Trump Administration Seeks $1 Billion Settlement from UCLA, a White House Official Says
UCLA is the first public university to be targeted by a widespread funding freeze over allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action.
President Donald Trump's administration has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against elite private colleges. In recent weeks, the administration has struck deals with Brown University for $50 million and Columbia University for $221 million but has explored larger settlements, such as in its ongoing battle with Harvard University.
The White House official did not detail any additional demands the administration has made to UCLA or elaborate on the settlement amount. The person was not authorized to speak publicly about the request and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Trump administration had suspended $584 million in federal grants for UCLA, the university said this week. On July 29, the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division issued a finding that UCLA violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.'
The university had drawn widespread criticism for how it handled dispersing an encampment of Israel-Hamas war protesters in 2024. One night, counterprotesters attacked the encampment, throwing traffic cones and firing pepper spray, with fighting that continued for hours, injuring more than a dozen people, before police stepped in. The next day, after hundreds defied orders to leave, more than 200 people were arrested. Later, Jewish students said demonstrators in encampments blocked them from getting to class.
An attack on California?
The University of California's president, James B. Milliken, said Friday the university had 'just received' a document from the Department of Justice and would review it. He said the size of the proposed settlement would 'devastate' the University of California, whose campuses are viewed as some of the top public colleges in the nation.
'Earlier this week, we offered to engage in good faith dialogue with the Department to protect the University and its critical research mission,' said Milliken, who started as president last week. '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.'
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday accused Trump of trying to silence academic freedom in his attack on such a prestigious public university system.
'He has threatened us through extortion with a billion-dollar fine unless we do his bidding,' Newsom told reporters. Apparently referencing the settlements with Columbia and Brown, he added: 'We will not be like some of those other institutions that have followed a different path.'
The $1 billion demand in the UCLA settlement is linked to Newsom's status as one of Trump's most outspoken foes, said Peter McDonough, vice president and general counsel at the American Council on Education, an association of college presidents.
'Anyone who thinks this appalling demand is not blatantly political and ideological has their head in the sand,' McDonough said. 'Of course it's influenced by the fact that UCLA sits within the California system and the California system sits within the state of California.'
Settlements with Trump, and in court
The Trump administration has used its control of federal funding to push for reforms at elite colleges that the president decries as overrun by liberalism and antisemitism. The administration also has launched investigations into diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, saying they discriminate against white and Asian American students.
Last month, Columbia University agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restored more than $400 million in research grants.
The Trump administration is using its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation. For instance, the administration is pressing for a deal that would require Harvard to pay far more than Columbia's $200 million. Harvard leaders have been negotiating with the White House even as they battle in court to regain access to billions in federal research funding terminated by the Trump administration.
UCLA has already reached one settlement about the 2024 protests. The university agreed last week to pay $6 million to settle a lawsuit from three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who argued the university violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters to block their access to classes and other areas on campus in 2024.
UCLA initially had argued that it had no legal responsibility over the issue because protesters, not the university, blocked Jewish students' access to areas. The university also worked with law enforcement to thwart attempts to set up new protest camps.
But in a preliminary injunction a year earlier, U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi disagreed and ordered UCLA to create a plan to protect Jewish students on campus. The University of California has since created systemwide campus guidelines on protests, with an Office of Campus and Community Safety at UCLA.
