Federal Agreement Frequently Asked Questions

Introductory Statement

Following the announcement in April 2025 that Cornell would be subject to the cancellation of $1.1 billion in federal research grants and contracts, Cornell’s leadership resolved to do two things:

• First, to reach an agreement that would end pending Office of Civil Rights (OCR) complaints and restore research funding that is so critical for our faculty, students, and staff and the nation.
• Second, that such an agreement would not come at the cost of compromising our values or independence. More specifically, we would not allow the government to dictate university curricula, alter carefully crafted university policies, or determine how those policies are enforced.

With this settlement, Cornell achieved those goals: the agreement explicitly supports academic freedom, does not require Cornell to accept federal guidelines that go beyond existing law, does not dictate admissions or hiring policies, does not compel Cornell to provide internal data beyond what is available through existing law, and restores our research funding. The university was reluctant to pay $30 million to the federal government to settle the OCR complaints; however, the alternative course of action would involve years of legal actions against the government with an uncertain outcome and untold costs to careers and livelihoods. As part of this agreement, Cornell certifies our compliance with antidiscrimination laws. We take those laws seriously and recognize the role of the government in ensuring that institutions that receive federal funding diligently protect the rights of everyone.

Since announcing the resolution with the federal government, the university has received hundreds of questions from the Cornell community. To create this FAQ, we have read every email and selected questions that address the most common topics raised by students, faculty, staff, and alumni.

Academic Freedom and Institutional Independence

Does the agreement protect the academic freedom of Cornell faculty, staff, and students and preserve Cornell’s “... any person... any study” ethos?

Yes. The agreement explicitly states: “no provision of this Agreement, individually or taken together, shall be construed as giving the United States authority to dictate the content of academic speech or curricula.” And there is nothing in the settlement that requires changes in Cornell’s policies. The agreement also requires the government to pursue future claims in the courts and restricts them from arbitrarily cancelling our grants, stating: “Any action brought by either party to enforce this Agreement must be brought in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.”

Has Cornell lost some of its independence now that it is one of several schools President Trump has settled with? What are the academic impacts? Are any degree programs or classes being cancelled or revised? Will the government interfere with the admission and enrollment of international graduate and undergraduate students?

No. Nothing in this agreement alters Cornell’s right to independently establish policies and procedures, choose whom to hire and admit, and determine what to teach without government monitoring or data reporting beyond what is currently required by law.

Does the agreement affect Cornell’s ability to admit international students, or does it restrict the rights of those students?

No. Nothing in this agreement alters Cornell’s international student admissions policies or the rights of international students.

Terms of the Agreement

What has the university agreed to under the settlement?

Legal compliance: The agreement simply asserts that Cornell will comply with existing civil rights law, as we always have.

• Commitment to protecting civil rights: Cornell affirmed our commitment to protecting the civil rights of all members of our community to be free from unlawful discrimination and harassment. Our programs that protect and affirm our students were legally compliant prior to the agreement and remain so.
• Unlawful discrimination guidance: Cornell will use the Department of Justice’s July 2025 guidance, which was issued to all recipients of federal funding, as one of many training resources for faculty and staff.
• Foreign gift reporting: Cornell will continue to comply with foreign gift and contract reporting requirements.
• Admissions data: Cornell has agreed to provide anonymized undergraduate admissions data on a quarterly basis for the three-year term of the agreement. Under existing law, the government is entitled to request these data, and we and other universities have provided similar data as part of recent government inquiries.

Financial commitments:

• $30 million to the U.S. Treasury: Cornell has agreed to provide $30 million to the government over three years. These payments are neither a fine nor a penalty, as no wrongdoing has been established, but rather are “In consideration for entering into this Agreement,” meaning that the government cancels its pending civil rights investigations and compliance reviews and its withholding of grants. As noted in the agreement with the government, this payment is in no way an admission of wrongdoing.
• $30 million to agricultural research: Cornell has agreed to invest an additional $30 million in agricultural research, focused on advanced technology. It was Cornell’s choice to invest $30 million in agricultural research, and Cornell alone will decide how and where to direct this expenditure.

Other terms:

• Campus climate survey: Currently, Cornell conducts a student campus climate survey every two years. In this agreement, Cornell agreed to issue it annually and to expand the questions asked. Cornell seeks to understand the experience of all students, and future surveys will continue that broad focus.

What did the federal government agree to in the resolution?

• Restoration of funding: Most federal research grants and contracts are being reinstated within five days of the agreement. Federal stop-work orders have been restored, and Cornell is seeking further clarity from the federal government on the timing of the resumption of payment from other federal agencies.
• Complaint resolution: All pending Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Justice investigations and compliance reviews are being closed.
• Merit-based evaluation: Future research proposals by Cornell will be judged on merit, without disadvantage or preference.
• Due process assurance: Future government concerns about the university, as a recipient of federal funding, must follow established investigative and procedural processes.

Has Cornell agreed to pay a fine, and if so, what for?

