By: Fern Sidman

In a development that may threaten a fragile agreement between Columbia University and the Trump administration, interim university president Katrina Armstrong privately assured faculty over the weekend that Columbia does not intend to comply with several key conditions the federal government outlined in order for the school to regain access to $400 million in frozen federal funding.

As was reported by The Free Press on Tuesday, Armstrong made these statements during a private Zoom meeting with approximately 75 faculty members, directly contradicting the university’s public position. According to a transcript of the call obtained by The Free Press, Armstrong clearly stated that there would be “no change to masking” policies, “no change to our admissions procedures,” and no move to place the university’s controversial MESAAS department under academic receivership for at least five years—each of which were explicit demands made by the administration’s antisemitism task force.

In short, while Columbia has formally agreed to abide by the administration’s terms to combat antisemitism and restore federal funding, its top leadership appears to be assuring faculty behind closed doors that these conditions will not actually be implemented in full.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration took the unprecedented step of suspending $400 million in federal funds to Columbia after concluding that the university had “failed to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment.” As The Free Press reported, the administration’s antisemitism task force issued a detailed roadmap outlining how Columbia could begin to rebuild trust with federal agencies and re-secure its funding.

The measures included adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, immediate reform of campus safety and discipline policies, transparency and accountability in how student protests are handled and placing the Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS) department—long criticized for harboring radical anti-Israel sentiment—under academic receivership. The measures also include a reassessment of the university’s masking policies, which have been exploited to conceal identities during disruptive or violent protests as well as reforms to admissions processes that are biased against certain student groups.

In public statements, Columbia appeared to accept the conditions outlined in the administration’s letter. But The Free Press now reported that Armstrong’s private comments suggest otherwise, sparking concern from federal officials that the university is attempting to sidestep real compliance.

During the Zoom call, Armstrong reportedly reaffirmed her position that disciplinary actions on campus will remain independent and will not be centralized under the president’s office—despite that being another stated condition from the federal task force, according to the information provided in The Free Press report.  “Discipline remains independent,” she told the faculty, according to the transcript, and “has not been moved to my office.”

The apparent contradiction between Armstrong’s private messaging and the university’s public commitment has drawn the attention of federal officials. A source close to the antisemitism task force told The Free Press that Columbia is risking the entire agreement: “Columbia should not test the administration’s resolve in holding them to every action they’ve agreed to take to protect their students and faculty. We expect full compliance and good faith negotiations if Columbia wants to have a productive relationship with the federal government.”

Despite the revelations, Education Secretary Linda McMahon expressed cautious optimism, telling The Free Press she believes Armstrong is sincere in her desire to protect students and uphold civil rights. However, McMahon issued a clear warning that the university will be held to the commitments it made. “They have to abide and comply with the terms that we have sat down and talked with them [about] and that they’ve agreed to,” McMahon said.

If Columbia is found to be acting in bad faith, the consequences could be dire—not only in terms of the lost funding, but also in triggering broader scrutiny of how elite universities are managing issues of campus antisemitism, ideological bias, and academic freedom.

A spokesperson for Columbia told The Free Press that President Armstrong remains committed to collaboration with federal agencies and is intent on fostering a safe, inclusive environment. “Armstrong has been clear that she wants to constructively engage with our regulators,” the spokesperson said, adding that she is “fully committed to the actions announced on Friday to combat antisemitism and all forms of discrimination which have no place in our community.”

The university also addressed the controversial issue of masked demonstrators, stating that while students are permitted to wear face coverings, they must present a university ID when asked. However, masks used “to conceal one’s identity while violating university rules, policies, or the law” are explicitly prohibited.

The Free Press also reported that in a public statement issued Tuesday, Armstrong attempted to address the fallout over her conflicting statements. “I regret any confusion and inconsistent statements,” she wrote. “Let there be no confusion: I commit to seeing these changes implemented, with the full support of Columbia’s senior leadership team and the Board of Trustees.”

