Opening Move? Or...

From the LA Times: University of California leaders said Friday they were stunned by a $1-billion demand from the Trump administration to settle federal accusations of antisemitism in exchange for restoring more than half a billion dollars in frozen grant funding to UCLA, with the new UC president saying the proposal would “completely devastate” the vaunted system. 

A proposal from the federal government sent to UC said the university system should pay the billion-dollar fine in installments and contribute $172 million to a fund to pay Jewish students and other individuals affected by alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The statute covers illegal discrimination related to race, color, religion, sex, national origin or shared ancestry, including Jewish and Israeli identity. In addition, the proposal demanded sweeping campus changes encompassing protests, admissions, gender identity in sports and housing, the abolition of scholarships for racial or ethnic groups, and submission to an outside monitor over the agreement.

In a statement Friday, UC President James B. Milliken, who oversees the 10-campus system that includes UCLA, appeared to rebuff the demand...

Full story at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-08-08/trump-seeking-1-billion-fine-from-ucla-over-antisemitism-allegations.

Here are some observations. 

1) The $1 billion figure is so big that - even apart from any other demands - it raises the question of whether that ask is an opening move in a negotiation that could lead to a settlement or whether it is a signal that the feds really don't want a settlement at this time. Keep in mind that the settlement with Columbia was for $221 million. Harvard has reportedly been asked for $500 million and rejected it. Given the $1 billion magnitude, it seems plausible that the feds don't want a settlement for now and want instead to keep the pot boiling.

2) Even if the $1 billion is a real opening move, it remains unclear on the university side as to who is in charge. Is it UC (with its new president) or UCLA (with its relatively new chancellor) or the UC Regents? While all are obviously "involved," no negotiation can occur without someone who can speak for the university and make decisions. 

3) The chancellor has said UCLA has a contingency plan, although it is unclear what that is or whether the plan is to have a planning committee that he has also referenced. Whether the $1 billion ask is just a message that no deal is wanted now, or whether it is an opening to an actual negotiation, whatever plan there is will need to be revealed very soon. We have previously noted a crude north campus/south campus divide in terms of federal dependence. It is also the case that many research programs on the south side of that divide cannot easily be turned off and on like a light switch. The contingency has arrived.

4) UCLA is a public institution, unlike, say, Columbia. We'll have more to say about the politics involved tomorrow. But there are many public universities around the country that could have been targeted. UCLA, however, tied for national attention with Columbia in its encampment, police intervention, etc. Like Columbia, it also has a med school which makes it more dependent on federal funding than, say, Berkeley. There is also the "LA" in UCLA as well as the "C" for California.