In recent months, elite American universities have been forced into highly publicized and contentious negotiations with the White House on topics from federal research funding to free speech. As a result, we have entered an era where universities like Brown are morphing into the government’s ideological adversaries.
As a part of the most recent standoff, Brown is fighting against the Deterrent Act, which would lower the mandatory reporting threshold for foreign donations. When the Trump administration accuses universities, including Brown, of failing to report hundreds of millions of dollars of accepted foreign gifts, universities are forced into a position of political scrutiny. While Brown’s decision last month to reject the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” was justly described by the editorial page board as being in the interest of the University and the United States, the decision to bat away the government’s call to report foreign donations feels deceitful and motivated by public virtue-signaling.
In order to avoid self-actualizing our corruption, as Vice President JD Vance puts it, Brown should heed Congress’s call and support the Deterrent Act. Sometimes, you have to lose the battle to win the war.
In broad swaths, the act — proposed by House Republicans in 2023 and again in 2025 — would require universities to annually disclose to the U.S. Department of Education any gifts or contracts they receive from a foreign donor over $50,000, and additionally report any gifts they receive from “foreign countries of concern,” such as China and Russia. The act would also increase government oversight of universities by requiring institutions to obtain a government waiver to enter a contract with a foreign entity of concern. The act threatens harsh penalties that include pulling federal student financial aid from universities that don’t cooperate.
While it is certainly necessary to criticize parts of the act, immediately dismissing it because of its party affiliations negates the important issues it raises regarding funding transparency and large private donations. If Brown values institutional integrity, then we must be able to trace and track donations being gifted to the University. If we continue to accept these gifts without giving a second thought to how donations are associated with the political and social interests of the donors, then we risk feeding into the far right characterization of universities being overly welcoming to the interests of foreign entities and anti-American ideals.
In the last five years alone, Brown has accumulated about $146 million in foreign gifts and $39 million in foreign contracts. Refusing to publicize where donations are coming from, even if they are under $250,000, creates a shrouded system of mysterious funding that resembles the increasing influence of “dark money” — campaign funding from undisclosed sources in American politics. If anonymous funds are shady in democratic elections, then undisclosed funding should be equally as alarming in higher education.
After many months of strong pushback against the Trump administration’s overreaching and anti-intellectual demands from the University, Brown’s insufficient response to the government’s calls for increased funding transparency falls flat. When Brown opposes the Deterrent Act, it doesn’t feel like another move to fight off unfair and undemocratic Republican smear campaigns — it feels like an admission of guilt.
It is certainly hard to be anything other than critical of Republicans’ threats to international students and diversity, equity and inclusion, and the recently proposed compact. But, if we want to remain an institution that values a broad range of perspectives and avoids becoming the cliche of “wokeness” that MAGA accuses us of embodying, then we cannot outright dismiss the core weaknesses that the Deterrent Act seeks to address.
If Brown could support an amendment to this act — one that could shake off the threats to cut student aid and mandate government waivers — then it may be in the best interest of the Brown community to stop being on the constant defensive from the Trump administration, and show that the university is willing to take its seat at the table.
Trump claims to appreciate tactful deal-making. It might just be worth it for Brown to test that out.
Clara Murray ’29 can be reached at clara_murray@brown.edu. Please send responses to this op-ed to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
