For the second time in just a week, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) has found itself at the epicenter of a high-stakes political and legal showdown. On August 9, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom publicly rejected a $1 billion settlement offer from President Donald Trump’s administration, denouncing it as "political extortion" and vowing that the state would not yield to what he called a "billion-dollar political shakedown." The settlement, which dwarfs similar agreements struck with other prestigious universities, was offered after the federal government froze $584 million in research funding to UCLA amid ongoing allegations of antisemitism related to pro-Palestinian protests on campus.
The roots of this clash stretch back to the spring of 2024, when UCLA became a major flashpoint for campus protests against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Demonstrators, including some Jewish anti-Israel groups, established encampments and controlled access to parts of the campus, according to a campus task force report. The situation escalated when a mob of counter-protesters attacked the encampment, leading to widespread criticism of the university’s response. Los Angeles’ mayor and local Jewish leaders faulted UCLA for not immediately summoning police to break up the melee, while several pro-Israel protesters were later charged with crimes related to the violence.
Allegations of antisemitism during these protests have led to a series of lawsuits and investigations. In August 2024, a group of Jewish students won a federal ruling against UCLA for failing to ensure their equal access to campus during the encampment. The task force’s 93-page report detailed incidents where Jewish students were assaulted or threatened, and hateful symbols and messages—such as a swastika drawn on a chalkboard and a sign reading “Israelis are native 2 hell”—were seen around the protest sites.
In response to these events, the Trump administration accused UCLA and other universities of violating the civil rights of Jewish and Israeli students by allowing antisemitism to go unchecked. The Department of Justice subsequently froze hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, demanding that UCLA pay a $1 billion settlement and implement sweeping policy changes. These proposed changes include eliminating identity-based preferences in hiring, admissions, and scholarships, revising campus protest policies, prohibiting demonstrations that disrupt academic activities, and appointing a new administrator to ensure compliance with the agreement.
University of California President James Milliken has been unequivocal in his opposition to the proposed settlement. “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,” Milliken said in a statement. He emphasized the critical role UCLA and the broader UC system play in advancing technologies, medical therapies, and national security. “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,” Milliken added.
The Trump administration’s demands on UCLA are far more severe than those made in previous settlements with other elite universities. Columbia University agreed to a settlement of over $200 million, while Brown University’s deal totaled $50 million. Both institutions also accepted certain government-mandated reforms. Settlement talks with Harvard University are ongoing, but the $1 billion figure sought from UCLA is unprecedented. According to The Wall Street Journal, the administration’s proposal explicitly calls for UCLA to “eliminate identity-based preferences” and to appoint an administrator reporting to a “resolution monitor” to ensure compliance.
Governor Newsom, joined by the chairs of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, Scott Wiener and Jesse Gabriel, issued a statement condemning the Trump administration’s approach. “This isn’t about protecting Jewish students — it’s a billion-dollar political shakedown from the pay-to-play president,” the statement read. Newsom further accused Trump of weaponizing the Department of Justice to punish California, suppress free thinking, and kneecap what he described as the world’s greatest public university system. “California will not bow to this kind of disgusting political extortion,” Newsom declared.
Pro-Palestinian protesters and some Jewish groups have pushed back against the administration’s narrative, arguing that criticism of Israel’s war in Gaza and its occupation of Palestinian territories is being wrongly equated with antisemitism. They insist that their advocacy for Palestinian rights should not be conflated with support for extremism. Experts and some American Jewish organizations have also raised concerns about the implications for free speech and academic freedom, warning that the administration’s threats could have a chilling effect on campus discourse.
Meanwhile, the impact of the funding freeze is being felt acutely by researchers across UCLA. Sydney Campbell, a postdoctoral scholar studying the impact of diet on pancreatic cancer, described feeling like a bargaining chip in the standoff. “Cancer funding is especially in the interest of the public good and should not be up for negotiation,” Campbell told The Wall Street Journal. “Suspending these grants doesn’t make anyone safer or healthier.” Faculty and students have been scrambling to secure bridge financing to keep critical research projects afloat, while the university’s leadership continues to review the Department of Justice’s demands.
The Trump administration’s actions have also drawn scrutiny for their apparent focus on antisemitism, with rights advocates noting a concurrent rise in anti-Arab bias and Islamophobia amid the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. However, there have been no equivalent federal probes into Islamophobia on college campuses. In addition, U.S. immigration authorities have arrested foreign students involved in protests and other anti-Israel activities, further raising concerns about the broader impact of the administration’s crackdown.
As the standoff continues, the University of California system faces a stark choice: acquiesce to the administration’s historic demands or continue to resist what state leaders and university officials describe as an existential threat to public higher education in California. The outcome will likely reverberate far beyond UCLA, setting precedents for how universities nationwide navigate the fraught intersections of free speech, civil rights, and federal oversight in a deeply polarized era.
With settlement talks ongoing and both sides digging in their heels, the fate of UCLA’s funding—and the broader debate over campus protest and academic freedom—remains uncertain, leaving students, faculty, and the public waiting anxiously for the next move in this extraordinary confrontation.