Those demands—what a source close to the matter described to The Free Press as the “bare minimum” required to even reopen negotiations—included sweeping reforms: restrictions on protest activity through “time, place, and manner” rules; enhanced internal law enforcement protocols; accountability measures for student groups; disciplinary enforcement; and most controversially, placing Columbia’s Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies (MESAAS) department under academic receivership.

Yet during the faculty meeting, Armstrong and Provost Angela Olinto were explicit: there would be no receivership, no changes to admissions policies, and no blanket prohibition of face masks, which federal officials argue are being used to conceal the identities of individuals committing acts of violence or disruption on campus, as was noted in The Free Press report.

“This is not a receivership. The provost will not be writing or controlling anything. It’s the faculty. Our goal is to just coordinate,” Olinto stated, to which Armstrong added, “There’s no receivership, no intent for receivership.”

This sharply contradicts Columbia’s public agreement to the federal plan, deepening a trust deficit with both Washington and many within the university.

Far from showing solidarity with Armstrong, faculty on the Zoom call expressed outrage, according to the transcript obtained by The Free Press. Professors accused the administration of capitulating to “an authoritarian government” and were “appalled” and “profoundly disappointed” in the leadership’s public concessions to the Trump administration. Some faculty even questioned why Columbia had not taken the White House to court instead of engaging in negotiations.

“This is a crisis not just for Columbia, its biggest crisis since the founding of the republic, but for all universities in this great country,” one professor said.

Armstrong, in response, warned of deeper consequences if the university did not manage to restore relations with federal agencies. “The ability of the federal administration to leverage other forms of federal funding about us in an immediate fashion is really potentially devastating to our students in particular,” she said, according to the report in The Free Press.

Yet at multiple points during the call, Armstrong seemed to backtrack from the very reforms she had promised in writing, reinforcing the impression that Columbia is trying to publicly appease federal authorities while privately reassuring its faculty that little, if anything, will change.

When one faculty member pointed out this glaring contradiction—between Armstrong’s public assurances and private remarks—the transcript reveals no response from Armstrong. She later remarked cryptically that “the process gets subverted by things that happen sometimes outside the institutional voice.”

According to the information contained in The Free Press report, Columbia is the first university to have federal funds suspended over antisemitism-related concerns, but it is far from the only one under investigation. The Trump administration is now reviewing over 60 colleges and universities nationwide.

The pressure on Columbia is intensifying. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that lawyers from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights will be visiting Columbia’s campus imminently to assess potential violations of federal civil rights laws.

This comes after 18 months of escalating unrest at Columbia, including building takeovers, classroom disruptions, student encampments, and even assaults on custodial staff, as reported by The Free Press. Jewish students have described the environment as hostile and unsafe.

In a separate development on Monday, more than 600 Jewish scholars, students, and faculty from universities across the United States signed an open letter opposing the funding cuts.

“Harming U.S. Universities does not protect Jewish people,” the letter reads, as was detailed in The Free Press report. “Cutting funding for research does not protect Jewish people. Punishing researchers and scholars does not protect Jewish people. These actions do, however, limit opportunities for students and scholars—within the Jewish community and beyond—to receive training, conduct research, and engage in free expression.”

The letter reflects a deepening divide even within Jewish academic circles—between those who believe drastic federal measures are necessary to address antisemitism and those who fear such actions undermine academic freedom and the mission of higher education.

At the end of the tense Zoom meeting, Armstrong attempted to strike a conciliatory tone, The Free Press reported. “I think us all kind of taking a moment to walk in each other’s shoes is really what makes me proudest of this university,” she said. “It’s just been an extraordinary experience to watch people be able to do that and commit to doing that.”

But the dissonance between Armstrong’s rhetoric and Columbia’s actions—between private assurances and public commitments—has left both federal officials and members of the Columbia community questioning whether the university is serious about rooting out antisemitism or simply playing both sides to maintain funding and faculty support.

As the Department of Education and other federal agencies continue to press for full compliance, Columbia faces a stark choice: either honor the commitments it has made publicly and risk further faculty rebellion, or quietly renege on those promises and risk permanent federal defunding and legal consequences.