As Northwestern faculty continue to grapple with the consequences of the $790 million federal funding freeze, the Trump administration still has yet to publicly announce what concessions would help the University recover this funding.

In July, the University was in active talks with the Trump administration over potential settlements, according to The Wall Street Journal. Since then, talks have slowed, according to the New York Times in September.

NU committed to supporting research directly impacted by the freeze one week after the initial announcement. On Oct. 1, the University extended its promise to continue this financial support until at least the end of the calendar year. 

Faculty members are divided on whether the University should negotiate with the Trump administration in an attempt to reclaim federal funding.  

McCormick Prof. Justin Notestein said he supports the University striking an agreement with the Trump administration because research cannot continue without federal funding. Notestein said he anticipates severe consequences if NU’s research support runs dry.

“(If) the research at Northwestern collapses entirely, we shut down as a research institution,” Notestein said.

The University is supporting researchers by continuing to fund projects, Notestein said, but it cannot afford to fund research indefinitely.

For him, being able to conduct research is more than just a career.

“Being a researcher at the University is an inextricable part of the identity of the people that are researchers at universities,” he said. “And so it’s more than a job for most faculty, and I’ll certainly say this on my own part. It is part of my identity.”

Taking a deal will not come without repercussions, Notestein said, as the Trump administration has “enormous leverage” over the University. He said he understands why a lot of NU faculty would be upset with a deal given its potential stipulations.

Notestein said these researchers might end up “voting with their feet,” leaving the University for outside opportunities.

“I’m positive we’ll be dealing with some members of the staff that will choose to no longer work at the University,” Notestein said.

For Spanish and Portuguese Prof. Jorge Coronado, coming to an agreement with the Trump administration goes beyond just “getting the money back.”

By withholding funds already promised to the University, Coronado said the administration is “extorting” the institution in order to shape its image. He said the University would be “negotiating away its autonomy.”

Though NU is funding research projects impacted by the freeze, Coronado said in the event the University runs out of sufficient funds and has not reached a deal, the Board of Trustees should also use the endowment to “fulfill the mission of education and research” and continue to sustain the University’s research.

“The idea that the Board of Trustees would not want to touch the endowment at this moment is mind-boggling,” Coronado said. “This is an emergency. This is all hands on deck, and we should be dipping into the endowment to fund ourselves going forward.”

The contingencies on academic freedom that may come with a deal worry McCormick Prof. Sossina Haile. Specifically, Haile expressed concern over restrictions on syllabus topics and even topics she said do not relate to education, such as gender expression. 

Haile said she is not confident the federal administration’s demands would end there, based on the Trump administration’s increased demands for Columbia University after an initial deal.

“Even if there’s a deal struck, I have no trust in this particular administration that they wouldn’t come back demanding more,” Haile said.

Haile said a federal grant for her own research in sustainable energy technologies was cut in September after she waited months for money to clear on the previously approved grant. Haile said these cuts are a loss for the U.S., jeopardizing the country’s ability to remain a global leader in innovation. 

“The federal government views this as some favor that they’re doing to the universities, but it’s not,” Haile said. “This is what allows the U.S. to be competitive and leading the world. They’re shooting themselves in the foot.”

History Prof. Helen Tilley said the premise of restricting funding is unlawful and undermines the integrity of the University. 

By deliberately creating a financial crisis, Tilley said the Trump administration is trying to “extort” an agreement that waives fundamental rights, including the rights to assembly, dissent, due process and data protection.

Any agreement that compromises academic freedoms only “gives autocrats more power,” Tilley said.  

Tilley criticized the Board of Trustees’ secrecy surrounding the Trump administration’s threats to the “basic rights” of individuals at the University, nor are they enlisting the help of experts here at NU. She said it requires staff and students to take risks to defend fundamental principles that the Board of Trustees should be fighting for.

“If (trustees) don’t understand that the core mission of a University includes academic freedom, if (they’re) willing to sign away academic freedom in exchange to keep the money flowing, (they) are already signing away the integrity of the University,” Tilley said.

Email: [email protected]

Related Stories:

— The Daily Explains: What Northwestern has changed on DEI-related websites since Trump orders 

— As federal funding freeze persists, Northwestern’s researchers navigate uncertain futures 

— Jewish students at Northwestern divided over federal funding freeze to combat antisemitism