, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon issued a National Call to Action to University Presidents and Governing Boards (Call to Action), requesting that institutions of higher education (IHEs) align with the Administration's higher education agenda. In her letter, Secretary McMahon "call[s] on every postsecondary institution to describe to the American public [its] commitments to rigorous teaching, pathbreaking research, and national service." The US Department of Education held a "National Call to Action Briefing" (Briefing) on August 19, during which it clarified the purpose of the Call to Action and provided guidance regarding institutional responses and potential implications of nonparticipation, and addressed each of the seven prompts in greater detail.

This client alert summarizes the Call to Action, how it compares to the Department's October 2025 Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education (Compact), and potential next steps for IHEs, including an assessment of 1) whether to participate in this open dialogue with the Department; 2) how they would respond to each of the posed questions; and 3) any potential legal, reputational, and relationship implications for declining to participate.

The Department's Call to Action

The Call to Action asks IHEs to publicly address seven broad questions that reflect several of the Department's higher education priorities. The letter requests that institutions respond to each of the following questions (quoted directly from the Call to Action below) and publicly share their responses in a "prominent location" on their institutional websites "before the end of 2026":

• Transparency and Merit in Admissions: How will your institution ensure that admissions criteria are transparent and wholly described to prospective applicants? And how will your institution ensure admissions decisions are based on merit, achievement, and your university's educational purpose?
• Free Speech and Open Inquiry: How will your institution protect the free exchange of ideas, wide-ranging debate, and open-minded campus discourse? And how will you guarantee that unruly and violent protestors do not harass students or disrupt classes, research, public lectures, and campus operations?
• Intellectual Pluralism and Academic Vitality: How will your institution encourage intellectual pluralism in all its academic units? How will your faculty hiring and evaluation practices support academic vitality and ensure that all relevant perspectives are taken seriously? And how will your school ensure the research enterprise is dedicated to advancing knowledge, deepening understanding, and serving the American people who fund it?
• Affordability, Value, and Student Outcomes: How will your institution ensure that families can access affordable, high-return, degrees? What can your school do to contain costs, improve pricing transparency, and ensure that every academic program equips students to repay their loans?
• Academic Standards and Rigor in the Age of AI: How will your institution incentivize rigor in the age of AI, combat grade inflation, and prioritize excellence in teaching and learning?
• Safeguarding Research Integrity from Advance Malign Foreign Influence: How will your school protect academic programs from foreign influence, and safeguard the integrity of the research enterprise?
• Prioritizing American Interests: How will your institution answer this national call to action? How can your campus and faculty advance American security interests, deliver academic programs that meet urgent workforce needs, and contribute materially to the Nation's prosperity?

As examples of institutional efforts to address several of the issues identified in her letter, Secretary McMahon references two recent reports, one from Yale University and one from a group of scholars charged by the presidents of Vanderbilt University and Washington University in St. Louis to look into the state of scholarship in the humanities and humanistic social sciences. The letter invites all IHEs to participate and respond to these prompts, acknowledging that "there is no single template for academic excellence" and that "a variety of institutional types, each with distinct missions and priorities, [will] issue landmark declarations of purpose that will revitalize higher education."

The Department stated in its August 19 Briefing that "there are no direct penalties or awards attached" to participation in the Call to Action, which is not a binding agreement and does not include any formal or informal consequences. It is further reported that multiple professional organizations and institutions (including the Association of American Universities, Arizona State University and Washington University in St. Louis, none of whom signed the October 25 Compact) consulted in the development of this letter, an approach that differs from the development of the Compact and which may foreshadow increased institutional support.

Previous Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education

This effort by the Department to advance its higher education initiatives largely mirrors the October 1, 2025 Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, in which the Department incentivized IHEs to agree to its Compact in return for increased grant opportunities and other departmental benefits. As stated in our Steptoe alert on this topic, the White House sent letters to nine universities with the Compact attached, promising preferential federal funding to institutions that sign on to the Compact. Secretary McMahon, White House official May Mailman, and Director of the Domestic Policy Council Vincent Haley authored the Compact, which promised "multiple positive benefits" to institutions that signed the Compact, including "substantial and meaningful federal grants" and "increased overhead payments where feasible."

