9 former Division of Justice attorneys assigned to analyze alleged antisemitism on the College of California described chaotic and rushed directives from the Trump administration and informed The Instances they felt pressured to conclude that campuses had violated the civil rights of Jewish college students and workers.
In interviews over a number of weeks, the profession attorneys — who collectively served dozens of years — mentioned they got the directions on the onset of the investigations. All 9 attorneys resigned through the course of their UC assignments, some involved that they had been being requested to violate moral requirements.
“Initially we had been informed we solely had 30 days to give you a purpose to be able to sue UC,” mentioned Ejaz Baluch, a former senior trial lawyer who was assigned to analyze whether or not Jewish UCLA school and workers confronted discrimination on campus that the college didn’t correctly tackle. “It reveals simply how unserious this train was. It was not about looking for out what actually occurred.”
In spring 2024, more and more tumultuous protests over Israel’s conflict in Gaza racked UCLA. Jewish college students and school reported “broad-based perceptions of antisemitic and anti-Israeli bias on campus,” a UCLA antisemitism activity power discovered. A bunch later sued, charging that UCLA violated their civil rights, and gained thousands and thousands of {dollars} and concessions in a settlement.
UCLA averted trial, however the swimsuit — together with articles from conservative web sites such because the Washington Free Beacon — fashioned a foundation for the UC investigations, the previous DOJ legal professionals mentioned.
“UCLA got here the closest to having presumably damaged the legislation in the way it responded or handled civil rights complaints from Jewish workers,” Baluch mentioned. “We did have sufficient data from our investigation to warrant suing UCLA.” However Baluch mentioned, “We believed that such a lawsuit had important weaknesses.”
“To me, it’s even clearer now that it turned a fraudulent and sham investigation,” one other lawyer mentioned.
A DOJ spokesperson didn’t reply to a request for remark. When it introduced findings towards UCLA in late July, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Ok. Dhillon — the DOJ civil rights chief — mentioned the campus “did not take well timed and applicable motion in response to credible claims of hurt and hostility on its campus.” Dhillon mentioned there was a “clear violation of our federal civil rights legal guidelines.” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi mentioned UCLA would “pay a heavy worth.”
The previous DOJ attorneys’ description of their Trump administration work provides a uncommon view inside the federal government’s UC probe. For months, college officers have mentioned little publicly about their ongoing talks with the DOJ. Their technique has been to tread cautiously and negotiate an out-of-court finish to the investigations and monetary threats — with out additional jeopardizing the $17.5 billion in federal funds UC receives.
4 attorneys mentioned they had been notably troubled by two issues. First, they had been requested to jot down up a “j-memo” — a justification memorandum — that defined why UC ought to face a lawsuit “earlier than we even knew the info,” one lawyer mentioned.
“Then there was the PR marketing campaign,” the lawyer mentioned, referring to bulletins starting with a Feb. 28, 2025, press launch saying investigators can be visiting UCLA, UC Berkeley, USC and 7 different universities nationwide as a result of the campuses “have skilled antisemitic incidents since October 2023.”
“By no means earlier than in my time throughout a number of presidential administrations did we ship out press releases primarily saying workplaces or faculties had been responsible of discrimination earlier than discovering out in the event that they actually had been,” mentioned one lawyer, who requested anonymity for worry of retaliation.
Jen Swedish, a former deputy chief on the employment discrimination crew who labored on the UCLA case, mentioned “nearly every part concerning the UC investigation was atypical.”
“The political appointees primarily decided the result nearly earlier than the investigation had even began,” mentioned Swedish, referring to Trump administration officers who declared publicly that punishing faculties for antisemitism can be a precedence. She resigned in Might.
The legal professionals spoke out as a result of their formal connections to the DOJ lately ended. Many mentioned they believed the Trump administration had compromised the integrity of the division with what they considered as aggressive, politically motivated actions towards UC and different elite U.S. campuses.
“I believe there have been completely Jewish individuals on campuses that confronted respectable discrimination. However the way in which we had been pushed so onerous to analyze, it was clear to so many people that this was a political hit job that truly would find yourself not serving to anybody,” mentioned one lawyer who labored on UC Davis and UCLA and interviewed college students.
In an announcement, a UC spokesperson mentioned, “Whereas we can’t communicate to the DOJ’s practices, UC will proceed to behave in good religion and in the very best pursuits of our college students, workers, school, and sufferers. Our focus is on options that maintain UC sturdy for Californians and People.”
