Trump demands US$1bn from University of California over UCLA protests
U.S. President Donald Trump demanded a massive US$1 billion fine from the prestigious University of California system on Friday as the administration pushed its claims of antisemitism in UCLA's response to 2024 student protests related to Gaza.
The figure, which is five times the sum Columbia University agreed to pay to settle similar federal accusations of antisemitism, would 'completely devastate' the UC public university system, a senior official said.
President James Milliken, who oversees the 10 campuses that make up the University of California system, including Los Angeles-based UCLA, said managers had received the US$1 billion demand on Friday and were reviewing it.
'As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country's greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians,' he said.
'Americans across this great nation rely on the vital work of UCLA and the UC system for technologies and medical therapies that save lives, grow the U.S. economy, and protect our national security.'
Media reports suggest the government wants the money in installments and is demanding the university also pay US$172 million to a claims fund to compensate Jewish students and others affected by alleged discrimination.
The UC system, with schools that are consistently ranked the best public universities in the United States, is already grappling with the Trump administration's more-than half-billion dollar freeze on medical and science grants at UCLA alone.
The move appears to follow a similar playbook the White House used to extract concessions from Columbia University, and is trying to use to get Harvard University to bend.
Columbia's agreement includes a pledge to obey rules barring it from taking race into consideration in admissions or hiring, among other concessions.
Pro-Palestinian protests rocked dozens of U.S. campuses in 2024, with police crackdowns and mob violence erupting over student encampments, from Columbia to UCLA, with then-president Joe Biden saying 'order must prevail.'
Universities have been in Trump's sights since he returned to the White House.
His Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement views academia as elite, overly liberal and hostile to the kind of ethno-nationalism popular among Trump supporters.
The US$1 billion demand of UCLA came the day after California Governor Gavin Newsom, who frequently spars with Trump, said the UC should not give in to the president's demands.
'There's right and wrong, and we'll do the right thing,' said Newsom, who sits on the UC board.
'This is about our competitiveness. It's about the fate and future of this country. It's about our sovereignty. It's about so much more than the temperament of an aggrieved individual who happens to currently be president of the United States,' he told reporters.
'I'll do everything in my power to encourage them to do the right thing and not to become another law firm that bends on their knees, another company that sells their soul or another institution that takes a shortcut and takes the easy wrong versus the hard right.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada News.Net
33 minutes ago
- Canada News.Net
Why Trump wants Putin in Alaska and not anywhere else
The choice of Americas northern frontier is as much about politics as it is about geography The choice of Alaska as the venue for the August 15, 2025, bilateral summit between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin carries a rare blend of symbolism. It reaches deep into the past, reflects the current geopolitical balance, and hints at the contours of future US-Russia relations. From the standpoint of historical memory, there is hardly another place in the United States that so clearly embodies the spirit of neighborliness and mutually beneficial cooperation lost during the Cold War. From 1737 until 1867, this vast, sparsely populated land was known as Russian America - a semi-exclave of the Russian Empire, separated from its Eurasian heartland yet sharing a border with another state. Tsar Alexander II's decision to sell Alaska to the United States for $7.2 million was one of the most debated diplomatic transactions of the 19th century. In St. Petersburg, it was clear: if left unattended, Alaska would likely fall into the hands of Russia's main rival at the time - the British Empire. Handing it over to Washington was not an act of weakness, but a calculated investment in future relations with a nation whose Pacific ambitions did not yet collide with Russia's. In the 20th century, this symbolic connection gained new meaning. During World War II, the city of Fairbanks - with a population of just thirty thousand - became a major hub in the Lend-Lease program, a massive US military aid effort that supplied the Soviet Union with aircraft, equipment, and materials. Alaska's airfields served as a key route for delivering American planes to the Eastern Front. Even today, Alaska remains the "most Russian" of US states: home to Old Believers - descendants of 19th-century settlers seeking religious freedom - with functioning Orthodox churches and place names like Nikolaevsk, Voznesensk, and Upper and Lower Russian Lakes, linked by the Russian River. But the choice of Alaska is more than a nod to history; it is also a political calculation. Trump clearly has no intention of sharing the spotlight with intermediaries such as Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Türkiye, or Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the president of the United Arab Emirates and one of the most influential figures in Middle Eastern politics. Both men have played high-profile roles as international brokers, but their involvement would inevitably shift the tone and priorities of the summit. Trump has chosen the most geographically remote state in the union - thousands of miles from any Euro-Atlantic capital - to underline his distance both from his Democratic opponents at home and from NATO allies who, acting in Kiev's interests, will seek to undermine any potential breakthroughs. There is also a practical side: Alaska's low population density makes it easier for security services to minimize the risk of terrorist attacks or staged provocations, while sidestepping the legal complications posed by the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant. In 2002, the United States withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute and it does not recognize the ICC's jurisdiction on its soil. There is another crucial dimension: Alaska is America's only truly Arctic region. In a world where the Trump administration has been exerting pressure on Canada and Greenland to bring them under firmer US influence, the high north is becoming a strategic theater. Russia and the United States have overlapping interests here - from developing the Northern Sea Route, which partly runs through the Bering Strait, to tapping offshore oil and gas reserves. The Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater formation in the Arctic Ocean claimed by Russia as a natural extension of its continental shelf, is a case in point. Joint Arctic projects could turn the region into one of the most prosperous in the world, but under a different scenario it could just as easily become a stage for nuclear weapons tests and air defense drills. Ukraine will loom large over the summit agenda. Western media outlets have already floated the possibility of territorial swaps - for example, the withdrawal of Ukrainian forces from Donetsk People's Republic in exchange for Russian concessions in the Sumy, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, and Nikolaev regions. Even Western analysts have called such a deal a diplomatic victory for Moscow, noting that the unoccupied territory Russia would gain would be four times the size of the areas it might cede. Alaska is a fitting place for such discussions: its own history is a vivid reminder that territorial ownership is not an immutable historical-geographic constant, but a political and diplomatic variable shaped by the agreements of great powers in specific historical moments. The summit in Alaska is more than just a meeting between two leaders. It is a return to the logic of direct dialogue without intermediaries, a reminder of historic ties, and a test of whether Moscow and Washington are willing to work together where their interests not only intersect, but could align. Alaska's story began as Russian, continued as American - and now has the chance to become a shared chapter, if both sides choose to see it as an opportunity rather than a threat.
