TL;DR

• Columbia and the federal government reached a formal agreement that restores up to $1.2B in frozen funds, reinstates eligibility for future grants, and includes a $200M fine, oversight measures, and legal immunity for past violations. It reflects many reforms Stand Columbia has long championed.
• The agreement contains provisions on governance, viewpoint diversity, and transparency. More importantly, the agreement preserves academic autonomy and governance independence, in sharp contrast to more intrusive federal proposals at other universities.
• Critics are right to worry about follow-through, but dismissing the deal entirely undermines reformers inside Columbia who took real risks. Progress deserves both recognition and accountability.
• To track implementation, the Stand Columbia Society is launching a public Scorecard to monitor core recommendations. The goal is ensure promises become practice and Columbia doesn’t lose its restored funding or its way.

Today, Columbia University and the federal government announced a deal. You can read details of it here.

The Stand Columbia Society believes this agreement represents an excellent outcome that restores research funding, facilitates real structural reforms, and preserves core principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy.

It delivered much of what the Stand Columbia Society has been advocating for since last summer, and which took on renewed urgency since the election. We have been steadfast and consistent on what is the right thing to do, and today, both Columbia’s leaders and the federal government deserve credit for achieving this result.

At the same time, because funding resumes immediately while implementation will unfold over time, it is essential that Columbia be held to its commitments to deliver concrete, measurable, externally observable, and irreversible progress over the long term.

Anatomy of a “deal”

As we discussed last week, when most people hear “deal”, they picture a document signed at the finish line. We take a different view. We view the deal as a process, not a discrete event, which spans the full arc of reforms undertaken over the past several months, whether driven by federal pressure or by Columbia’s own institutional judgment. What matters is not just the signatures on the final page, but the substance of change already underway.

Some of the most consequential reforms—such as those in campus safety, governance, and discipline—were already in place before the final agreement. They appeared in the formal text as “confirmations”, but they are inseparable from the resolution.

Consider the hiring and training of 36 new Public Safety officers with arrest powers. This step began long before any federal pressure. It wasn’t a preemptive concession. It was a calculated move to mitigate risk, assert control, and meet a rising standard of accountability. Reforms like this are central, not ancillary, and they deserve to be recognized as integral components of the deal.

What was in the deal

With that explained, let’s talk about specific provisions of what was announced:

• Funding. Terminated grants and frozen non-terminated grants have been restored and money will soon begin flowing again. Although initially reported as $400 million, other reports have put the impact at $1.2 billion. As an aside, this means our November 10, 2024 prediction of $1.296 billion of “short-term (possible)” risk was on the mark. Furthermore, Columbia is again “eligible for further grants, contracts, and awards in the ordinary course, without disfavored treatment.”
• Fine. Columbia will pay a $221 million fine, $200 million to the federal government, and $21 million to a settlement fund earmarked for individuals. This was an odd development, as no one asked for compensation (at least publicly), and those that sued settled for policy changes rather than money. We would have preferred that the money be used to endow chairs for faculty of diverse viewpoints or to reinvest in national interest, such as scholarships for veterans or funding for national defense R&D.
• Closure of investigations and grant of immunity. Pending government investigations against Columbia are closed. The agreement also releases Columbia from civil liability on across Title VI, Title VII, Title IX, ADA, ACA 1557, and the False Claims Act. This is a significant legal shield that removes a potential risk overhang that could put a damper on hiring and retention. Furthermore, the agreement specifically rules out private rights of action, thereby limiting what third parties can do.
• DEI rollback. Columbia “shall not maintain programs that promote unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes, quotas, diversity targets, or similar efforts” in admissions, hiring, or promotions.
• Student life. Columbia will sponsor programming to ensure its students are “committed to the longstanding traditions of American universities, including civil discourse, free inquiry, open debate, and the fundamental values of equality and respect.” Columbia will also hire an antisemitism student liaison reporting to the head of University Life.
• Title IX. Columbia will provide safe and fair opportunities for women including single-sex housing for women who request it, and all-female sports, locker rooms, and showering facilities.
• National security. Columbia must report directly to the federal government disciplinary information for international students, and sources of foreign funding. It will also implement anti-money laundering protocols.
• Admissions reform. First, Columbia will not implement any proxy (including personal statements) to “unlawfully preference applicants based on race, color, or national origin” in admissions. Second, Columbia will report anonymized admissions data to the monitor and to the public. Third, international students will be asked “questions designed to elicit their reasons for wishing to study in the United States.” Fourth, Columbia will “examine its business model and take steps to decrease financial dependence on international student enrollment.”
• Reporting obligations. The agreement creates specific reporting obligations, including public-facing reports on its compliance and on admissions, full audit access for the resolution monitor, and specific streams to the U.S. government that cross into the realm of national security risks.
• Resolution Monitor. Columbia will hire an administrator, former Chief of the Criminal Division of the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York Bart Schwartz, to monitor its progress. There will be measures for reporting any violations, and the government retains the explicit legal right to withhold funds again in the future.