The Compact contained a multitude of requirements grouped together in eight categories that reflect the administration's reform agenda for higher education: Equality in Admissions, Marketplace of Ideas & Civil Discourse, Nondiscrimination in Faculty and Administrative Hiring, Institutional Neutrality, Student Learning, Student Equality, Financial Responsibility, and Foreign Entanglements.

The Compact was mostly ignored by the nine universities that were initial recipients, and later by the higher education sector at large (with limited exceptions) once the Compact was extended to the full sector.

In contrast to the Compact, which was centered on a binding agreement between the Department and IHEs, this recent effort outlined in the Call to Action purports to be a less transactional approach to engaging with the Department. Under the language of the Call to Action, IHEs are not offered any tangible benefits should they agree to comply with the Compact's terms. The Call to Action, rather than seeking agreement on certain IHE policies and practices, seeks the disclosure of current practices. As such, an IHE's non-compliance with any of its disclosed practices would not violate any Compact it has entered into with the government. Rather, IHEs participating in the Call to Action receive no express benefit in return (other than perhaps goodwill with the administration) and could in fact open themselves up to enforcement action or private litigation based on allegations that their disclosures are false or misleading.

Next Steps for Institutions 

IHEs should carefully assess the potential legal, operational, and reputational implications of the Call to Action and consider the following recommended steps:

• Determine an institutional response strategy. IHEs should determine whether they will submit and publicly post a response, and, if so, whether they will address each question separately, issue a broader statement of institutional principles, or identify existing policies and initiatives responsive to the Department's requests. As some of these topics may not be relevant to every type of institution, IHEs should consider whether and how to explain that a particular question is inapplicable or less relevant to their mission, programs, or student population.
• Inventory existing policies and practices. IHEs should assess current policies, procedures, and initiatives relating to admissions, campus speech and protest activity, faculty hiring and evaluation, academic standards, use of artificial intelligence, affordability and student outcomes, research security, and workforce development. This assessment may identify existing efforts that could be described in a public response, as well as areas in which further review may be appropriate.
• Evaluate communications and stakeholder considerations. Because the Department requests that institutions publicly post their responses, IHEs should consider how faculty, students, alumni, donors, employees, governing boards, and other stakeholders may interpret any statement. IHEs may also wish to develop internal and external communications plans before publishing a response.
• Monitor participation from other institutions. IHEs should monitor whether and how peer institutions respond to the Call to Action, including the substance and format of any public responses, to inform their own decision-making and communications strategy. The Department indicated in its August 19 Briefing that several IHEs have already responded, allowing IHEs to review early submissions before making a final determination. Delay until after the midterm elections may have additional advantages, as a change to the majorities in the House and/or Senate may result in a modification of the Department's Call to Action. 

Even though there is no explicit requirement to participate in the Call to Action, recent actions by the Trump Administration suggest that IHEs should consider potential implications for nonparticipation. The Department indicated in its Briefing that the Call to Action "is not attached to any kind of funding carrot or funding stick," but emphasized that "this does not mean that we will cease to hold institutions accountable in other ways." The Department further stated during the Briefing that it believes IHEs that refuse to engage with the Call to Action will be viewed as "recommitting to a broken status quo."

Last year, the Administration cancelled billions of dollars in federal funding for IHEs and institutions may wish to avoid isolating themselves.¹  If the Department takes a stronger position against nonparticipating IHEs, it could lead to investigations, loss of grant opportunities, or other adverse measures. The Department has taken an assertive approach towards those IHEs which have taken positions it views as inconsistent with its higher education agenda, as reflected in recent settlements with several universities.²  On the other hand, the Department may be taking a different approach and will simply provide additional benefits or favorable treatment to participating IHEs. These considerations must, however, be weighed against the potential for enforcement action and private litigation arising from allegations that such disclosures are false or misleading.

Steptoe will continue to monitor any additional developments related to the Call to Action, including additional guidance or public statements. Our attorneys remain available to counsel IHEs throughout this process and to develop a comprehensive action plan that includes engagement with a range of institutional stakeholders. We are additionally able to assist in evaluating the associated legal, governance, operational, and communications considerations.

¹ See Steptoe LLP, Universities Face Full Funding Freezes Amid Trump Administration Demands (Apr. 25, 2025)

² See Steptoe LLP, A New Federal Playbook for Higher Education Oversight (Aug. 7, 2025); Steptoe LLP, Higher Education – Year in Review for 2025 (Mar. 2026)