Northwestern Pays Trump $75 Million and Revokes Pro-Palestinian Student Agreement to End Federal Funding Freeze

Northwestern University has agreed to pay the Trump administration $75 million and revoke a controversial 2024 agreement with pro-Palestinian student protesters—promises made to end a campus encampment that are now being erased as the price of restoring hundreds of millions in frozen federal research funding.

The settlement, announced Friday by the Department of Justice, requires Northwestern to cancel the so-called Deering Meadow agreement, which the university signed in April 2024 in exchange for pro-Palestinian demonstrators dismantling their tent encampment on campus.

That agreement had promised increased support for Muslim, Middle Eastern, North African and Palestinian students, greater transparency about Northwestern's investments, and establishment of an advisory committee on university investments—concessions that drew intense congressional scrutiny and contributed to federal antisemitism investigations that ultimately led to the funding freeze.

Now, under pressure from the Trump administration and facing financial catastrophe from nine months of frozen grants, Northwestern is walking back those promises entirely.

The Deal That's Being Revoked

The Deering Meadow agreement, named after the campus location where protesters established their encampment in April 2024, represented Northwestern's attempt to resolve Gaza-related protests through negotiation rather than police action.

Under that agreement, Northwestern committed to:

• Provide enhanced support and resources for Muslim, Middle Eastern, North African (MENA) and Palestinian students
• Establish an Advisory Committee on Investment Responsibility to review the university's investment holdings
• Increase transparency about Northwestern's financial investments
• Create a full-time staff position focused on supporting MENA and Palestinian students
• Fund scholarships for Palestinian students
• Consider divestment questions through newly established processes

At the time, then-President Michael Schill defended the approach as balancing protesters' concerns with campus safety and operations. The encampment ended peacefully, and Northwestern avoided the violent confrontations that occurred at Columbia, UCLA, and other universities.

But the agreement immediately drew criticism from congressional Republicans and Jewish advocacy groups who argued Northwestern had capitulated to antisemitic protesters and rewarded disruptive behavior with policy concessions.

When Schill testified before a hostile House committee in May 2024, Republican lawmakers repeatedly questioned the Deering Meadow agreement, characterizing it as evidence that Northwestern tolerated antisemitism and failed to protect Jewish students.

That congressional testimony became a key factor in the Trump administration's decision to launch antisemitism investigations and ultimately freeze Northwestern's federal research funding in April 2025.

Now, as part of the $75 million settlement announced Friday, Northwestern must revoke the Deering Meadow agreement entirely—effectively nullifying every promise made to the pro-Palestinian students who agreed to end their protest peacefully.

The $75 Million Settlement

The comprehensive agreement between Northwestern and three federal agencies—the Department of Justice, Department of Education, and Department of Health and Human Services—resolves multiple investigations and restores access to at least $790 million in frozen federal research grants.

Under the settlement terms, Northwestern agrees to:

Financial Payment: Pay $75 million to the U.S. Treasury over three years (through 2028), without using donor funds—the second-largest university payment to the Trump administration after Columbia's $200 million settlement.

Revoke Deering Meadow Agreement: Cancel all commitments made to pro-Palestinian protesters in April 2024, including support for MENA students and investment transparency initiatives.

Antisemitism Training: Implement mandatory antisemitism training for all students, faculty, and staff across the university.

Free Speech Policies: Maintain "clear policies and procedures relating to demonstrations, protests, displays, and other expressive activities."

Anti-Discrimination Commitment: Adhere to federal anti-discrimination laws, ensuring the university does not give preferences based on "race, color, or national origin in admissions, scholarships, hiring, or promotion."

International Student "Socialization": Develop training materials to "socialize international students" with open debate norms and American free speech principles.

Gender Surgery Ban: Commit that Northwestern's Feinberg School of Medicine will not perform "hormonal interventions and transgender surgeries" on minor patients—though university officials insist this merely codifies existing practice rather than representing policy change.

Title IX Compliance: Uphold Title IX commitments for women and maintain sex-based protections.

In exchange, the federal government will:

• Restore eligibility for existing and future federal grants, contracts, and awards
• Close all pending investigations into Northwestern
• Treat the university as eligible for future federal funding

Attorney General Pam Bondi characterized the deal as "another victory in the Trump Administration's fight to ensure that American educational institutions protect Jewish students and put merit first."

