The University of Cambridge has delayed a decision on whether to divest from companies involved in weapons production for the second time in just over two months, leaving the future of its arms investments uncertain.

The vote, originally scheduled for late November, was postponed to early February after the University Council – the University’s policy-making body, comprising the vice-chancellor, academics, and student representatives – failed to reach agreement. At its meeting on Monday (02/02), the Council again did not reach a decision, and it remains unclear when the issue will return to a vote.

According to multiple sources present at the meeting, which focused on the findings of the Working Group on Investment’s report published in October, the delay came after some Council members questioned whether the University’s ‘funds of funds’ investment model can, in practice, accommodate arms divestment. Because the model delegates investment decisions to third-party fund managers, members raised concerns about the extent to which the University can impose ethical restrictions on its investments.

Varsity understands that the Council was nevertheless told that the funds of funds structure has allowed divestment in other contexts, and that no clear case has been made for why arms manufacturers would be treated differently. Members were also advised that, if the Council were to decide in favour of divestment, the investment framework would be required to give effect to that decision.

Professor Jason Scott-Warren, a member of the Council, said: “I remain hopeful that the Council will vote to divest from manufacturers of legal weapons, on the grounds that it is now commonplace for such weapons to be used in illegal ways. A charity cannot risk the possibility that part of its funding might come from unlawful activities.”

Another Council member warned that continued delay risked wider consequences for the University’s governance. “The university owes it to its community to make a decision about its investment in arms. The regent house has expressed a concern about these investments, as have the students. These considerations have emerged all across the collegiate university in all the colleges as well.”

They continued: “At some point someone will have to make a decision. And who does will have significant consequences for the governance of the university. If the Council decides, it accepts its responsibilities as the strategic body of the university. If the CUETB [Cambridge University Endowment Trustee Body] does, the university abdicates its agency over its investments. And if the Regent House does, the university’s investment becomes resolutely subject to its internal democracy.”

A University spokesperson said: “The University Council had a constructive discussion with the Chair of the Cambridge University Endowment Fund Trustee Body, during which a wide range of views on all sides of the issue were again expressed. The Council and CUEFTB will continue to work together on a way forward.”

The Working Group on Investment was established in July 2024 to examine 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.

In October, the Council approved the report’s central recommendation to divest from companies that manufacture weapons illegal under UK law, including chemical, biological, and cluster munitions. This marked the first time Cambridge excluded investments on the basis of arms production.

The report did not, however, recommend divestment from manufacturers of “conventional weapons,” noting that CUEF’s current exposure to such companies is already below 1% of total investments.

Instead, it set out three options for the Council. The first was to impose no new restrictions, arguing that limiting exposure would be inappropriate “during a period of increasing risk to the security of the United Kingdom and its allies,” with the University merely monitoring holdings and publishing a transparency report if exposure exceeded 1%.

The second proposed a formal 1% “carve-out,” committing the University to keep investment in conventional weapons manufacturers below that threshold at all times and “as low as possible” in line with Cambridge’s values.

The third, most far-reaching option was a phased move towards full divestment from all weapons manufacturers on ethical grounds.

The Working Group’s review was initially due to conclude by the end of Michaelmas 2024, after the University pledged to act “rapidly” in a statement urging students to end a pro-Palestine encampment. In practice, the review – chaired by Downing Master Dr Graham Virgo – did not conclude until July 2025.

Meanwhile, in October, Cambridge Students’ Union issued an open letter calling for full divestment and held a student referendum on campaigning against University investments and collaborations linked to “occupation and weapons manufacture”. Students voted overwhelmingly in favour, though turnout was low.

Last year, King’s College became the first Cambridge college to commit to full divestment from arms companies, a move its Provost, Gillian Tett, described as “a positive result from a process that engaged voices from all areas of our community”.