As part of the settlement, UCLA said it will contribute $2.3 million to eight organizations that combat antisemitism and support the university's Jewish community. UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk, whose Jewish father and grandparents fled Nazi Germany to Mexico and whose wife is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, also launched an initiative to combat antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
24 minutes ago
- Japan Times
Canada conservative leader mounts comeback after Trump-linked defeat
Pierre Poilievre, who is running to reclaim a seat in Canada's parliament next week, was on track to be prime minister until Donald Trump upended Canadian politics. But even if the Conservative Party leader wins Monday's by-election in one of the country's most right-wing districts, experts say he may struggle to regain momentum in a political arena still heavily shaped by the U.S. president. Poilievre's Conservatives blew a massive polling lead in the run-up to Canada's April general election, as voters backed the new Liberal leader, Prime Minister Mark Carney, to confront Trump. In a stinging humiliation, Poilievre lost to a Liberal in his own constituency, an Ottawa-area district he had represented for two decades. But the Conservatives performed solidly overall and deprived the Liberals of a majority, allowing Poilievre to suppress calls for him to go as party leader. To return as opposition leader, Poilievre needed to get back into parliament. The MP for Battle River-Crowfoot — a rural district in the western province of Alberta where Conservatives dominate — offered to step down so Poilievre could run for his seat. Poilievre is the favorite but faces an uncertain path should he rejoin parliament, in part because some voters continue to see him as "a little Trump," said Frederic Boily, a University of Alberta political scientist. In Canada, that is not a good brand. New Gallup data puts Canadian attitudes towards U.S. political leadership at record lows. While the president's threats to make Canada the 51st U.S. state have subsided, his trade war is hurting crucial industries. The Gallup survey shows only 15% of Canadians approve of Washington, the lowest level on record in data going back to 2008. The next lowest approval rate -- 16% — was recorded in 2018, during Trump's first term. Seventy-nine percent of Canadians disapprove of U.S. political leadership, a figure only three points better than attitudes towards Vladimir Putin's Russia. Canadian faith in their own leadership has also jumped to 59%, a rise of 19 points since Carney replaced former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Poilievre has sought to make clear that he sees Trump as a rival, but one that Carney is failing to confront. "President Trump is the one putting these tariffs on Canadians, but Mark Carney is the one who promised Canadians he could 'handle him' and 'win,'" Poilievre said this month. For Donald Abelson, an expert on U.S.-Canada relations at McMaster University, Poilievre is trying to "feed off the frustration and disillusionment in Canada about the imposition of tariffs and the bullying (while saying) that he, unlike Carney, is prepared to stand up to Trump." The strategy is limited, Abelson argued, as Canadians want a long-term plan to realign the country away from the United States — a central Carney talking point. "If Poilievre overplays the Trump card, he's making a mistake," Abelson said. Boily, the political scientist, said Poilievre faces an additional problem — an enduring attachment within his base to issues Trump has elevated. "It's tough for any conservative leader not to talk about the fight against globalists and wokism because it's the new conservative reality," Boily said, arguing Poilievre's "DNA" is more aligned with traditional conservatism, not Trump-inspired populism. If Poilievre loses Monday's election, voter confusion will be the likely cause. There are 214 candidates on the ballot, a record number caused by the Longest Ballot Committee protest group, which wants electoral law reform. Poilievre was targeted by the same group in April, but organizers claim they are not motivated by partisan ideology. Voters on Monday will have to write the name of their preferred candidate on their ballot, not tick a box, an exceptional measure designed to spare people finding the correct name on a 214-candidate list.
The Mainichi
32 minutes ago
- The Mainichi
Judge denies Trump administration request to end policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) -- A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing "deja vu" after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. "There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone," Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, "These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical." Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. "But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void," he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed " Alligator Alcatraz," where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
Japan Times
32 minutes ago
- Japan Times
Trump releases message on WWII victory over Japan
U.S. President Donald Trump has released a message regarding the 80th anniversary of the country's victory over Japan in World War II, stating that "the Japanese Empire was defeated" and the world was "spared from the oppressive clutches of destruction and tyranny." In the message, released Thursday, Trump praised American troops' "sacrifice and bravery" in "the deadliest war in human history" and pledged to maintain his administration's foreign policy of "peace through strength" to ensure that the United States remains "the greatest country on earth." Japan "has become our strongest ally in the Pacific" and hosts more than 50,000 American troops who stand guard against "new totalitarian regimes and their expansive ambitions," he said, underscoring the importance of U.S.-Japan relations. The message also noted that "peace is never promised, but is earned through sacrifice, defended with strength." In February, Trump issued a statement marking 80 years since the Battle of Iwo Jima, a fierce battle between Japan and the United States on the Pacific island of Ioto in the late stage of WWII. In May, he issued a presidential proclamation to designate May 8 as the Victory Day for WWII. In the war, Nazi Germany surrendered to the U.S.-led Allied powers on May 8, 1945. In the proclamation, Trump did not touch on the United States' battles with Japan during the war.
