Overview
In recent weeks, the United States government has executed a series of landmark resolution agreements with three prominent universities. These agreements, resolving wide-ranging investigations into alleged violations of federal law, signal a significant shift in regulatory priorities and enforcement strategies.
I. Recent Settlements
In July 2025, Columbia University and Brown University each entered into comprehensive resolution agreements jointly executed by the US Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services. These resolutions followed a narrower agreement between the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the University of Pennsylvania in late June 2025. Collectively, these agreements reveal a new federal playbook for higher education oversight.
Columbia University: Columbia's sweeping agreement resolves investigations under multiple statutes, including Titles VI and IX of the Higher Education Act, the False Claims Act, and the Affordable Care Act. In exchange for resolving claims and restoring terminated federal grants, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million to the United States and, separately, $21 million to a claims fund to resolve allegations of Title VII violations that were under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Key terms of the agreement include:
-
Governance and Oversight: Columbia will designate a university administrator "responsible for coordinating and overseeing compliance with" the agreement, and a three-year, university-funded external resolution monitor to oversee compliance. A monitor has not yet been publicly named.
-
Academic and Programmatic Changes: Columbia will conduct a mandated review of its Middle Eastern Studies programs to ensure "balance"; hire new faculty for the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies; and appoint a new student liaison focused on antisemitism.
-
Admissions and Hiring: Columbia agreed to prohibit using race as a factor in admissions or hiring, including through proxies like diversity statements. The university must provide detailed admissions and hiring data to the resolution monitor.
-
Campus Conduct: Columbia agreed to codify and enforce rules restricting protests in academic buildings, prohibit face coverings for concealment, and require identification from protesting students upon request.
-
Title IX: Columbia committed to providing single-sex housing, locker rooms, and "all-female sports."
-
Foreign Influence: Columbia agreed to enhanced compliance with foreign gift reporting and sanctions laws.
Brown University: Brown's agreement resolves investigations conducted by the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services. In exchange for the restoration of terminated federal grants, Brown agreed to pay $50 million to state workforce development organizations over the next decade. Brown did not agree to make any direct payment to the US government.
Key terms of the agreement include:
-
Title IX Compliance: Brown committed to providing female-only housing, restrooms, and athletic facilities, and to defining "male" and "female" consistent with recent executive orders for purposes of women’s athletics. The university, which runs a hospital, is also prohibited from providing gender-reassignment surgeries or puberty blockers to minors.
-
Antisemitism: Brown agreed to a series of proactive steps to combat antisemitism, including outreach to Jewish day schools, enhanced security for its on-campus Hillel, and conducting a campus climate survey.
-
Admissions and DEI: Like Columbia, Brown must cease any use of race in admissions, eliminate programs that unlawfully promote "race-based outcomes," and provide detailed admissions data to the government.
University of Pennsylvania: Penn's agreement with OCR is narrower in scope and focuses exclusively on Title IX compliance in athletics. The agreement resolved "the findings of noncompliance with Title IX" resulting from OCR's investigation.
Key terms of the agreement include:
-
Women's Sports: Penn committed to excluding athletes assigned male at birth from competing in women's athletics competitions and to providing sex-separated locker rooms and bathrooms.
-
Record Correction: Penn agreed to review and restore all athletic records, titles, and honors to the female athletes who would have earned them absent the participation of male athletes in women's events. The university must also send personalized letters of apology to the impacted female athletes.
II. Common Themes and Impact
These agreements represent a concerted effort by the current administration to leverage federal funding and enforcement authority to drive significant policy changes on university campuses. Several key themes emerge, including:
A Focus on Antisemitism as National Origin Discrimination. The Columbia and Brown agreements expressly link the protection of Jewish students to Title VI's prohibition on national origin discrimination. This reflects a federal position on a contentious issue, requiring universities to take proactive steps to combat antisemitism on campus. Notably, although there were reported incidents of anti-Muslim discrimination on some of these campuses during the same time periods, none of these resolutions included any remediation related to those incidents.
Aggressive Scrutiny of DEI and Admissions. The agreements directly challenge Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and race-conscious admissions policies. The language prohibiting "proxies" for race and the requirement to submit detailed data reporting suggest the government will actively monitor compliance. Beyond addressing these schools' admissions practices and efforts to curb antisemitism, none of these resolutions explicitly address other "soft" DEI issues highlighted by the administration, such as minority-focused scholarships and other forms of academic support, implicit bias training, and support for minority-focused extracurricular activities. Nevertheless, the settlements’ terms mirror the aggressive scrutiny toward DEI initiatives presented in a recent memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Codification of a Specific View on Title IX and Gender Identity. The agreements with all three universities mandate an interpretation of Title IX based on biological sex at birth. These provisions bypass the traditional regulatory process, instead relying on enforcement actions to implement policy — a strategy that we may see replicated in other areas.
The Use of Financial Leverage and External Monitors. The significant financial penalties and the imposition of powerful, independent monitors reveal how the government intends to assert oversight authority. The threat of terminating federal research grants proved to be a powerful incentive for the universities to accept these terms. Under these agreements, the monitors are empowered to conduct audits, interview staff, and make recommendations, embedding federal oversight directly into university governance for years to come. It remains to be seen who will be appointed to these monitorships and how they will function in practice.
Coordinated federal effort. The university settlements are consistent with the July 29, 2025, memo issued by Attorney General Pam Bondi titled, "Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination" (the Bondi Memo). The Bondi Memo provides a broad legal framework for dismantling DEI initiatives, including race-based scholarships, preferential hiring practices, and "proxies" for protected characteristics. Together, the Bondi Memo and university settlements signal a coordinated federal effort to challenge DEI frameworks that have become commonplace at American universities.
III. Conclusion
The recent settlements with Columbia, Brown, and Penn are unmistakable signals that the federal government is prepared to use its full authority to reshape policies in American higher education. Together with the Bondi Memo, these settlements provide a clearer roadmap for how the administration intends to approach enforcement against "illegal" DEI programs. Further, the settlements, Bondi Memo, and recently reported investigations into the University of California – Los Angeles' handling of antisemitic harassment demonstrate the administration’s focus on enforcement in higher education. To mitigate financial and reputational risks, colleges and universities should take proactive compliance measures. These may include conducting internal audits, providing employee training, and taking robust responses to allegations of civil rights violations, especially regarding antisemitism. By understanding the terms of these agreements and adapting to this new regulatory landscape, institutions can better navigate the potential challenges that lie ahead.