These were measures that Columbia announced previously and independently, that were formally codified as part of the deal:

• Regional studies review. Columbia launched a review of its MESAAS and other regional studies programs. The Chair of MESAAS was quoted as saying it was a “legitimate review that any other university would do”. This was an element of the March 11 letter.
• New faculty appointments. Columbia will appoint new faculty members in joint appointments with the Institute of Israel and Jewish Studies and political science, economics, or SIPA to “contribute to a robust and intellectually diverse academic environment.” This was an element of the March 21 commitments.
• Empowered Public Safety. Columbia acted months ago to train a contingent of 36 Public Safety officers so they could be sworn in as special patrolmen with arrest powers. This was an element of the March 11 letter.
• University Senate reform. Columbia’s Trustees removed enforcement, interpretation, and modification/formation powers from the University Senate and placed it under the Office of the Provost, and further announced a special committee to review the University Senate. This was an element of the April draft agreement.
• Time, place, and manner (TPM) rules. Columbia has clarified that protests inside academic buildings are not acceptable. This is an improvement of the March 21 commitments which stated they are “generally not acceptable.” This still, however, falls short of explicit positive (“you must reserve place X or time Y”) or negative (“activity at place X and time Y do not require reservation”) time, place, and manner rules.
• Masking policy. While not putting in place an outright mask ban, the University has successfully enforced its anti-masking policy at the Butler takeover by compelling masked disruptors to show their IDs. This was an element of the March 11 letter.

And these were measures that Columbia announced previously and independently, that were not “officially” part of the deal:

• Enforce rules. Columbia has wrapped up disciplinary proceeds for most of last spring’s encampments, the Hamilton takeover, and the Butler takeover. The consequences were expulsions and multi-year suspensions. This was an element of the March 11 letter.
• Presidential Search Committee. Columbia appointed faculty of diverse viewpoints to the Presidential Search Committee. Who Columbia selects as its next President will be critical—he or she should continue to strengthen viewpoint diversity on the faculty and ensure that Columbia can be a place where liberals, conservatives, and everyone in between feels welcome. This was an element of the April draft agreement.
• Definition of antisemitism. Columbia “incorporated” both the Task Force on Antisemitism and IHRA definitions of antisemitism into the work of its Office of Institutional Equity. As previously mentioned, we have mixed feelings about this, but the formal recognition of antisemitism is an important symbolic step for many. This was an element of the March 11 letter.

Finally, there is a dispute resolution mechanism that goes through several layers of “speed bumps” and “cooling off periods”, including non-binding advisory arbitration, before opening up a channel to go to court.

Universities must be governed by realism

Parts of social media are already opposing the deal, either because it doesn’t go far enough, or because they feel Columbia’s leadership can’t be trusted to implement it. That reflex is understandable. But indulging it is ultimately self-defeating. This isn’t a final settlement that closes the book; it’s living, breathing mechanism for reform. If your first response to concrete progress is to denounce it for failing to deliver everything on your wish list, then it’s worth asking: is the goal reform, or permanent grievance?

The harder truth is about incentives. The people inside the University who made this deal happen are taking real professional risks. The Acting President, Provost, deans, faculty leaders, even Trustees, are staking reputations, and in some cases careers, on a strategy that still faces serious internal resistance. If you’ve already declared that these are untrustworthy actors who should be fired or replaced, why would they listen to you?  What motivation would they have to keep moving toward your position if you’ve made clear there’s no scenario in which you’ll credit their work or reconsider your judgment?

