Trump's DOJ probing racial and sex-based discrimination in hiring at University of California school system
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department launched an investigation Thursday into the University of California system to determine if it ran afoul of federal law by engaging in racial or sex-based discrimination when hiring faculty.
President Trump's DOJ said that it was taking particular issue with the 'UC 2030 Capacity Plan,' which seeks to 'diversify its faculty,' specifically identifying 'underrepresented minorities' and 'female faculty' as two areas of special emphasis.
The 10-campus UC system, which takes more than $17 billion in federal funding, launched the program in 2022 as part of its efforts to increase racial and gender diversity on campus.
Included in the UC 2030 Capacity Plan's roadmap to 'grow and diversify its faculty' are two programs designed to expedite the entry of women and minorities into the faculty: the UC President's Pre-Professoriate Fellowship Program and the UC President's Postdoctoral Fellowship.
4 President Trump's DOJ said that it was taking particular issue with the 'UC 2030 Capacity Plan,' which seeks to 'diversify its faculty,' specifically identifying 'underrepresented minorities' and 'female faculty' as two areas of special emphasis.
AFP via Getty Images
According to the Pre-Professoriate Fellowship's info page, the program 'aims to enhance faculty diversity and pathways to the professoriate for historically underrepresented students from California Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs).'
The webpage also specifies the demographic groups the fellowship 'particularly' seeks to aid, listing the following categories: 'Chicanx/Latinx, African Americans, American Indians/Native Americans, Filipinx, and Pacific Islanders in all disciplines; women in STEM; and Asian Americans in the humanities and social sciences.'
Recipients of the fellowship are allotted a $37,000 stipend, California resident tuition and fees, and a $10,000 'professional development grant.'
4 The 10-campus UC system, which takes more than $17 billion in federal funding, launched the program in 2022 as part of its efforts to increase racial and gender diversity on campus.
Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
The goal of the President's Postdoctoral Fellowship, per its website, is 'to provide research opportunity and career development for scholars whose work will enhance the diversity of the academic community at the University of California,' specifically women and minorities.
The Trump administration, without immediately disclosing any incriminating information, implied the larger Capacity Plan, which includes the fellowship programs, was violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The postdoctoral program also creates a 'massive incentive' to hire recipients of the fellowship, including when departments are already overstaffed, a UCLA professor who wished to remain anonymous revealed to The Post.
4 Trump's DOJ, without immediately disclosing any incriminating information, implied the larger Capacity Plan comprised of the fellowship programs, was violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Getty Images
'You have units that are hiring people who they wouldn't otherwise hire, because they basically get them for free,' said the professor.
According to the UCLA faculty member, when the fellowship was first created, there were many 'conventional, completely rigorous, completely scholarly' fellowship participants engaged with the program.
Over the years, however, the professor began to notice that the number of 'good scholars' coming through the fellowship was dwindling.
4 The University of California, Berkeley, was also hit with a DOE investigation in April for allegedly failing to disclose hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign funding from China, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced.
Bloomberg via Getty Images
'I've also seen some f–king crazy people come through the Presidential Post-Doc, and it's increasingly a program, not just for the focus on diverse populations, but for CRT [critical race theory] psychos,' the professor added.
Another factor that could be under consideration by the DOJ is that some UC campuses are designated as 'Hispanic Serving Institutions,' which the UCLA professor said entails many 'cluster hires specifically for Latino faculty,' among other things.
The UC system said in a statement it was 'committed to fair and lawful processes in all of our programs and activities, consistent with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The University also aims to foster a campus environment where everyone is welcomed and supported. We will work in good faith with the Department of Justice as it conducts its investigation.'
The investigation is only the latest Trump admin probe to target US higher education institutions, with DOJ and Department of Education probes of antisemitic discrimination within the UC system, at Columbia University and other schools still ongoing.
The University of California, Berkeley, was also hit with an ED investigation in April for allegedly failing to disclose hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign funding from China, which may lead to subsequent 'enforcement' actions, according to Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
Trump's administration has also yanked federal funds from Columbia and other schools for failing to address anti-semitism on campus.
