Princeton Reverses Course on Fossil Fuel Divestment

Princeton has reversed its stance on fossil fuel investments, saying that its long-term goal of a net-zero endowment may include engaging with energy companies that “will necessarily play a significant role in the clean-energy transition we want for our nation and for the Earth.” Vincent Tuohey, president of the Princeton University Investment Co. (Princo), announced the change in a June 1 letter to the University community.  

Image

Vincent Tuohey

M. Kruter/Fotobuddy

The letter also announced Princo’s goal to achieve a net-zero endowment portfolio by 2046, the year Princeton has targeted for reaching net zero in campus greenhouse gas emissions. A committee of experts will work to measure the endowment’s greenhouse gas impact, Tuohey wrote. The University did not say who would be part of the committee.  

Divestment from fossil fuel stocks, a cause championed by students and alumni for nearly a decade, gained formal footing in May 2021 when the Board of Trustees began a process to dissociate from companies active in the thermal coal and tar sands segments of the fossil fuel industry. Dissociation, according to the University, includes divesting from direct and indirect holdings of a company as well as reevaluating purchases, partnerships, and employer recruitment activities. 

In September 2022, Princeton’s trustees announced dissociation from 90 companies and asked Princo to take steps to make its portfolio net-zero over time. The same announcement said that Princo would “eliminate all holdings in publicly traded fossil fuel companies … [and] ensure that the endowment does not benefit from any future exposure to those companies.” 

Andrew Golden, Princo’s president at the time, confirmed in a November 2023 interview with PAW that the divestment process was completed in the year following the dissociation announcement. “If the University community says that this is a moral obligation that we have, we should do it, even if it costs money,” Golden said. “In other words, our principles should not be for sale.”  

Tuohey, who succeeded Golden in July 2024, said in his letter that the divestment from publicly traded fossil fuel companies was a voluntary choice by Princo.  

“It’s not obvious that Princo’s initial approach has moved the endowment meaningfully closer to net-zero, nor is it obvious that major energy companies will be out of bounds for a net-zero endowment,” he wrote. 

Tuohey said that the new approach to fossil fuel investments will provide “greater flexibility in managing an endowment whose resources are critical for financial aid and scientific research — including climate research — at a time when our sector is under financial strain.” President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, in his February 2026 State of the University letter, cited declining long-term rates of return in university endowments as a key factor in budget cuts and operational changes at Princeton. 

“I believe our revised approach toward a net-zero endowment will enhance both the resources available to faculty and students and our potential to positively contribute to a more sustainable climate and environment,” Tuohey wrote. 

Princo’s announcement was met with dismay and skepticism from alumni who were part of Divest Princeton and its campaign to end fossil fuel investments. “We still have not seen fossil fuel companies actually be the leaders on clean energy,” said Hannah Reynolds Martinez ’22. “And the people who are leaders on clean energy are researchers and students and professors who are doing the work on the ground at Princeton, but their interests are often overridden by corporate interests ... .”

Lynne Archibald ’87 added that “fossil fuel companies have knowingly deceived Americans and the world for decades in order to turn a profit for their shareholders.” The Princeton trustees initially included companies that have “engaged in climate disinformation campaigns” in their May 2021 dissociation call but ultimately did not identify any companies in that category.

Recent graduate Alex Norbrook ’26, a co-founder of the climate advocacy group Sunrise Princeton, said that Princeton’s announcement “may be a signal for other universities” that have committed to fossil fuel divestment. “In the same way that Princeton acts as a leader when it does do divestment and encourages other universities to follow suit, its walk back and reversal of that might potentially signal a similar trend in the reverse direction,” Norbrook said. “Hopefully other universities take this as a sign to double down on commitments to sustainability and climate action rather than walk those commitments back.”

J. David Hohmann ’88, a member of the Greening Reunions Alumni Working Group, added that the timeline for Princo’s net-zero target was disappointing. “I think that effort to make the endowment carbon neutral is great, but I don’t want us to kick the can down the road with another 20-year lag time before we approach that goal,” he said. 

John Tyler ’76, formerly a managing director of foundations and endowments at Fiduciary Trust International, viewed the announcement in a more positive light. “Balancing worthy ideals with economic reality can be difficult, but circumstances are different today than when the divestment policy was enacted,” Tyler said in an email to PAW. “Personally, I believe the University is being responsible to prioritize returns … when one considers the many principled ways in which Princeton leads in our global society, including its continued aversion to coal and tar sand investing.”

Brad Swanson ’76, a sustainable fund manager and author of the book Profit vs. Progress: Why Socially Responsible Investment Doesn’t Work and How to Fix It, critiqued what he sees as a mismatch of investment strategy and institutional values. “If Princeton wants to be in the service of humanity, it needs to back away from fossil fuel companies whose emissions are the largest contributor to global warming,” Swanson wrote in an email to PAW. “An endowment as large as Princeton’s can achieve market-level, or better, results even without oil company stocks by astute diversification and nimble allocation. Selling out climate protection to try to achieve a few extra basis points of return is not what Princeton should be about.”

The Princo announcement is not the first change of direction Princeton has made since announcing its September 2022 dissociation vote. Dissociation originally included a ban on accepting any research funding from a list of companies that has grown from 90 to more than 1,700, as of January 2026. But in October 2024, the University opened the possibility of accepting support for “research projects aimed toward the amelioration of the environmental harms of carbon emissions,” among other guidelines.  

Historically, Princeton has set a high bar for dissociating or divesting endowment funds. The Resources Committee of the Council of the Princeton University Community sends recommendations to the trustees after reviewing proposals using three primary criteria: considerable, thoughtful, and sustained interest on campus involving the actions of a company or companies; direct and serious contradiction with a University value; and consensus on how the University should respond. Successful divestment campaigns of the past were related to apartheid in South Africa and genocide in Darfur. 

When the University announced Princo’s divestment from publicly traded fossil fuel companies in 2022, climate advocates widely lauded the move. But some alumni questioned the wisdom of abandoning investments in the industry while continuing to at least partially rely on fossil fuels to support campus utilities and other everyday activities such as travel.  

This story has been updated to include reactions from alumni.