On July 29, 2025, Brown University announced that it had reached a settlement with the Trump administration to end three federal investigations and restore more than $50 million in frozen research funding. In exchange, Brown agreed to a wide range of policy changes that touch on admissions, campus climate, faculty hiring, and student services.
Stand Strong Brown is deeply disappointed by Brown University’s decision. We believe that the University’s settlement validates the Trump Administration’s “regulation by extortion,” and that the agreement will have numerous negative impacts on the Brown community.
In evaluating this agreement, we encourage members of the Brown community to ask three questions:
1. Did Brown Fight Hard Enough?
Given how quickly Brown settled, the answer on its face is no. Instead of pursuing a public or legal challenge to the Trump administration’s pressure campaign, the University chose to settle early and quietly.
- Brown did not sue to challenge the federal funding freeze. Other universities, including Harvard, did file suit. Early indications suggest those cases have legal merit.
- Brown did not publicly condemn the political nature of the administration’s tactics, which involved withholding funds in exchange for sweeping ideological changes.
- There was no coordinated resistance with other institutions, no meaningful alumni mobilization, and no effort to make this fight visible to the broader public.
We recognize the financial pressure Brown faced. But the University could have explored other options before agreeing to this deal. It chose not to.
2. What Values Did Brown Compromise?
Brown’s agreement includes a number of significant concessions that will be deeply detrimental to the Brown community and go far beyond what is legally required. Below are some of the most concerning aspects:
Campus Climate and Jewish Student Support
The Agreement focuses extensively on support for Jewish students, including new funding for Judaic Studies, Israel research, and Jewish life and a campus climate survey focused specifically on Jewish students is required. The agreement makes no mention of support for Arab, Muslim, or Palestinian students—despite well-documented concerns about bias against these groups.
Race in Admissions and Hiring
Brown is already not allowed to use race in admissions due to the Supreme Court’s 2023 SFFA decision. The agreement goes much further, banning the use of proxies for race such as personal background essays or diversity statements. Brown must also submit detailed internal admissions data and communications to federal authorities for ongoing review, giving the Trump Administration leverage to find “violations” and exert more pressure The University also agreed to stop using race-conscious criteria in faculty hiring and student financial aid, which are areas not covered by the Supreme Court ruling.
Gender Identity and Trans Inclusion
Brown agreed to use binary definitions of sex in housing, bathrooms, and athletics—excluding many transgender and nonbinary students from affirming spaces. It also agreed to bar gender-affirming care (including puberty blockers and hormone therapy) for anyone under 18.
In doing so, Brown enshrines Trump administration executive orders on trans rights that are still being actively challenged in court.
3. What Comes Next?
Brown has signed the agreement, but major implementation questions remain. Going forward, the University must move forward with increased transparency, accountability, and community input. If you believe Brown should have fought harder, and must stand stronger in the future, please add your name to our open letter.