Education Secretary Linda McMahon called it "a roadmap for institutional leaders around the country that will help rebuild public trust in our colleges and universities."

The Human Cost of the Standoff

The path to this settlement inflicted enormous financial and human costs on Northwestern's community.

When the Trump administration froze approximately $790 million in federal research funding in April 2025, the university faced an immediate crisis. According to Grant Witness data, more than $1.06 billion in awards from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation have gone unpaid since the freeze began—suggesting the damage compounded as new grants were also withheld.

Northwestern responded by self-funding research operations from its own reserves, spending approximately $10 million per week to keep projects alive during the standoff—an unsustainable burn rate even for a wealthy institution.

In July, facing what officials described as a "significant budget gap," Northwestern announced it would eliminate 425 positions, though nearly half had been vacant. University leaders called it "the most painful measure we have had to take" and "a drastic step" forced by federal pressure.

The funding crisis contributed directly to President Michael Schill's resignation in September. Though he didn't explicitly cite the freeze, Schill acknowledged "difficult problems" at the federal level and warned of "serious and often painful challenges" ahead.

His replacement, Henry Bienen—who previously served as Northwestern's president from 1995 to 2009—inherited the task of negotiating with the Trump administration, ultimately striking the deal announced Friday.

Bienen's Defense: "Northwestern Runs Northwestern"

In a video message published on the Office of the President website following the settlement announcement, Bienen defended the agreement while insisting Northwestern maintained its autonomy.

"I would not have signed anything that would have given the federal government any say in who we hire, what they teach, who we admit or what they study," Bienen said. "Put simply, Northwestern runs Northwestern."

He characterized the settlement as "the best and most certain method to restore our federal funding both now and in the future," emphasizing that without an agreement, the university faced indefinite exclusion from federal research funding.

Bienen's statement echoes remarks he made at an October 15 Faculty Assembly meeting, when he expressed interest in reaching a deal but said he would not sign an agreement that "hinders the autonomy of the University."

However, the requirement to revoke the Deering Meadow agreement—promises made to students after extensive negotiations—tests Bienen's claim that Northwestern retains full autonomy. The Trump administration effectively dictated that Northwestern must cancel specific student support initiatives and transparency commitments as a condition of restored funding.

Faculty Opposition and Community Betrayal

The settlement contradicts the overwhelming position of Northwestern's faculty. At that same October 15 Faculty Assembly meeting, 595 faculty members voted to reject the Trump administration's "Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education" or any similar capitulation, with only four against and eight abstentions.

When news of potential negotiations emerged in August, hundreds of faculty members signed a statement calling the school "complicit in an assault on institutions of higher education."

The revocation of the Deering Meadow agreement represents a particular betrayal to the pro-Palestinian students who negotiated in good faith, agreed to dismantle their encampment, and relied on Northwestern's commitments—commitments the university is now abandoning under federal pressure.

Those students had agreed to end their protest based on specific promises: support for MENA students, investment transparency, consideration of divestment questions through established processes. Northwestern's decision to revoke these promises sends a clear message: agreements with student protesters can be unilaterally canceled when politically expedient.

The settlement also affects Muslim, Middle Eastern, North African and Palestinian students who weren't necessarily involved in the protests but stood to benefit from the enhanced support and resources Northwestern had committed to provide. Those students now lose promised support as collateral damage in Northwestern's settlement with the federal government.

The Broader Pattern of University Capitulation

Northwestern's settlement follows an increasingly familiar pattern of elite universities paying substantial sums to the Trump administration and implementing policy changes to restore frozen federal funding.

Columbia University: Agreed to pay more than $200 million over three years—the largest university settlement to date.

Cornell University: Committed to a $30 million fine plus an additional $30 million investment in agricultural research programs.

Brown University: Agreed to steer $50 million into Rhode Island state workforce development programs.

University of Virginia: Accepted strict, multi-year reporting requirements through 2028 to regain federal funds without making direct payments.

University of Pennsylvania: Reached an agreement, though full financial terms have not been disclosed.

Northwestern's $75 million payment ranks as the second-highest among these settlements, exceeded only by Columbia's $200 million.

Notably, the Northwestern and Columbia settlements require direct payments to the U.S. Treasury—money that doesn't support students, research, or any educational purpose but instead flows to federal coffers as what critics characterize as fines or extortion payments.