No. Cornell has not agreed to pay a fine or penalty. Such an agreement would suggest wrongdoing, whereas the agreement states: “Cornell expressly denies liability with respect to the subject matter of the Investigations.”

The university agreed to pay the administration $30 million over the next three years. Where does the university anticipate this money will come from? Which departments will be impacted and how? How might these payments impact our current university-wide budget constrictions?

The $30 million payment to the U.S. Treasury will be paid out of a litigation reserve account established in a prior budget plan. No departments will be directly impacted, nor will alumni donations be used.

What are the “pending claims” (or, if you cannot be specific, the general nature of the pending claims) that require $30 million be paid to the U.S. government?

The agreement closes pending investigations and reviews at the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services that could have otherwise led to additional litigation expenses. As noted in the agreement with the government, this payment is in no way an admission of wrongdoing.

I am seeking further explanation of the logic of paying $30 million to the federal government, as well as the fact that Cornell allowed the federal government to dictate how to spend the other $30 million.

The payment to the government was required by them to close the pending litigation. Settlements of lawsuits, class action suits, or OCR complaints are quite common, as the cost and time of complying with discovery and litigating in the courts can outweigh settlement costs and expose the university to great risk. It was Cornell’s choice to invest $30 million in our agricultural research programs. Agriculture is a shared priority of the government, and Cornell is uniquely positioned to excel in this area due to our existing research expertise and land-grant mission. Cornell alone will decide how and where to direct this $30 million agricultural research expenditure; the federal government has no role in what projects we undertake. The provost is developing a program within the Office of the Vice Provost for Research (OVPR) to administer the disbursement of this funding. More information will be disseminated by the OVPR later in the year.

How much of the $30 million to be invested in agriculture would have already been invested by the university? Is this on top of agriculture research investments already in place by Cornell?

The $30 million named in the agreement is in addition to agricultural research investments already in place by Cornell.

What would prevent the government from reinstating stop-work orders or making further demands of the university?

The agreement provides assurances that any future government actions will be adjudicated in the courts. Future government concerns about the university, as a recipient of federal funding, must follow established investigative and procedural processes.

President Kotlikoff mentioned a figure of $1 billion at the beginning of the town hall, but the email only mentions restoring up to $250 million in federal funding. What is happening to the other $850 million in federal funding?

In April, Cornell began to receive reports that we would be subject to the cancellation of $1.1 billion in federal research grants. That number comes from the fact that, in past years, Cornell has typically earned approximately $1 billion in total federal research funding. Since April, however, approximately $250 million in funding went unpaid, cancelled, or stopped, as not all grants to Cornell were unpaid. This agreement does two things:

• Restores much of the $250 million in funding, with some exceptions for programs that were fully cancelled by the federal government.
• Puts Cornell back on an even playing field to compete for future grants, which, in the past, has averaged approximately $1 billion, or $850 million more, should Cornell win those grants.

Negotiating with the Government

Why did Cornell choose to negotiate with the federal government?

This agreement ends the damage to the careers of faculty, staff, and students who are dependent on federal funding, without compromising Cornell's principles, and provides assurances that any future government actions will be adjudicated in the courts. Importantly, the agreement simply asserts that Cornell will comply with existing civil rights law, as we always have. Furthermore, the agreement binds the government to respect academic freedom, stating: “…no provision of this Agreement, individually or taken together, shall be construed as giving the United States authority to dictate the content of academic speech or curricula.” Finally, the agreement requires the government to pursue future claims in the courts and restricts them from arbitrarily cancelling our grants.

Why did the university choose to pay such a large sum of money, which could have gone to supporting research programs on campus, rather than fight what has all the hallmarks of a winning legal case against the federal government? Why negotiate at all when Harvard’s lawsuit is clearly going to prevail?

Harvard’s legal position was much stronger than Cornell’s because they were notified by the federal government that all grants were terminated because of Harvard’s alleged failure to “live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment.” This letter and the actions demanded by the government allowed Harvard to assert a First Amendment case against the government. Cornell received no such letter, and not all of its grants were cancelled. For these reasons and as a result of a recent Supreme Court decision, Cornell’s attorneys assessed that our case for reinstatement of research funds would likely go through the Court of Claims, would likely be a lengthy process without immediate relief, with no guarantee of a positive outcome, and resulting in continued damage to Cornell’s research enterprise. For these reasons, Cornell’s leadership concluded that a mutual agreement under the terms described above would result in a better outcome for the Cornell community than suing the government. The $30 million payment to the government was required as a condition to restore our federal funding.

This agreement puts Cornell in a direct contractual relationship for federal funding above and beyond normal grant terms, which improves its legal standing with the federal government in the case of further extrajudicial actions against Cornell. Furthermore, it closes pending investigations and reviews at the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services that could have otherwise led to additional legal expenses.

Civil Rights

What exactly has the university agreed to with respect to civil rights and antidiscrimination under this settlement?