Winnipeg Free Press
3 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
A Congolese refugee's 8-year struggle to reunite with her family in the US
BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The Congolese woman's search for safety sent her on a terrifying trek of nearly 2,300 miles (3,700 kilometers) through southern Africa on foot when she was just 15. Reuniting with her family has been a more difficult journey. For eight years, she clung to hope through delays and setbacks as she navigated a U.S. program that reconnects refugees with family members already in the country, and her dream of seeing them again seemed close to becoming a reality. But President Donald Trump signed an executive order halting the refugee program just hours after he took office on Jan. 20, leaving her and thousands of other refugees stranded. 'It was horrible. I would never wish for anyone to go through that, ever. When I think about it, I just …' she said, pausing to take a long breath. 'Honestly, I had given up. I told my mom maybe it was just not meant for us to see each other again.' During a brief block on the order, the woman made it into the U.S., one of only about 70 refugees to arrive in the country since Trump took office. She asked that her name not be used because she fears retaliation. 'It's been a really devastating roller coaster for those families, to be stuck in this limbo of not knowing whether their hope of being resettled in the United States will ever come true,' said Melissa Keaney, an attorney with the International Refugee Assistance Project. The woman was an infant when her mother fled the Democratic Republic of Congo's civil war in 1997, seeking shelter at Tanzania's Nyarugusu refugee camp. When the camp grew too dangerous, she fled for South Africa. She built a modest life there, always hoping she would rejoin her family, even after they were resettled in the U.S. For a time, that seemed likely, thanks to the 'follow to join' program. The refugee program had bipartisan support for decades, allowing people displaced by war, natural disaster or persecution to legally migrate to the U.S. and providing a pathway to citizenship. But Trump's executive order halting the program said communities didn't have the ability to 'absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees.' Organizations like the International Refugee Assistance Project and some refugees, including the Congolese woman and her mother, sued over Trump's order in February. They said resettlement agencies were forced to lay off hundreds of workers and some refugees were left in dangerous places. 'I had a small business and told everyone, 'I'm out now,'' she said. 'It felt like this door had just been opened, and I was running toward it when — boom! — they push it shut right in front of me.' A difficult choice: Family or safety? Looking back on her time in the Nyarugusu refugee camp, she remembers teaching her little brother to ride a bike and whispering with her sister late at night. She remembers hunger and fear as attacks on refugees foraging outside the camp increased. 'You see someone hanged, and that brings fear,' she said. 'You don't know if you'll be next. You don't know if they're waiting for you.' By 2012, the camp was especially dangerous for teen girls, who were at risk of being kidnapped or assaulted. With little hope of a viable future, her mother made a plan: The 15-year-old would walk to South Africa, where she would have a better chance of finishing school and building a life. Her siblings were too young to make the journey, so she would have to go alone. She didn't know the way, so joined other travelers, often going without food during the six-week journey. The crossing from Mozambique into Zimbabwe was deep in a forest. The group she was following had hired a guide, but he abandoned them in the middle of the night. Under the thin moonlight, the group walked toward a cellphone tower in the distance, hoping to find civilization. 'How we made it to the other side was only God,' she said. A family, worlds apart In Durban, South Africa, she finished school, started a tailoring business, joined a church and volunteered helping homeless people. Then in 2016, the 19-year-old got unexpected news: Her family was being resettled in the United States, without her. 'It happened so fast,' she said. 'When I left, the idea of them going to be resettled was never in the mind at all.' Her family settled in Boise, Idaho, and her mother signed her up for the 'follow to join' program in 2017. The program often takes years and requires strict vetting with interviews, medical exams and documentation. At the start of 2020, the woman was asked to provide a DNA sample, typically one of the final steps. Then the COVID pandemic hit. For the next several years, her case foundered. A social worker would send her to the local consulate, where she'd be told to go back to the social worker. 'It went on and on,' she said. Last year, her case was handed over to lawyers volunteering their time 'and that's when we started seeing some light.' A roller coaster of hope and despair By January, she had her travel documents and gave up her home. But her plane ticket wasn't issued before Trump took office. Within hours, he suspended the refugee program, and the consulate told the woman she could no longer have her passport and visa. 'That was the worst moment of my life,' she said. Nearly 130,000 refugees had conditional approval to enter the U.S. when Trump halted the program, the administration said in court documents. At least 12,000 of them were about to travel. The aid groups' lawsuit asks a judge to declare Trump's executive order illegal. A federal judge granted a nationwide injunction temporarily blocking the order in late February. An appeals court blocked most of the injunction weeks later. But that brief legal window was enough: A group of refugee advocates donated funds to cover the woman's flight to the U.S. Her family met her at the airport in March — a joyful reunion more than a dozen years in the making. 