Over the last few months, there has been movement within Cambridge University's bureaucratic system, and it looked as if some meaningful steps towards divestment were on the horizon. This came following the University Council’s introduction of a monitoring regime for investments in conventional weapons in April 2026. However, some students may have seen the recently published article from The Middle East Eye detailing the failure of the University to commit to arms divestment in any meaningful way.
As the article outlined, in July 2026 the Cambridge University Endowment Trustee Body did institute a 0% threshold in the ‘Defence and Aerospace’ sector under a new monitoring regime. Though this initially appeared to signal divestment, recent communication from the University has made it clear that this is not a simple success. Notably, the monitoring system that has been put in place to track the 0% threshold considers only whether investments in arms are ‘responsible’. This means the proposed response to any breach of the 0% threshold under this monitoring regime will not lead to the reduction of investments in conventional weaponry- as student campaigners expected. Rather, this ‘monitoring’ regime would be better described as a ‘transparency’ regime - it is entirely non-binding and there are not any built-in consequences for investing in arms past the 0% threshold. In effect, this monitoring regime will not lead to a decrease in investments.
The reality of this proposed threshold and monitoring scheme is clearly in line with the University's actions over the last year. With this announcement we must remember the continuing stream of disappointing decisions made by the Cambridge University Endowment Fund (CUEF). In the last quarter of 2025, CUEF invested more than £140 million in the iShares ESG Select Screened S&P 500 fund, which owns shares in companies including Palantir Technologies, Caterpillar and GE Aerospace. These are all companies with well-documented involvement in Israeli military action, the driving force behind the genocide in Palestine. This news was documented in Varsity in March, and can be found here.
These erratic and misleading behaviours make it clear that the University has little desire to listen to its members and make any concrete moves towards divestment. Once again, we can see them attempting to placate the students, staff and community residents that have dedicated so much time to campaigning. As an SU, we are wholeheartedly disappointed in this action. We call on the University of Cambridge to stay true to its moral responsibilities as an institute of education and urge it to listen to the desire of its students who continue to campaign for an end to its complicity.