Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What statements have Penn leadership, the law school, or university archivists made about cooperating with investigations into Trump as of November 2025?
Executive summary
As of the available reporting, University of Pennsylvania leaders and spokespeople have said Penn has cooperated with federal inquiries in at least one high‑profile probe while simultaneously refusing certain demands they describe as intrusive — notably declining to provide lists of Jewish employees in an EEOC probe and contesting characterizations that it has obstructed investigations [1] [2]. Penn also publicly rejected the Trump administration’s voluntary “compact” offering preferential funding and, according to student paper reporting, has had no negotiations with the White House since that rejection [3] [4].
1. Penn says it has cooperated — but draws lines over personal data
University statements and reporting emphasize that Penn has provided extensive material to at least one federal agency: Penn told The Philadelphia Inquirer it had supplied more than 100 documents totaling over 900 pages to the EEOC in the federal probe of how the university handled antisemitism complaints [1]. At the same time the university explicitly refused to hand over “lists of Jewish employees, Jewish student employees and those associated with Jewish organizations, or their personal contact information,” saying disclosing that personal data would violate privacy and undermine the safety and trust of the Jewish community [1]. Those dual assertions — extensive cooperation on documents, firm refusal on specific personal lists — are central to Penn’s public posture in this case [1].
2. Federal agency frames Penn’s stance as obstructive; university disputes that characterization
The EEOC and other Trump‑aligned officials have accused Penn of obstructing efforts to identify victims and witnesses, with EEOC chair Andrea Lucas quoted saying an employer’s obstruction “undermines the EEOC’s ability to investigate harassment” and that the agency would seek court intervention where necessary [2]. Penn responded by saying it provided consented complainant information and offered to facilitate contact with employees willing to speak to the EEOC, an offer the agency allegedly rejected [2]. Reporting therefore records a direct factual dispute between the agency’s assertion of obstruction and Penn’s description of what it provided and offered [2] [1].
3. Penn leadership framed the broader federal funding conflict publicly
Beyond the EEOC matter, University leadership publicly addressed the White House’s broader actions on federal funding tied to policy disputes: Penn’s Office of the President described the Trump administration’s freeze and threats around $175 million in federal contracts linked to Title IX and athletics policy as a high‑stakes action and explained Penn’s prior exchanges with the Office for Civil Rights [3]. Separately, Forbes reported Penn formally rejected the Trump administration’s proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence,” with university leaders warning the compact’s provisions could restrict academic freedom and autonomy [3] [5]. Those public statements position Penn’s leadership as resisting administration demands they view as compromising institutional independence [3] [5].
4. Penn’s refusal to sign the Trump “compact” and its negotiation status
Coverage shows Penn was among universities that declined the administration’s funding compact, and the student newspaper The Daily Pennsylvanian reported Penn “has not engaged in negotiations with the Trump administration since it rejected the offer nearly a month ago,” indicating no subsequent cooperation on that voluntary funding scheme as of mid‑November 2025 [5] [4]. That rejection is separate from legal disputes over investigative cooperation, but it frames the university’s adversarial posture toward administration policy initiatives [5] [4].
5. Wider context: administration tactics and other universities’ settlements
News outlets document a pattern in which the administration has used funding leverage and other demands with multiple universities, sometimes reaching settlements (for example, Cornell’s settlement reported in broader coverage), and some reporting notes Penn had funds suspended then restored after engagements with federal agencies [6]. That context helps explain why Penn emphasizes both cooperation on document production and resistance to what it describes as overbroad or privacy‑invasive requests [6] [3].
6. What available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention any public statements from Penn Carey Law leadership or Penn’s archivists specifically addressing cooperation with criminal investigations into former President Trump, nor do they report Penn agreeing to provide private employee lists to the EEOC (not found in current reporting). Sources also do not report a final court ruling on the EEOC’s suit against Penn as of these items (not found in current reporting).
Summary: reporting shows Penn presents itself as cooperating substantively with federal probes while simultaneously refusing specific data requests it says would violate privacy and safety; federal agencies counter that refusal as obstruction, and the dispute has moved into litigation. Penn has also publicly rejected the Trump administration’s funding compact and — according to student reporting — hasn’t negotiated further on that front [1] [2] [5] [4] [3].