Cornell has reportedly been in settlement talks with the Trump administration this past summer to restore hundreds of millions in federal funding pulled since the spring, according to an August article by Bloomberg. Negotiations have now reportedly slowed, but a deal for Cornell to pay $100 million could still be in the works.
The University's reported negotiations follow earlier deals struck with the federal government by Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania and Brown University, as targeted schools grapple with mounting financial and political pressure to capitulate.
Cornell's “message on financial austerity” in June revealed the “profound financial challenges” the funding freezes have caused for the University, announcing intended staff and spending cuts. The University reiterated plans on Aug. 22 to “permanently reduce costs” through campus-wide workforce and budget reductions, with “phased implementation” beginning late this calendar year.
A University spokesperson, while not updating The Sun about the current status of negotiations between Cornell and the Trump administration, sent a statement highlighting how the University is “facing different types of disruptions in research funding.”
“Cornell has stepped in when possible to support faculty work and guarantee a measure of continuity for critical research,” the statement reads. “These up-front costs total in the tens of millions of dollars and represent Cornell’s commitment to sustaining critical research and honoring the terms of federal contracts.”
Amid the ongoing negotiations, The Sun analyzed the different settlement deals made with universities across the Ivy League and spoke to Cornell professors about what a potential agreement means for the future of academic and political freedom.
Comparing Settlement Deals
Columbia agreed to pay $221 million to the federal government in July, in addition to altering its hiring, admissions and teaching practices under the supervision of an external federal resolution monitor. These terms have been a “more intrusive [and] bigger compromise on university principles than anything we've seen so far,” according to Prof. James Grimmelmann, law.
Grimmelmann is critical of the idea of a possible $100 million settlement from Cornell, calling it “ransom” that could “encourage the extortionists running the federal government to take more hostages.” As several Ivy League institutions reached settlement deals this summer, the Trump administration has also moved to freeze funds for additional schools, including the University of California, Los Angeles and Duke University.
In a letter to the Brown University community following the school’s July 30 settlement, Brown President Christina Paxson wrote that, “The University's foremost priority throughout discussions with the government was remaining true to our academic mission [and] our core values ... this is reflected in key provisions of the resolution agreement preserving our academic independence.”
Although Brown paid $50 million as part of their settlement, it was allocated to Rhode Island workforce development organizations, rather than to the federal government directly. However, the university also agreed to Title IX and NCAA regulations that prohibit transgender athletes from competing in women's sports and limit access to gender affirming care.
Harvard was reportedly negotiating a deal similar to Brown’s this August. According to sources cited in the New York Times, the university would pay $500 million for regional vocational and educational development, “satisfy[ing] Harvard’s wish that it not pay the government directly, as Columbia is doing.” A Sep. 3 federal court ruling has held that Trump illegally froze Harvard’s funding. It remains unclear whether the university will see its funding fully restored.
After the University of Pennsylvania agreed to ban transgender athletes from competing on its women’s sports teams, the federal government closed a Title IX Department of Education investigation into its athletic policies and restored $175 million in federal funding.
Universities’ ‘Side Deals’
Prof. David Bateman, government, who is Cornell’s president of the American Association of University Professors, expressed frustration at what he sees as a lack of solidarity among targeted schools as individual universities settle in “side deals” with Trump.
“If they all agreed that they were going to fight this and pool their resources … they would be in a much stronger position than they are now,” Bateman said.
For Grimmelmann, each deal that is reached increases the pressure on peer institutions to capitulate as well.
“[A deal] shows other universities that they can be left alone, at least for now, if they pay up,” Grimmelmann said.
Ivy League schools have not always seen eye to eye in dealing with the Trump administration. Cornell and Columbia were the only Ivies not to join a June 9 amicus brief, signed by 18 peer institutions and all other Ivy League schools, which publicly supported Harvard’s lawsuit against the Trump administration. Bateman viewed their absence as a “clear sign” of Cornell and Columbia’s “willingness to negotiate” with the Trump administration.
Dartmouth President Sian Beilock came under fire as the only Ivy League president not to sign an April 22 letter publicly condemning the Trump administration for government overreach in higher education. Her silence and close talks with the administration, according to the New York Times, may have led Dartmouth to successfully dodge antisemitism complaints and targeted funding cuts.
What’s at Stake
Grimmelmann argued that the Trump administration is pursuing a broader trend of “anti-intellectualism” and “ideological opposition” with its targeting of universities.