The federal government has not sued UC.
However in August, the DOJ demanded that the college pay a $1.2-billion high-quality and conform to sweeping, conservative-leaning campus coverage modifications to settle federal antisemitism accusations. In change, the Trump administration would restore $584 million in frozen grant funding. On the time, Gov. Gavin Newsom referred to as the proposal “extortion.”
Final month, after UC school independently sued, U.S. District Decide Rita F. Lin dominated that the “coercive and retaliatory” proposal violated the first Modification. Lin blocked the high-quality and the calls for for deep campus modifications.
“Company officers, in addition to the president and vice chairman, have repeatedly and publicly introduced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify slicing off federal funding, with the purpose of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to alter their ideological tune,” Lin mentioned.
Her ruling doesn’t preclude UC from negotiating with the administration or reaching different agreements with Trump.
Protests roiled campuses in spring 2024
The federal investigations largely centered on the tumultuous pro-Palestinian campus protests that erupted at UC campuses. On April 30, 2024, a pro-Israel vigilante group attacked a UCLA encampment, leading to accidents to pupil and school activists. Police did not carry the state of affairs beneath management for hours — a melee former Chancellor Gene Block referred to as a “darkish chapter” within the college’s historical past.
Throughout the 2023-24 UC protests, some Jewish college students and school described hostile climates and formal antisemitism complaints to the colleges elevated. Some Jews mentioned they confronted harassment for being Zionists. Others mentioned they encountered symbols and chants at protests and encampments, corresponding to “From the river to the ocean, Palestine will probably be free,” which they considered as antisemitic. Jews had been additionally among the many main encampment activists.
In June 2024, Jewish UCLA college students and school sued UC, saying the encampment blocked them from accessing Dickson Courtroom and Royce Quad. The 4 blamed the college for anti-Jewish discrimination, saying it enabled pro-Palestinian activists to protest. On July 29, 2025, UC agreed to pay $6.45 million to settle the federal swimsuit.
In response to the demonstrations and swimsuit, UC overhauled its free speech insurance policies, banning protests that aren’t preapproved from huge parts of campus. It mentioned it could strictly implement current bans on in a single day encampments and the usage of masks to cover id whereas breaking the legislation, and agreed to not prohibit campus entry to Jews and different legally protected teams.
Contained in the investigations
The 9 former DOJ legal professionals labored between January and June researching whether or not UC campuses mishandled complaints of antisemitism filed by Jewish college students, school and workers tied to pro-Palestinian encampments. They had been concerned with two areas beneath the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division — employment litigation and academic alternatives — tasked with wanting into potential discrimination confronted by UC workers and college students.
The attorneys described an at occasions rushed course of that concentrated authorized staffing on probing antisemitism at UC campuses, to the detriment of different discrimination instances centered on racial minorities and people who find themselves disabled.
At one level, attorneys mentioned, greater than half of the handfuls of legal professionals within the employment litigation part had been assigned solely or practically completely to UC campuses, with some informed particularly to analysis the UCLA David Geffen Faculty of Medication and different campus divisions. As legal professionals start to give up, the attorneys mentioned, further workers was introduced in from different DOJ groups — these centered on tax legislation and immigrant employment legislation.
When 5 legal professionals within the mid-spring reported minimal findings at Berkeley, Davis and San Francisco campuses, they had been reassigned to UCLA.
“It was like UCLA was the crown jewel amongst public universities that the Trump administration wished to ‘get,’ much like Harvard for privates,” mentioned one other lawyer, who requested anonymity as a result of they feared retaliation for talking out. “There have been conferences the place managers — who had been profession workers like us — would convey that political appointees and even the White Home wished us all on UCLA.”
Dena Robinson, a former senior trial lawyer, investigated Berkeley, Davis and Los Angeles campuses.
“I used to be somebody who volunteered by myself to affix the investigation and I did so due to a few of my lived expertise. I’m a Black lady. I’m additionally Jewish,” she mentioned. However she described issues about quick and shifting deadlines. “And I’m extremely skeptical of whether or not this administration truly cares about Jewish individuals or antisemitism.”
Legal professionals described related views and patterns within the Instructional Alternatives Part, the place UC investigations had been concurrently going down.
A tenth lawyer, Amelia Huckins, mentioned she resigned from that part to keep away from being assigned to UC.
“I didn’t need to be a part of a crew the place I’m requested to make arguments that don’t comport with the legislation and current authorized precedent,” she mentioned.
