Dozens of former Justice Department lawyers say they were steered toward accusing the University of California system of violating civil‑rights law on the basis of alleged antisemitism, even though they believed the investigations were being driven by political objectives.
Allegations of Political Pressure
According to interviews conducted with the Los Angeles Times, nine attorneys—some requesting anonymity—asserted that senior political appointees in the Trump administration pushed them to conclude the university system had broken the law before any factual determination was made. All nine eventually resigned.
“The political appointees essentially determined the outcome almost before the investigation had even started,” former DOJ lawyer Jen Swedish told the newspaper about the case involving UCLA.
Context of the Investigation
The probe centered on claims of antisemitic discrimination that surfaced during pro‑Palestinian protests on UC campuses, part of a nationwide wave of student activism over the Gaza war. Since taking office earlier this year, the Trump administration has launched a series of investigations targeting campus activism, diversity initiatives, and academic freedom, and has sued multiple institutions while threatening to withhold federal research funding.
Recent Legal Actions
Over the summer, the administration demanded that UCLA pay a billion‑dollar fine and adopt new policies to recover more than $500 million in grant funding. However, a federal judge last month blocked the administration’s attempt to cut off funding and impose fines, describing the effort as a “playbook of initiating civil rights investigations” to force universities to change their “ideological tune.”
Earlier this year, the DOJ’s civil‑rights division found that UCLA allowed antisemitic discrimination during the protests. The university settled a lawsuit by Jewish students and a professor for $6.5 million, admitting it had “fallen short.” Former DOJ attorney Ejaz Baluch said the evidence “came the closest to having possibly broken the law” but noted “significant weaknesses” in pursuing a lawsuit.
UCLA also faces a separate lawsuit from pro‑Palestinian protesters who allege the university failed to intervene when a pro‑Israel group staged an hours‑long violent attack on demonstrators.
Potential Next Steps
Analysts say the controversy could prompt congressional hearings on the use of civil‑rights investigations for political purposes. The DOJ may also reevaluate its oversight procedures, and universities could seek additional legal protections to guard against punitive funding actions.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the former DOJ attorneys allege?
They said political appointees pressured them to conclude that the University of California had violated civil‑rights law on antisemitism before factual findings were complete, leading all nine to resign.
What was the outcome of the federal judge’s ruling?
The judge blocked the Trump administration from withholding funding and threatening fines against the UC system, characterizing the approach as a “playbook” to force ideological change.
What settlements has UCLA reached related to these disputes?
UCLA paid $6.5 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Jewish students and a professor over alleged antisemitic discrimination during protests, acknowledging it had “fallen short.”
How do you think this episode might influence future federal oversight of university policies?
