The University of Cambridge has pushed back a crucial vote on the extent to which it should divest from arms companies, after members of its senior policy-making body failed to agree on a decision.

A decision had been expected at Monday’s meeting of the University Council – which includes the Vice-Chancellor, Heads of Houses and elected members – where councillors discussed the findings of the Working Group on Investment’s report, published in October.

However, Varsity understands that the vote has now been postponed until the next Council meeting in early February, after several undecided councillors requested further information about the University’s existing financial exposure to the defence sector.

Set up in July 2024, the Working Group on Investment was tasked with examining Cambridge’s ties to the arms industry through its £4.2bn Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF), which is managed separately but wholly owned by the University.

Last month, the Council approved the report’s central recommendation for Cambridge to divest from “any company which manufactures weapons illegal under UK law,” including chemical, biological, and cluster munitions. This marked the first time the University had excluded investments on the basis of arms production.

But the report stopped short of recommending divestment from manufacturers of “conventional weapons” – those not classified as nuclear, biological or chemical – noting that CUEF’s current exposure to such companies is already below 1% of the fund.

However, the report stopped short of recommending divestment from companies involved in manufacturing “conventional weapons” – those used in standard combat operations and not classified as nuclear, biological, or chemical. According to the report, Cambridge’s current exposure to such companies is already below 1% of its total investments.

The report set out three possible routes for the Council to take at a future meeting.

Briefing notes for Monday’s meeting, seen by Varsity, show that the first option was to make no new restrictions on investments in conventional weapons manufacturers, arguing that it would be inappropriate to limit such exposure “during a period of increasing risk to the security of the United Kingdom and its allies”. Under this approach, the University would simply monitor the endowment’s exposure and, if it ever exceeded 1%, publish a transparency report detailing all relevant companies.

A second option proposed a formal 1% “carve-out,” committing Cambridge to “minimise investment” in these companies in line with the University’s values and wider ethical considerations. This would require keeping exposure below 1% at all times and “as low as possible” without jeopardising the endowment’s financial returns.

The third and most far-reaching option was for Cambridge to conclude that it “should not invest in any company which manufactures any weapons,” on “ethical” grounds, with a phased timeline that would lead ultimately to full divestment.

This is not the first time Cambridge has pushed back a decision related to arms divestment. The Working Group’s review had initially been scheduled for completion in Michaelmas 2024, after the University pledged – in a statement urging students to end the pro-Palestine encampment – that it would work “rapidly” and “reach initial positions by the end of term”.

Instead, the review, chaired by Downing Master Dr Graham Virgo, only concluded in July 2025.

A spokesperson for Cambridge for Palestine (C4P), told Varsity: “This delay is disgraceful, Palestinians can’t afford to wait any longer for this University to make philosophical observations about its investment in the tools used to commit genocide.”

Meanwhile, Richard Penty, Head of the University’s School of Technology, told Varsity: “Against the backdrop of current global events and heightened risks to UK national security, the Working Group has made sensible recommendations that Council has endorsed.

“National security is an increasingly critical consideration for Cambridge, and our investment policy should reflect both our responsibilities as a leading institution and the government’s position, for instance as set out in the Defence Industrial Strategy.

“Given the significance of this decision in the national context, Council is right to take the necessary time to weigh the options carefully. As the University’s trustees, they must balance financial sustainability, our ethical stance, and our role in supporting the UK’s security and economy. Aligning our investment policy with the principles already agreed for research – preserving academic freedom to work with defence companies while setting clear expectations on controversial weapons - will ensure consistency and clarity at a time of intense public and governmental scrutiny,” Penty added.

Professor Jason Scott Warren, who sits on the Council, told Varsity: “Divestment from fossil fuels has been a long and painful process. Now the proposal to divest from weapons manufacture is encountering significant resistance, from those who see it as an affront to national security and to our research engagement with national security. I hope that the University can be persuaded to adopt a more ethical position in this area.”

Last month, Cambridge SU issued an open letter calling for full divestment and held a student referendum on whether the SU should campaign to end University investments and collaborations with institutions involved in “occupation and weapons manufacture”. Students voted overwhelmingly in favour, albeit on a low turnout.

Meanwhile, earlier this year, King’s College became the first constituent college to commit to complete divestment from arms companies – a move described by its Provost, Gillian Tett, as “a positive result from a process that engaged voices from all areas of our community”.

In July, Varsity reported that Dr Colm Durkan, head of the Department of Engineering, allegedly said that divestment from companies in the arms industry would pose an “existential” threat to the department and the wider University.

The University of Cambridge has been contacted for comment.