'They made a feast, and there were drinks and songs and we'd dance,' she said, smiling. The appeals court ordered the government to admit thousands more conditionally accepted refugees, but the administration has created new roadblocks, Keaney said, including decreasing the time refugees' security screenings are valid to 30 days —- down from three years. 'It causes cascades in delays, setting people back months or more,' Keaney said. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are waiting for the courts to decide what the government must do to comply with the ruling. Rebuilding relationships The Congolese woman, now 28, is still getting to know her youngest brothers, who were children when she left for South Africa. One is now a father. 'It's been a long time and a lot has changed, you know, on my side and on their side,' she said. 'I'm still on that learning journey. We are getting to bond again.' Boise is friendly, but she hasn't escaped the worries she hoped to leave behind. She fears being exposed as the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Trump administration will turn her family into targets for harassment. 'Home is where my family is. If me being known can bring any kind of negative impact … I don't want to even imagine that happening,' she said.
Winnipeg Free Press
5 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
What to know about how Trump's judicial picks could reshape abortion rights for decades
CHICAGO (AP) — A review by The Associated Press shows that several of President Donald Trump's nominees to the federal courts have revealed anti-abortion views, been associated with anti-abortion groups or defended abortion restrictions. Several have helped defend their state's abortion restrictions in court and some have been involved in cases with national impact, including on access to medication abortion. While Trump has said issues related to abortion should be left to the states, the nominees, with lifetime appointments, would be in position to roll back abortion rights long after Trump leaves the White House. Trump has been inconsistent on abortion Trump has repeatedly shifted his messaging on abortion, often giving contradictory or vague answers. In the years before his most recent presidential campaign, Trump had voiced support for a federal ban on abortion on or after 20 weeks in pregnancy and said he might support a national ban around 15 weeks. He later settled on messaging that decisions about abortion access should be left to the states. Throughout his campaign, Trump has alternated between taking credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade and striking a more neutral tone. That's been an effort to navigate the political divide between his base of anti-abortion supporters and the broader public, which largely supports access to abortion. Many nominees have anti-abortion backgrounds One Trump nominee called abortion a 'barbaric practice' while another referred to himself as a 'zealot' for the anti-abortion movement. A nominee from Tennessee said abortion deserves special scrutiny because 'this is the only medical procedure that terminates a life.' One from Missouri spread misinformation about medication abortion, including that it 'starves the baby to death in the womb' in a lawsuit aiming to challenge the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. Legal experts and abortion rights advocates warn of a methodical remaking of the federal courts in a way that could pose enduring threats to abortion access nationwide. Bernadette Meyler, a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University, said judicial appointments 'are a way of federally shaping the abortion question without going through Congress or making a big, explicit statement.' 'It's a way to cover up a little bit what is happening in the abortion sphere compared to legislation or executive orders that may be more visible, dramatic and spark more backlash,' she said. The nominees represent Trump's 'promises' to Americans, White House says Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said 'every nominee of the President represents his promises to the American people and aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling.' 'The Democrats' extreme position on abortion was rejected in November in favor of President Trump's commonsense approach, which allows states to decide, supports the sanctity of human life, and prevents taxpayer funding of abortion,' Fields said in a statement to the AP. Trump focused primarily on the economy and immigration during his 2024 campaign, the issues that surveys showed were the most important topics for voters. Anti-abortion groups, abortion rights advocates respond Anti-abortion advocates say it's premature to determine whether the nominees will support their objectives but that they're hopeful based on the names put forth so far. 'We look forward to four more years of nominees cut from that mold,' said Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs for the national anti-abortion organization SBA Pro-Life America. Abortion rights advocates said Trump is embedding abortion opponents into the judiciary one judge at a time 'This just feeds into this larger strategy where Trump has gotten away with distancing himself from abortion, saying he's going to leave it to the states, while simultaneously appointing anti-abortion extremists at all levels of government,' said Mini Timmaraju, president of the national abortion rights organization Reproductive Freedom for All.
