The Headline

You probably saw the headline shown here in today's LA Times.* (The article actually came online yesterday.) Essentially, the story involves interviews with government lawyers who quit after they were pressed to come up with an expedited indictment of UC/UCLA on grounds of antisemitism following the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack. Some of the lawyers are anonymous, but others are named and quoted. Some felt there were antisemitic occurrences, but that the usual investigatory processes were being short-circuited. That article notes that UCLA has not been formally charged, although - as blog readers will know - a long draft memo outlining various incidents was presented to UC along with a demand for $1+ billion and other actions.

So, where do things now stand? It appears that responsibility for dealing with the feds was taken from the campus level to UCOP, the Regents, and the governor. The governor, it might be noted, is an ex officio Regent and technically the president of the Board, although - unlike his predecessor, he almost never attends Regents meetings. However, the governor is running an all-but-official campaign for the presidency in 2028, complete with a soon-to-be-published campaign biography.** He has taken to denouncing universities, law firms, and corporate executives who make deals with, or curry favors with, the Trump administration. That circumstance, plus the $1+ billion demand, have made any UC deal with the feds very unlikely. The result is that the position of UC seems to be that it will "discuss" these matters with the feds, but let others do whatever litigating might be possible.

As we have noted in other posts, litigating cutoffs of existing research funding tends to succeed, since the government is essentially violating its own contractual obligations. The problem is contract renewals and new contracts since those are subject to competitive evaluation and can thus be denied more easily. Modern research universities, such as UCLA, depend on ongoing federal support. 

2028 Campaign Book

However, we are now less than a year away from midterm elections which could shift control of the House to the Democrats. Recent polling suggests such a shift is a strong possibility, despite the current gerrymandering battles. Trump put himself over the top in 2024, by promising to fix the grocery and other prices that rose sharply in the post-pandemic period. While the rate of inflation (the increase in prices) has come down, the general price level has not fallen. Indeed, history tells us that you get sustained declines in prices only during depressions (and great ones at that). 

In any event, the Trump strategy of "flooding the zone" with edicts, actions, and proposals on all kinds of unrelated issues meant that the focus was not on pricing; there was no focus.*** And one prominent element in the "flood" was tariffs, which tend to raise prices. In short, there could be an electoral cost to the flood strategy. Seen by the powers-that-be at UC, the policy at this time may simply be to wait and see how national politics evolve, while always being willing to discuss.

===

*The article by Jaweed Kaleem is at https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-12-13/former-doj-attorneys-university-of-california-ucla-antisemitism.

**https://ia600103.us.archive.org/6/items/united-we-can-yes-on-50-united-we-can-10-3-2025/newsom%2012-9-2025%20campaign%20bio%20book.mp4.

***An interesting historical comparison is with FDR who, in the 1932 election, promised to focus on fixing the Great Depression. Once in office, he also produced a flood of actions and legislation, but it was all focused on what he had promised. And, to make sure his focus was understood, he went on the radio - the electronic innovation of the day - with "fireside chats" to explain what he was doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFvrL_nqx2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpbGmTSVZeM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW32QE-SIgI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzvh9985SaY In 1936, when FDR ran for re-election, it was clear that even though he had not solved the problem (the economy had not returned to the prosperity of the late 1920s), there was no question that he had remained focused on fixing what he had promised to fix. The electorate rewarded the attempt and the focus, even if complete delivery had not be achieved. In contrast, Trump's equivalent of fireside chats, tweets on Truth Social, are not focused and reflect the flood-the-zone-with-everything approach.