The university has agreed to comply with existing civil rights laws and certify its compliance with those laws on a regular basis. No prior violation of civil rights laws in university-administered programs has been demonstrated by the government, and the settlement states that Cornell “expressly denies liability with respect to the subject matter of the Investigations.”

An article I read said that Cornell agreed to comply with the Department of Justice’s Guidance for Recipients for Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination. Is this accurate?

No. Cornell only agreed to provide the guidance as a training resource. In addition to this resource, Cornell’s civil rights educational programs and workshops include many resources, as well as direct training by the Office of General Counsel and Human Resources, on existing civil rights law.

What is expected of staff and faculty who receive training that includes the Department of Justice’s Guidance for Recipients for Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination? Will there be any requirement for staff and faculty who receive the guidance “as a training resource” to agree to the principles stated therein?

No. Cornell agreed to share the information for training purposes only. There are no plans to require an attestation of any kind. This guidance is being provided for awareness, as any guidance issued by a federal regulator requires careful consideration. Faculty and staff doing hiring, admissions, or inclusion work should be aware of antidiscrimination laws and guidance provided by its regulators.

The DOJ guidance restricts spaces with an "identity-based focus" based on the claim that this "facially discriminate[s]" against people with other identities. Will this clause be implemented to eliminate spaces designed to foster student community and safety, such as program housing (Loving House, Multicultural Living Learning Unit), the Resource Centers, or student affinity groups?

No. However, under existing law, spaces with an “identity-based focus” may not discriminate based on identity through an exclusive membership policy. The university already does not allow any of its programs, services, or activities to favor or disfavor individuals based on their identity status protected by law, as listed in University Policy 6.4: “Prohibited Bias, Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual and Related Misconduct.” Cornell will remain an inclusive, supportive, and intellectually diverse environment for all students.

Why does the campus climate survey only explicitly address antisemitism and “students with shared Jewish ancestry”? Given that every student has a right to feel safe on the Cornell campus, I am perplexed that Cornell would agree to a statement that doesn’t address concerns that, for example, students of color, Muslims, and trans people might have about campus safety. Will the university further commit to surveying campus life for other demographic groups is equally thriving? How does Cornell plan to ensure safe and bias-free spaces for students of different ancestry and to address other forms of discrimination, such as Islamophobia?

Cornell will determine the content of the survey, which will be inclusive and will not focus exclusively on one identity. Nothing in the agreement requires changes to Cornell’s housing policies, and the agreement does not alter Cornell’s commitment to all students, regardless of ancestry or other identity.

Can you clarify what the agreement means for myself and other trans people at Cornell? Will we face any limitations in our abilities to use bathrooms and other single-sex facilities that align with our gender identities? Will trans student athletes be supported in competing as themselves according to their gender identities?

The university will continue to comply with federal, state, and local laws, including New York state law that prohibits gender identity and gender expression discrimination. Cornell’s Athletics Department already complies with the Ivy League Conference and NCAA regulations regarding eligibility requirements for participation in women’s sports.

Does any part of this agreement affect the ability of people under 19 to receive trans-related health care coverage under Cornell's employee insurance plans?

This agreement has no effect on health care coverage for Cornell’s employee insurance plans.

Can you explain the agreement around disclosure of student data? This seems like a large expansion of our reporting obligations.

Cornell agreed to provide anonymized undergraduate admissions data four times per year. These are data that we were required to collect and report to the federal government on request prior to the agreement. In this agreement the university is committing to provide the same anonymized data proactively and more frequently.

Impact on Resilient Cornell

With this agreement in place, how does this impact the current Resilient Cornell initiative, more specifically in terms of potential restructuring, reorganization, and involuntary reductions of headcount? What bearing does this settlement have on the overall financial picture for the university and hence what effect might it have on the previously announced impending budget cuts?

Unfortunately, Cornell’s financial challenges will not be resolved by the agreement and the restoration of research funding. Our austerity budget model was built assuming an agreement. However, escalating costs, other legal settlements, future direct and indirect cuts in research budgets, and growth in university programs have all resulted in future budget shortfalls absent significant actions.

Other Aspects of the Agreement

Are there any changes to the Expressive Activity Policy? Are there any changes to how student and staff participation in protests on or off campus will be handled, including but not limited to protests related to genocide?

No. This agreement has no effect on the Cornell Expressive Activity Policy. The university will continue to enforce its policies in a content and viewpoint neutral manner.

I am curious to know what our facilities and administrative/indirect costs rate will be moving forward. Would you comment on the expectations for the rates of indirect cost payments from funding agencies? Will those lawsuits continue for Cornell, or does this agreement remove the university from the lawsuits?

The university successfully joined with higher education associations and other universities to enjoin federal agencies from imposing a 15% cap on indirect costs. Litigation is pending in some of those cases. This agreement has no impact on those cases or the status of the indirect costs. However, the university is actively advocating for a fair indirect cost recovery program. This issue will likely be resolved in the upcoming federal budget negotiations.