Separately, the UC system was slammed with a lawsuit earlier this year by the group Students Against Racial Discrimination, which accused the California schools of secretly continuing race-conscious admissions despite the practice's illegality.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
17 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump threatens to support a primary challenger against GOP senator for opposing 'big, beautiful bill'
President Donald Trump on Saturday said he is looking for a GOP candidate to mount a primary challenge against Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., after the lawmaker announced he would not support the president's "big, beautiful bill." "Numerous people have come forward wanting to run in the Primary against 'Senator Thom' Tillis," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "I will be meeting with them over the coming weeks, looking for someone who will properly represent the Great People of North Carolina and, so importantly, the United States of America," he continued. "Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Tillis, who is up for re-election in 2026, came out against Trump's spending bill earlier on Saturday over concerns about deep cuts to Medicaid. The senator vowed not to support the measure through a procedural hurdle needed to kick off a marathon of debate and amendment voting that would eventually lead to a vote on the measure's final passage. As he was leaving the Senate GOP's closed-door lunch on Saturday, the North Carolina lawmaker said he has a "great relationship" with his colleagues, but that he could not support the colossal bill. "We just have a disagreement," he said. "And, you know, my colleagues have done the analysis, and they're comfortable with the impact on their states. I respect their choice. It's not a good impact in my state, so I'm not going to vote on the motion to proceed." The Senate cleared the hurdle late Saturday to start debate on the bill by a 51-49 vote. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., was another Republican who joined Tillis in voting no. "Did Rand Paul Vote 'NO' again tonight? What's wrong with this guy???" Trump wrote on Truth Social. Senate Republicans hold a slim 53-47 majority and can only afford to lose three votes. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said earlier that she would help advance the bill through the first step, but was leaning against voting to pass the bill's final passage unless the legislation was "further changed." Collins and other initial GOP holdouts, Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., voted to at least advance the legislation through the first key procedural hurdle. The latest version of the bill pushed back the provider rate crackdown by one year and also added another $25 billion for a rural hospital stabilization fund over the next five years. During a closed-door lunch earlier this week, Tillis reportedly warned that North Carolina could lose as much as $40 billion in Medicaid funding if the changes were codified. He is also planning to unveil further analysis on the impact of Medicaid cuts on his state that he said no one in the "administration or in this building" has been able to refute. "The president and I have talked, and I just told him that, 'Look, if this works for the country, that's great. And if my other colleagues have done extensive research and concluded it's different in their states, I respect that,'" he said. "We just have a disagreement based on the implementation in our respective states."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Deportation Goals Are Unrealistic
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. In March, President Donald Trump was preparing to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to deport noncitizens. This use of the law, which was passed in 1798 and previously used to intern Japanese Americans during World War II, was unprecedented, and Emil Bove III, a top Justice Department official, was concerned that it was illegal. To be clear, Bove wasn't troubled that the administration might be breaking the law; rather, according to a new whistleblower complaint, he was concerned that the courts might try to block removals. In that case, 'DOJ would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such court order,' Bove said, according to the document. The complaint was made by Erez Reuveni, a fired DOJ lawyer, and first reported by The New York Times this week. The administration says that his allegations are falsehoods from a disgruntled former employee, but this is difficult to credit. A career lawyer, he was promoted by the Trump DOJ but says he was fired after he acknowledged in court that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was an administrative error and refused to accuse him of being a terrorist. The complaint details Reuveni's 'attempts over the course of three weeks and affecting three separate cases to secure the government's compliance with court orders, and his resistance to the internal efforts of DOJ and White House leadership to defy them.' It also suggests that Reuveni has emails and texts to back up many of his claims. A top Justice Department official allegedly conspiring to defy court orders would be very dangerous; what makes it darkly amusing, too, is that senators are this week considering Bove's nomination to the federal bench that, according to Reuveni, he wanted to ignore. This led to a sharp exchange in a committee hearing yesterday between Bove and Democratic Senator Adam Schiff, two veteran federal prosecutors, in which Bove repeatedly insisted that he did not 'recall' making the comments that Reuveni alleged. 