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 instructed The Occasions 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 throughout the course of their UC assignments, some involved that they have been being requested to violate moral requirements.
“Initially we have been instructed we solely had 30 days to give you a purpose to be able to sue UC,” mentioned Ejaz Baluch, a former senior trial legal professional who was assigned to analyze whether or not Jewish UCLA school and workers confronted discrimination on campus that the college didn’t correctly deal with. “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 warfare 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 drive discovered. A bunch later sued, charging that UCLA violated their civil rights, and gained tens of millions of {dollars} and concessions in a settlement.
UCLA prevented trial, however the swimsuit — together with articles from conservative web sites such because the Washington Free Beacon — shaped a foundation for the UC investigations, the previous DOJ legal professionals mentioned.
“UCLA got here the closest to having probably damaged the regulation 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 vital weaknesses.”
“To me, it’s even clearer now that it grew to become 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 Okay. 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 affords 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 have been significantly troubled by two issues. First, they have 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 legal professional mentioned.
“Then there was the PR marketing campaign,” the legal professional 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 basically saying workplaces or schools have been responsible of discrimination earlier than discovering out in the event that they actually have been,” mentioned one legal professional, who requested anonymity for concern of retaliation.
Jen Swedish, a former deputy chief on the employment discrimination staff who labored on the UCLA case, mentioned “just about all the things in regards to the UC investigation was atypical.”
“The political appointees basically decided the result virtually earlier than the investigation had even began,” mentioned Swedish, referring to Trump administration officers who declared publicly that punishing schools 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 not too long ago ended. Many mentioned they believed the Trump administration had compromised the integrity of the division with what they seen as aggressive, politically motivated actions towards UC and different elite U.S. campuses.
“I believe there have been completely Jewish folks on campuses that confronted official discrimination. However the way in which we have been pushed so arduous to analyze, it was clear to so many people that this was a political hit job that really would find yourself not serving to anybody,” mentioned one legal professional who labored on UC Davis and UCLA and interviewed college students.
In an announcement, a UC spokesperson mentioned, “Whereas we can not converse to the DOJ’s practices, UC will proceed to behave in good religion and in the perfect 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 fantastic and comply with 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 Choose Rita F. Lin dominated that the “coercive and retaliatory” proposal violated the first Modification. Lin blocked the fantastic and the calls for for deep campus modifications.
“Company officers, in addition to the president and vp, have repeatedly and publicly introduced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify chopping off federal funding, with the aim of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to vary 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 scholar and school activists. Police did not convey 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, reminiscent of “From the river to the ocean, Palestine might be free,” which they seen as antisemitic. Jews have 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 using masks to cover identification whereas breaking the regulation, 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 have been concerned with two areas beneath the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division — employment litigation and academic alternatives — tasked with trying into potential discrimination confronted by UC workers and college students.
The attorneys described an at instances 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 have been assigned solely or practically completely to UC campuses, with some instructed particularly to analysis the UCLA David Geffen Faculty of Medication and different campus divisions. As legal professionals start to stop, the attorneys mentioned, extra workers was introduced in from different DOJ groups — these centered on tax regulation and immigrant employment regulation.
When 5 legal professionals within the mid-spring reported minimal findings at Berkeley, Davis and San Francisco campuses, they have been reassigned to UCLA.
“It was like UCLA was the crown jewel amongst public universities that the Trump administration wished to ‘get,’ just like Harvard for privates,” mentioned one other legal professional, who requested anonymity as a result of they feared retaliation for talking out. “There have been conferences the place managers — who have 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 legal professional, investigated Berkeley, Davis and Los Angeles campuses.
“I used to be somebody who volunteered alone to hitch 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 folks or antisemitism.”
Attorneys described comparable views and patterns within the Instructional Alternatives Part, the place UC investigations have been concurrently going down.
A tenth legal professional, 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 staff the place I’m requested to make arguments that don’t comport with the regulation and current authorized precedent,” she mentioned.
Huckins had been away from the job for a bit 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 have 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 concerning discrimination between April 25 and Might 1, 2024.
It was “as in the event that they solely talked to explicit college students and used public paperwork like media experiences,” Huckins mentioned, including that the proof publicly introduced appeared skinny. In a “regular investigation,” attorneys analysis “totally different layers of doc and information requests and interviews at each degree of the college system.” These investigations, she mentioned, can take no less than a yr, if not longer.
What investigators encountered
Attorneys described web site 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 no less than one with UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk.
The legal professionals mentioned UC leaders have 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 have been handled, reminiscent of these of college who mentioned they confronted harassment.
“There have been hundreds and hundreds of pages of paperwork and lots of interviews,” mentioned Baluch, referring to Berkeley and Davis. “There might have been harassment right here and there, however there was not lots that rose to the extent of the college violating federal regulation, which is a fairly excessive bar.”
“We recognized sure incidents at Berkeley and at Davis that have 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 legal professional who visited these campuses. “And if there was a hostile surroundings, it appeared to have been remediated by the top of 2024 and even Might or June for that matter.”
Nonetheless, at UCLA, Baluch mentioned he and staff members discovered “issues with the grievance system and that a few of the professors have been genuinely harassed and to such a extreme degree that it violates Title VII.” Finally, he mentioned “we efficiently satisfied the entrance workplace that we should always solely be going after UCLA.”
The place UC and Trump administration stand right this moment
When Harvard confronted main grant freezes and civil rights violation findings, it sued the Trump administration. UC has up to now opted towards going to court docket — and is prepared to have interaction in “dialogue” to settle ongoing investigations and threats.
“Our priorities are clear: defend UC’s capacity to teach college students, conduct analysis for the advantage of California and the nation, and supply high-quality well being care,” mentioned UC spokesperson Rachel Zaentz. “We are going to have interaction in good-faith dialogue, however we is not going to settle for any end result that cripples UC’s core mission or undermines taxpayer investments.”
The calculation, in accordance with UC sources, is straightforward. 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 talent to enroll worldwide college students after publicly difficult the president.
“Our technique earlier than was to put low and keep away from Trump any means we might,” mentioned a UC official, who was not approved to talk on the document. “After the UCLA grants have been pulled and the settlement supply got here in, the tactic shifted to ‘taking part in 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 introduced information on funding challenges: Beneath Trump, greater than 1,600 federal grants have been lower. About 400 grants price $230 million remained suspended after school court docket wins.
UC “remains 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 more durable decisions 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 find it irresistible if extra colleges 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.
“Slicing grants is a big hit to a college. And the billion-dollars fantastic is lots. I see why these universities really feel backed right into a nook to settle,” he mentioned. “The threats, they’re working.”
