On July 31, 2024, James B. Milliken, soon to be the president of the University of California (UC) system, received alarming news while at a golf club in Nebraska. The Trump administration had suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding for the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), a major campus within the system. This decision marked a significant escalation in the administration’s ongoing campaign against elite universities, particularly targeting claims of antisemitism and alleged “woke” indoctrination.
The funding freeze was part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to exert control over higher education institutions. Over the following months, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) intensified its scrutiny of UCLA, threatening multiple discrimination lawsuits, demanding over $1 billion in fines, and pushing for sweeping changes aligned with conservative priorities in education.
An investigation by ProPublica and The Chronicle of Higher Education reveals that the DOJ employed questionable legal tactics to build its case against UCLA. According to former DOJ officials, political appointees instructed teams of career civil rights lawyers to rapidly gather evidence that would support a predetermined conclusion: that UCLA had unlawfully tolerated antisemitism. The teams ultimately focused on UCLA due to its prominence and visibility amid protests regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Despite the intense pressure, the internal recommendations from DOJ lawyers indicated a lack of sufficient evidence to support a strong case against UCLA. An internal memo obtained by the investigators highlighted that the university had already implemented measures to address antisemitism, stemming from an earlier investigation during the Biden administration. The memo expressed concern over the legality and ethics of pursuing the case, with several lawyers relieved they had left the DOJ before being compelled to sign off on it.
The UC system’s heavy reliance on federal funding, which constitutes about one-third of its revenue, limited its ability to resist the DOJ’s actions. UC leaders faced significant internal pressure to respond to the DOJ’s demands but feared that aggressive resistance could provoke further retaliation against UCLA and other campuses. This apprehension was compounded by the DOJ’s investigations into all ten UC campuses, particularly targeting UC Berkeley.
In an atmosphere of uncertainty, Milliken acknowledged the unique challenges facing UCLA and the UC system. He described the current landscape as unparalleled and the toughest situation he had encountered in his extensive career in higher education.
A pivotal moment came on November 14, 2024, when U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin issued a ruling in favor of the UC system, stating that the Trump administration had disregarded legal requirements in its actions against UCLA. She ordered the DOJ to cease all coercive conduct and released $584 million in frozen grant funding. Despite this temporary reprieve, concerns remained that the Trump administration would continue its aggressive tactics.
UCLA faculty members, including those who had experienced antisemitism, expressed alarm that their complaints were being weaponized by the government to justify funding cuts critical for scientific research. Ron Avi Astor, a professor at UCLA, articulated his frustration, emphasizing the impact of funding cuts on vital research initiatives.
The Trump administration had long targeted the UC system, viewing it as a liberal stronghold. With a student body of nearly 300,000 and a significant presence in scientific research, UC’s dependence on federal funding made it vulnerable to such aggressive actions. In the wake of the administration’s scrutiny, funding for essential research projects was halted, impacting the ability of researchers to continue their work.
As the situation unfolded, Milliken and UC leaders sought to balance the demands of the federal government with the needs and concerns of their academic community. Milliken’s initial public statements acknowledged the troubling nature of the funding cuts, emphasizing the importance of UC’s research efforts.
Faced with a complex and challenging landscape, the University of California administration has opted for negotiations with the DOJ, while faculty members have rallied for more direct legal action against the federal government. Concerns about the Trump administration’s methods and the potential implications for academic freedom remain at the forefront of discussions within the UC system.
As the legal battle continues, the future of UCLA’s funding and its ability to carry out essential research hangs in the balance, illustrating the broader conflicts between educational institutions and government power in the current political climate.