'Did you say anything of that kind in the meeting?' Schiff asked. 'Senator, I have no recollection of saying anything of that kind,' Bove said. 'Wouldn't you recall, Mr. Bove, if you said or suggested during a meeting with Justice Department lawyers maybe they should consider telling the court, 'Fuck you'?' Schiff replied. 'It seems to me that would be something you'd remember—unless that's the kind of thing you say frequently.' Because no Republicans have yet come out against Bove's nomination to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, he's likely to win confirmation. (By way of reminder, Bove got here by serving as one of Trump's personal lawyers in some of his many criminal cases.) This presents the grim parlor question of whether it's better to have Bove in a lifetime appointment on the bench, where his opinions can be appealed, or at the Justice Department, where he's reportedly been a one-man wrecking crew. The allegations against Bove are what my former colleague James Fallows took to describing during the first Trump administration as shocking but not surprising. Trump himself has said repeatedly that he will abide by court orders, but his deputies have been less circumspect, especially Vice President J. D. Vance, who is a lawyer, and the former DOGE leader and current Trump frenemy Elon Musk. Outside observers, including me, have fretted over what will happen if the White House actually crosses the rubicon of defiance. This is arguably beside the point. Even though the Trump administration continues to deny that it has refused to obey court orders, the reality is that it has already done so. Judge James Boasberg said in April that he'd concluded that probable cause existed to find the administration in contempt of court for removing certain Venezuelan immigrants. (An appeals court has temporarily stayed proceedings on the contempt charge.) In another instance, last month, the administration deported a Salvadoran man despite a court order forbidding it, then blamed 'a confluence of administrative errors.' (These errors seem to be a consistent issue for this presidency!) The administration also insisted in a court filing that Abrego Garcia simply could not be returned as ordered, because the United States 'does not have authority to forcibly extract an alien from the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation.' The DOJ proved that false not long afterward, when it brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. to face charges. In a bizarre move this week, the administration sued every federal judge in Maryland—an attempt to evade an order that bans the government from immediately deporting migrants who are challenging their removal. The fights with courts are ironic, because although Trump has fared poorly in lower courts, the Supreme Court has been willing to let him expand his powers once cases reach it. As Reuters reported earlier this month, the justices, using what's known as the 'shadow docket,' have repeatedly granted emergency requests to proceed, pending full consideration. This week, the Court temporarily lifted an order preventing the executive branch from quickly deporting migrants to countries to which they have no ties. The White House has been seeking to send people—including Laotian, Vietnamese, and Filipino nationals—to extremely perilous countries such as Libya and South Sudan. This would be callous and morally abhorrent under any circumstances, but given the notable cases of the Trump administration deporting people who are legally protected, including Abrego Garcia, it is especially terrifying. The desperation to sidestep court restrictions on deportations is evidence of the shortcomings of the White House's plans. Trump aims to remove 1 million people this year, but as my colleague Nick Miroff reported yesterday, ICE statistics show that the agency has carried out only about 125,000 deportations since Trump took office, with roughly half the year gone. But as Reuveni's story suggests, in this administration, to be honest is to risk being fired. Attacking the courts is much easier than admitting that the president's signature promise is unrealistic. Related: The self-deportation psyop Trump's legal strategy has a name. Here are three new stories from The Atlantic: Tom Nichols on the president's weapon Humanity is playing nuclear roulette, Jeffrey Goldberg argues. Three ways to find purpose and meaning in a job Today's News The Senate parliamentarian advised rejecting some Medicaid changes that would offset the costs of other key policies in President Donald Trump's tax bill. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Iran's strike on a U.S. base in Qatar was a 'slap to America's face'; he also warned against further U.S. attacks on Iran. A new Supreme Court decision allows states to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. Dispatches Time-Travel Thursdays: Isabel Fattal on how sleeping less became an American value. Explore all of our newsletters here. Evening Read The Blockbuster That Captured a Growing American Rift By Tyler Austin Harper In a cramped, $50-a-month room above a New Jersey furnace-supply company, Peter Benchley set to work on what he once said, half-jokingly, might be 'a Ulysses for the 1970s.' A novel resulted from these efforts, one Benchley considered titling The Edge of Gloom or Infinite Evil before deciding on the less dramatic but more fitting Jaws. Its plot is exquisite in its simplicity. A shark menaces Amity, a fictional, gentrifying East Coast fishing village. Chaos ensues: People are eaten … In June 1975, 50 years ago this month, the movie version of Jaws was released in theaters and became the first-ever summer blockbuster. Though the film retains Benchley's basic storyline—shark eats people; shark dies a bloody death—it turns the book's politics upside down. Read the full article. More From The Atlantic Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib: Pro-Palestine activists fell for Iran's propaganda. Alexandra Petri: Pete Hegseth's guide to war Radio Atlantic: What does Khamenei do now? Culture Break Watch. Thank God for The Bear. Season 4 of the show (streaming on Hulu) is exactly what it—and we—needed, Sophie Gilbert writes. Lean on me. In everyday life, many people are reluctant to ask for and offer help. But milestones such as weddings lower the barriers to relying on other people, Julie Beck writes. Play our daily crossword. Stephanie Bai contributed to this newsletter. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Senate bill's Medicaid cuts draw some GOP angst
The Senate's deep cuts to Medicaid in the tax and spending megabill are setting off alarm bells among some Republicans, complicating leadership's effort to get the legislation passed by July 4. It seeks to clamp down on two tactics states use to boost Medicaid funding to hospitals: state-directed payments and Medicaid provider taxes. The restrictions are a major concern for rural hospitals, a key constituency for senators. Republicans have set an ambitious July 4 deadline to pass the bill and send it to President Trump to be signed into law. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who has been warning his colleagues about making cuts to Medicaid for weeks, said the changes took him by surprise. 'I had no idea that they were going to completely scrap the House framework with this. I mean, this totally caught me by surprise. And I've talked to other senators, and that's what I've heard consistently from everybody I've talked to, that no one was expecting this entirely new framework,' Hawley told reporters Tuesday. States impose taxes on providers to boost their federal Medicaid contributions, which they then direct back to hospitals in the form of higher reimbursements. Critics argue it's a scheme for states to get more federal funding without spending any of their own money. But provider taxes have become ingrained into states' Medicaid financing systems. States and provider groups say the taxes provide a steady source of financing for hospitals that operate on thin margins and would otherwise face closure. 'The draconian Medicaid cuts contained in the Senate bill would devastate health care access for millions of Americans and hollow out the vital role essential hospitals play in their communities,' said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America's Essential Hospitals, an organization that represents hospitals that serve low-income patients. The legislation would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The cap would be phased in by lowering it 0.5 percent annually, starting in 2027. Nonexpansion states would be prohibited from imposing new taxes, but as was true in the House-passed version, their rates would be frozen at current levels. The lower cap would not apply to nursing homes or intermediate care facilities. All states except for Alaska finance part of their share of Medicaid funding through health care provider taxes, and 38 states have at least one provider tax that exceeds 5.5 percent. When asked if his concerns were enough to make him vote against the bill if it were brought to the floor as written, Hawley hedged. 'It needs a lot of work, so I would say maybe we could, I guess, try to fix it on the floor, but it'd be better to do it beforehand,' he told reporters. Republicans can afford to lose only three votes in the Senate and still pass their bill if Democrats remain united in opposition. Sen. Jim Justice ( said he was also surprised by the Senate's change. If provider tax changes are on the table, he said he wants leadership to keep the House version. Justice wouldn't say how he would vote if the provision was left unchanged but expressed some unease about the July 4 deadline. 'I promise you, I won't rubber-stamp anything,' Justice said. 'I want this thing to come out and come out quickly, but when it really boils right down to it, you may have to hold your nose on some things that you just absolutely don't like because we can't like everything.' Similarly, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) indicated he would also prefer the House-passed freeze on provider taxes but was still analyzing the impact on his state. Louisiana expanded Medicaid in 2016. Senate Republican leaders huddled with members Tuesday during a closed-door caucus lunch to talk through the details of the bill. Speaking to reporters afterward, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said leadership was listening to members' concerns, especially about provider taxes. 'We think [the changes] rebalance the program in a way that provides the right incentives to cover the people who are supposed to be covered,' Thune said. 'We continue to hear from members specifically on components or pieces of the bill they want to see modified or changed, and we are working through that.' Members were also briefed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, who downplayed the impact of a lower provider tax cap. 'We do not believe that addressing the provider tax effort is going to influence the ability of hospitals to stay viable,' Oz told reporters. Without weighing in on the exact details, Oz said some changes to provider taxes and state-directed payments should be included. 'The framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill, it should be in this bill,' Oz said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