Bateman said that the broader goal is to “subordinate universities and diminish their role in civil society,” showing a troublingly “authoritarian” approach to academic and speech freedoms.
“This was obviously coming,” Bateman said. “We were anticipating federal attacks on higher education, and it was laid out in Project 2025 and elsewhere.”
Settlement provisions such as reporting to an external federal monitor and Columbia’s adoption of the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism raise concerns for speech and academic freedoms, according to Prof. Risa Lieberwitz, industrial and labor relations, and Cornell AAUP member.
“Cornell should not agree to adopt that definition ... its examples undermine academic freedom to speak about, to research about [and] to teach about issues regarding criticisms of Israel or critiques of Israeli policies or Zionism,” Lieberwitz said.
The Legal Fight
Bateman argued that, beyond violating First Amendment free speech rights, Trump’s attacks bypassed Title VI procedures.
“At no point does [Title VI] allow the federal government to simply cut off money before any of the procedures are followed,” Bateman said.
Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin. Cornell faces at least two Title VI investigations, one in 2023 for alleged antisemitism and islamophobia, and another launched on March 14, which is investigating the several universities’ alleged connection with the Ph.D Project, which “purports to provide doctoral students with insights into obtaining a Ph.D. and networking opportunities, but limits eligibility based on the race of participants,” according to the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights.
In a May interview with the Sun, President Michael Kotlikoff said that the University was working to close the investigations and “satisfy [the] legitimate concerns of the government.”
Bateman pressed that educational policy formation is delegated to University faculty by Cornell’s charter and state law, meaning the federal government has no jurisdiction to alter it.
Additionally, Columbia Law professor David Pozen wrote in a blog post shared with The Sun that the university deals being struck intentionally occur beyond the sphere of legal norms.
“No established legal process was followed for the Columbia agreement; no genuine legal dispute was resolved,” Pozen wrote. “Regulation by deal” is Trump’s way of bypassing legal procedures centering academic and political freedom, according to Pozen.
Pozen also raised concerns over the efficacy of lawsuits launched by Harvard, Cornell and other universities against Trump and federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation. After a July 21 hearing for Harvard’s federal funding lawsuit, Trump wrote on Truth Social, “When [Judge Allison Burroughs] rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN.”
‘Not Worth the Paper It’s Written On’
Some professors doubted the longevity of the settlements now being reached with universities.
“There’s no guarantee that any deal you might strike is going to be worth the paper it’s written on, because it was a lawless extortion in the first place ... where only [the University is] legally bound,” Bateman said.
Trump’s March demands on Columbia, which were framed as a “precondition” for a “continued financial relationship” and were promptly accepted, did not immediately return any federal funding. Instead, Trump moved to threaten its accreditation on June 4. It was not until the July 23 settlement — which incorporated many of the March demands — that Trump restored Columbia’s $400 million in frozen federal funding.
Cornell itself has attempted to satisfy “legitimate concerns of the government” raised in Title VI and antisemitism investigations, Kotlikoff told The Sun.. These investigations were the main cause cited for Cornell’s federal funding cuts. The Office of the President’s webpage currently details initiatives for “Fighting Antisemitism and Protecting Civil Rights.”
Prof. Alyssa Apsel, electrical and computer engineering, believes that financial concessions are a tactic to put universities’ “skin in the game,” whereas for the Trump administration, “goal posts can move constantly” as they shift their demands.
“[A deal] does not prevent the Trump administration coming back, ... and it doesn’t mean that the Trump administration won’t freeze funds in the future,” Lieberwitz said.
‘Negotiated Upon in Secret’
Bateman expressed frustration that the University’s settlement process with the Trump administration lacks faculty input. He specifically asks for the Faculty Senate to be consulted, given its jurisdiction over educational policy.
Lieberwitz added that academic freedom “relies on our independence not just from the federal government, but also ... from the University administration, from the Board of Trustees and from donors.” According to Lieberwitz, donor pressure to restore financial footing has been a strong motive for universities to accept settlements with the Trump administration.
Bateman urged the University to resist capitulation. “The leadership of this university needs to know that the faculty stand behind them when they're fighting. ... We don't want the fight, but the federal government has brought the fight to us,” he said.
Iris Liang is a member of the class of 2028 in the College of Arts and Sciences. She is a Senior Writer and can be reached her at iliang@cornellsun.com.
