- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
It is inexplicable that, rather than fighting back against the Trump administration illegally cutting off hundreds of millions in research funds, reports now suggest that the University of California system is seeking to instead negotiate a deal, potentially giving in to high-level extortion. Harvard University has fought back, filed lawsuits, and won yet again in court this past week. It is not too late for the University of California to walk away from the bargaining table and take the Trump administration to court instead.
According to a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) site in early June, the Trump administration had already frozen $324 million in grants earmarked for University of California researchers. In actuality, the figure was likely much higher due to the DOGE site being incomplete and also failing to include critical sub-grants. Then on Aug. 1, the Trump administration illegally suspended an additional $584 million in federal funds due to UCLA.
Federal district court Judge Rita F. Lin in San Francisco found that the suspension and termination of these grants by several U.S. agencies violated federal law because it was done in an arbitrary manner without any semblance of meaningful explanation or fair process.
The court also found that the termination of these grants violated the 1st Amendment because the choice to do so was based on the perceived viewpoint of the research, including scanning documents for the word “diversity” and then cutting off grants that used it — even instances when the term intended to explain the diversity of plant life or microbial colonies. Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit came to the same conclusion and upheld the preliminary injunction requiring that funds granted by these agencies be restored.
This is a lawsuit that was brought by volunteer lawyers — I am co-counsel — on behalf of the researchers. It was not brought by the University of California, which could have sued to challenge the termination of grants, including to UCLA. I’ve been told by school officials that the University didn’t sue because it did not want to provoke the Trump administration. That seemed naïve at the time and — and, as my father would say, a helluva lot of good that did.
The ostensible basis for the Trump administration’s action is due to displays of antisemitism on the UCLA campus. But if that were truly the reason for cutting off the money, the law is clear as to the procedures the government must follow. The institution must be given notice and a hearing in front of the agency granting the funds before any funds are cut off. There must be explicit findings that the university, in acting deliberately indifferent to creating a hostile environment for Jewish students on campus, violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The House and the Senate must be given 30 days’ advance notice before funds are cut off, and the funds can only be cut for those parts UCLA deemed to violate the law.
The Trump administration has done none of this, nor would it likely have succeeded in meeting this very demanding standard. Even if the Trump administration prevailed, it would not allow the massive cutting off of funds that the Trump administration has imposed on UC schools.
The Trump administration is using allegations of antisemitism as the pretext for harming universities and for coercing changes to advance its ideological agenda. For example, the administration’s settlement with Brown University includes its ending of gender-affirming care at all its medical care facilities. The rumored settlement with UCLA includes both eliminating gender-neutral restrooms and ending gender-affirming care at its facilities. It would be unconscionable to throw transgender students, staff and faculty under the bus like this.
The Trump administration seeks the end of diversity programs. Since 1996, the California Constitution has prohibited affirmative action based on race or sex. In 2023, the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution also forbids this. But nothing in the law or the Supreme Court decision precludes the University of California from pursuing diversity through other lawful means. And to be true to its mandate and values, it must do so.
Any settlement will involve proferring a hefty sum. Brown University has agreed to pay $50 million; Columbia University has said it will pay $221 million. If the University of California agrees to similar terms, every penny will come from funds for education and research — what the university exists to accomplish.
And if the University of California capitulates, there is nothing to stop the Trump administration from extorting funds from it again and again in the future. Surely university officials aren’t going to put their trust in the hope that the Trump administration will act in good faith in the future. We all learned long ago on the playground that giving into a bully only makes it worse. I have no doubt that President Trump is going after the most prestigious universities — Harvard, Columbia, Brown, University of California — because he thinks that if they give in, all other schools will cave as well.
The Supreme Court may ultimately rule against the University of California if it sues. But the University must at least have the courage to try and must fight for its values. Capitulating will send the wrong message to other universities and most of all to its faculty and students. As California state Senator Scott Wiener recently explained in an open letter urging UC leadership not to back down against Trump, “Concessions by UCLA would establish a damaging precedent for extorting public schools in states with leadership that does not bow down to this President.”
Being on a UC campus, it feels clear to me that the faculty and students strongly oppose a settlement. They want university officials and the regents to challenge the illegal actions of the Trump administration. I know I speak for so many in saying: the University of California should not give in to extortion and make a deal with the Trump administration.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, is an Opinion Voices contributing writer.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The University of California should abandon negotiations and pursue litigation against the Trump administration’s funding freezes, following Harvard University’s successful legal strategy that has resulted in court victories so far[2][4]
The Trump administration’s suspension of federal research grants violates established legal procedures, as federal courts have already determined these actions were done arbitrarily without proper notice, hearings, or explicit findings of Title VI violations[3]
The administration is using antisemitism allegations as a pretext to advance an ideological agenda, evidenced by settlement demands that include eliminating gender-affirming care and diversity programs that extend far beyond addressing antisemitism concerns[2]
Negotiating settlements would require substantial financial payments that divert critical resources from education and research, with universities like Brown and Columbia agreeing to pay $50 million and $221 million respectively[5]
Capitulating to these demands establishes a dangerous precedent that encourages future extortion attempts, as giving in to bullying tactics only invites more aggressive actions from the administration
The University of California has an obligation to defend its values and the research mission that benefits all Americans, particularly when faculty and students strongly oppose settlement negotiations
Different views on the topic
Some universities have successfully restored their federal funding through negotiations and compliance measures, with nearly 80 percent of the frozen $5.7 billion remaining on hold while institutions like Columbia and Brown have publicly confirmed their funding was restored[5]
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling allows the Trump administration to proceed with research grant cuts and makes legal challenges more difficult and costly for universities, as researchers must now pursue cases in specialized contract courts rather than district courts[6]
The practical realities of litigation include prohibitive time and financial costs that may ultimately prove less effective than negotiated settlements, especially given the uncertain legal landscape and potential for prolonged court battles[6]
The administration maintains that funding suspensions are necessary enforcement actions related to universities’ alleged failures to address antisemitic harassment and discrimination against Jewish students on campus[4]
Universities face immediate operational pressures from funding freezes, including researcher layoffs and termination notices that disrupt critical ongoing research projects, making swift resolution through negotiation potentially more beneficial than lengthy litigation[1][4]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
UCLA professor and climate scientist, Alex Hall, joins host Kate Cagle to talk about how we can better prepare ourselves for the next mega-fire, including a proposal to create a classification system – and a standardized response – for Santa Ana wind storms, similar to the one we use for hurricanes in the U.S.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Modern LA earned its first smoggy nickname 450 years ago, as the “bay of smokes.” At the La Brea tar pits, we take a short walk through a long history with curator Regan Dunn, who explains how and why the first Angelenos would have set fires that filled the broad bowl of LA and foretold the curse of smog.