Huckins had been away from the job for just a little greater than two months when she learn findings the DOJ launched July 29 saying that UCLA acted with “deliberate indifference” to Jewish college students and workers and threatened to sue the college if it didn’t come to a settlement.
In these findings, the DOJ mentioned, “Jewish and Israeli college students at UCLA had been subjected to extreme, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment that created a hostile surroundings by members of the encampment.” As proof, it cited 11 complaints from Jewish or Israeli college students relating to discrimination between April 25 and Might 1, 2024.
It was “as in the event that they solely talked to specific college students and used public paperwork like media experiences,” Huckins mentioned, including that the proof publicly offered appeared skinny. In a “regular investigation,” attorneys analysis “completely different layers of doc and knowledge requests and interviews at each stage of the college system.” These investigations, she mentioned, can take at the least a yr, if not longer.
What investigators encountered
Attorneys described website visits at a number of UC campuses over the spring, together with conferences with campus directors, civil rights officers, police chiefs and UC legal professionals who attended interviews — together with at the least one with UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk.
The legal professionals mentioned UC leaders had been cooperative and shared campus insurance policies about how civil rights complaints are dealt with in addition to data detailing the way in which particular instances had been handled, corresponding to these of college who mentioned they confronted harassment.
“There have been 1000’s and 1000’s of pages of paperwork and plenty of interviews,” mentioned Baluch, referring to Berkeley and Davis. “There might have been harassment right here and there, however there was not quite a bit that rose to the extent of the college violating federal legislation, which is a reasonably excessive bar.”
“We recognized sure incidents at Berkeley and at Davis that had been form of flash factors. There have been a few protests that appeared to get out of hand. There have been the encampments. There was graffiti. However we simply didn’t see a extremely hostile work surroundings,” mentioned one other lawyer who visited these campuses. “And if there was a hostile surroundings, it appeared to have been remediated by the tip of 2024 and even Might or June for that matter.”
Nonetheless, at UCLA, Baluch mentioned he and crew members discovered “issues with the grievance system and that a number of the professors had been genuinely harassed and to such a extreme stage that it violates Title VII.” Ultimately, he mentioned “we efficiently satisfied the entrance workplace that we must always solely be going after UCLA.”
The place UC and Trump administration stand in the present day
When Harvard confronted main grant freezes and civil rights violation findings, it sued the Trump administration. UC has thus far opted towards going to courtroom — and is prepared to interact in “dialogue” to settle ongoing investigations and threats.
“Our priorities are clear: defend UC’s means to teach college students, conduct analysis for the good thing about California and the nation, and supply high-quality well being care,” mentioned UC spokesperson Rachel Zaentz. “We’ll have interaction in good-faith dialogue, however we won’t settle for any end result that cripples UC’s core mission or undermines taxpayer investments.”
The calculation, in keeping with UC sources, is easy. They need to keep away from a head-on battle with Trump as a result of UC has an excessive amount of federal cash on the road. They level to Harvard — which suffered main grant losses and federal restrictions on its patents and skill to enroll worldwide college students after publicly difficult the president.
“Our technique earlier than was to put low and keep away from Trump any approach we may,” mentioned a UC official, who was not approved to talk on the document. “After the UCLA grants had been pulled and the settlement provide got here in, the tactic shifted to ‘enjoying good’” with out agreeing to its phrases.
In public remarks to the board of regents final month at UCLA, UC President James B. Milliken mentioned “the stakes are monumental” and offered knowledge on funding challenges: Underneath Trump, greater than 1,600 federal grants have been reduce. About 400 grants value $230 million remained suspended after school courtroom wins.
UC “continues to be dealing with a possible lack of greater than a billion {dollars} in federal analysis funding,” Milliken mentioned.
“The approaching months might require even harder selections throughout the college,” he mentioned.
No details about a doable UC-Trump settlement has been launched. However some former DOJ legal professionals mentioned they imagine a settlement is inevitable.
“It’s devastating that these establishments are feeling pressured and bullied into these agreements,” mentioned Huckins, talking of offers with Columbia, Brown, Cornell and different campuses. “I might adore it if extra faculties would stand as much as the administration … I acknowledge that they’re in a tough spot.”
To Baluch, who labored on the UCLA case, it appeared that the DOJ had the higher hand.
“Reducing grants is a big hit to a college. And the billion-dollars high-quality is quite a bit. I see why these universities really feel backed right into a nook to settle,” he mentioned. “The threats, they’re working.”