Columbia isn’t a public company. You can’t run a proxy fight to oust the board. You can’t force the administration’s hand. You can only persuade them that it’s in the University’s interest, and theirs, to keep going. That persuasion gets harder, not easier, when reformers are attacked by the very groups they’re trying to accommodate. The People’s Front of Judea was famously consumed with purity tests and megalomaniacal plans. But they didn’t attain world supremacy. They didn’t smash the Roman Empire. They didn’t even manage to kidnap Pilate’s wife. But they did hold a lot of extremely principled committee meetings.

We understand why many in the community remain skeptical. Trust in leadership has been strained, and no agreement can restore it overnight. But skepticism isn’t the same as disengagement. If the goal is lasting reform, then progress must be recognized when it happens, even as pressure continues. Holding the line means knowing when to push, and when to consolidate gains. It means demanding more while acknowledging meaningful steps. Accountability doesn’t mean saying “this is enough.” It means saying: “We saw what you promised. We’re watching what you do next.”

Credit where credit is due

We believe this deal is an excellent outcome for Columbia, all things considered. Over the course of the last year, the University committed to and undertook significant reforms.

Just as importantly, the agreement respected critical boundaries. It preserved Columbia’s autonomy, upheld independent governance, and made clear that the federal government would not have the “authority to dictate faculty hiring, University hiring, admission decisions, or the content of academic speech.” The final terms bore little resemblance to the highly prescriptive April 11 demands sent to Harvard, which no serious university could have accepted. Here, the federal government operated as a regulator, not a micromanager, an appropriate and constructive distinction.

We’ve been calling for this kind of course correction and renewal since Issue #001 of August 20, 2024, well before the election and long before federal action became inevitable. Many of the changes now embraced by the University reflect ideas we’ve consistently championed. We take heart in seeing those recommendations translated into reality.

Full credit is due to our University leadership, including Acting President Claire Shipman, the senior administration, and our Trustees for navigating a complex landscape with steadiness and resolve. We are grateful in particular to Acting President Shipman—only the fourth Trustee in Columbia’s history to serve as President—and we believe history will reflect well on her tenure. The time has now come to transition to permanent leadership, a new and permanent President and senior administration capable of completing the hard work of reform, renewing every aspect of Columbia from top to bottom, and restoring our standing at home and abroad.

Introducing the Stand Columbia Society Scorecard

Yet the critics aren’t entirely wrong. There are real reasons to question whether this deal will be fully implemented. The funding has been restored immediately, but Columbia’s commitments may take years to bear fruit. It’s not unreasonable to worry that, as the urgency fades, so will the will to follow through. Reform requires persistent execution. Without continued focus, inertia takes over, momentum fades, and progress stalls.

That’s why we’re launching a tool to keep the focus on execution.

Since our founding, and over the course of 58 issues, the Stand Columbia Society has advanced 19 core recommendations. Columbia, through public statements and policy announcements, has now embraced many of the same principles. The overlap is both significant and encouraging.

Today, we’re introducing the Stand Columbia Society Scorecard to track progress across those commitments. Using only publicly available information, we’ll classify each item as “Complete”, “Partially Complete”, “Started, No Known Results”, or “Not Started”, with linked documentation where possible. We will update the Scorecard regularly and publish findings as key milestones materialize. The use of only publicly-available information is intentional: if items on this Scorecard are complete but are not publicly known, perhaps they should be, as “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.” You can find the initial snapshot as of July 23, 2025 below.

As we have repeatedly warned, the financial stakes are existential for a cash flow-fragile institution like a university. This deal, while not perfect, will, with the release of the frozen federal funds, will allow Columbia to move forward and return to our mission of excellence in teaching, learning, research, and patient care.

With the fall semester just weeks away, the University has a chance to reset the tone. Our Scorecard is offered in that spirit: as a resource for Columbia’s current and future leadership—and for everyone committed to its renewal—to track real progress, reinforce follow-through, and prevent backsliding. Bottom line: it’s great that Columbia got the funding back, let’s not lose it again.