Brown's deal, by contrast, directed its $50 million toward workforce development programs that at least serve educational or economic purposes, rather than simply enriching the federal government.

Harvard's Resistance: The Alternative Path

Not all universities have capitulated to Trump administration pressure. Harvard, despite facing similar funding freezes and investigations, chose to fight in court rather than negotiate a settlement.

Harvard sued over the administration's cuts to its grant money and won a significant court victory in September when a federal judge ordered the government to restore funding, ruling that the blanket funding freeze was illegal.

Harvard's legal resistance demonstrates that universities with sufficient resources and institutional will can potentially resist federal pressure through litigation. The successful court ruling suggests Trump administration tactics may be vulnerable to legal challenges on administrative law grounds.

However, Harvard's approach carries its own costs—legal fees, continued uncertainty, potential retaliation, and the risk that courts might ultimately rule against the university. Northwestern's leadership apparently concluded that settlement, despite its steep financial and political costs, represented a more certain path to restored funding.

The divergent approaches—Harvard fighting, Northwestern settling—will likely shape how other universities respond as the Trump administration extends its pressure campaign to additional institutions.

The Investment Transparency Question

Among the most significant aspects of the revoked Deering Meadow agreement is the cancellation of investment transparency commitments.

The original agreement established an Advisory Committee on Investment Responsibility and committed Northwestern to greater disclosure about its investment holdings—reforms that would have allowed students, faculty, and community members to better understand where the university's endowment is invested.

Questions about university investments in companies connected to Israeli military operations, weapons manufacturers, or other controversial industries have been central to campus protests. Transparency about these investments is a prerequisite for informed debate about divestment.

By revoking the investment transparency commitments, Northwestern eliminates the very mechanisms that would have allowed the community to evaluate divestment questions through established institutional processes.

This suggests the Trump administration's settlement demands weren't merely about combating antisemitism or protecting Jewish students, but also about preventing universities from even considering divestment from Israel-related investments—essentially using federal funding leverage to dictate university positions on Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What It Means for Campus Protest

The Northwestern settlement establishes a dangerous precedent: universities can make agreements with student protesters to peacefully resolve demonstrations, then revoke those agreements when federal pressure makes them politically inconvenient.

This undermines future protest negotiations at Northwestern and potentially at other universities. Why would student protesters trust university commitments and agree to peacefully dismantle encampments if those commitments can be canceled months later?

The obvious alternative—refusing to negotiate and maintaining protests indefinitely—creates the very campus disruptions and police confrontations that Northwestern's original negotiated settlement successfully avoided.

From the Trump administration's perspective, this may be precisely the point: punish universities that negotiated with pro-Palestinian protesters, reward those that took hardline approaches, and establish that capitulation to protest demands will result in federal investigations and funding cuts.

Looking Ahead

For Northwestern, the immediate future involves implementing the settlement requirements: developing antisemitism training, establishing new free speech protocols, canceling Deering Meadow commitments, and paying $75 million to the federal government over three years.

The university must communicate to Muslim, Middle Eastern, North African and Palestinian students that promised support and resources are being withdrawn. It must explain to the broader community how investment transparency initiatives are being abandoned. And it must navigate faculty disappointment over leadership's capitulation despite overwhelming faculty opposition.

Some terminated grants will not be reinstated, according to Northwestern's website, "specifically those the federal government has cut"—suggesting permanent research losses beyond the temporary freeze.

For American higher education broadly, Northwestern provides another data point in the calculation institutions must make when facing Trump administration pressure. The $75 million settlement and revoked student agreement send a clear message: resistance is expensive, capitulation is costly but certain, and maintaining institutional principles may not be financially viable when federal funding is at stake.

Attorney General Bondi's characterization of the settlement as "another victory" suggests many more such "victories" are planned as the Trump administration extends its pressure campaign across American higher education.

The question for universities nationwide is whether any will maintain their commitments to students, transparency, and institutional autonomy when the federal government offers a simple choice: pay, comply, and survive—or resist, fight, and risk financial catastrophe.

Northwestern has made its choice. The Deering Meadow agreement that ended protests peacefully is now history, sacrificed to restore federal funding and end investigations into antisemitism that the settlement resolves without Northwestern admitting any wrongdoing.

For the students who negotiated that agreement in good faith, the message is clear: even when universities make commitments, federal pressure can erase them.