A federal judge in San Francisco just threw a curveball at the Trump administration, ordering a chunk of withheld funding to be restored to UCLA.
Newsmax reported that this ruling compels the administration to release over a third of the $584 million in federal grants that had been frozen, following a clash over university policies and student protests.
Last year, UCLA became a hotspot for large demonstrations, particularly pro-Palestinian protests criticizing Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
Fast forward to this year, and the drama escalated with a violent mob attack on protesters at UCLA, sparking lawsuits alleging antisemitism on campus.
Last month, UCLA shelled out over $6 million to settle one such lawsuit, while the Trump administration has been scrutinizing universities for allegedly allowing antisemitic environments during these protests.
President Trump has openly threatened to slash federal funds to universities over these protests, a move that has experts worried about the chilling effect on free speech and academic freedom.
Back in June, a preliminary injunction was issued, directing the National Science Foundation (NSF) to reinstate dozens of grants to the University of California system, including UCLA, and to stop canceling others.
Yet, UCLA reported last week that a whopping $584 million in funding remained frozen, prompting Tuesday’s ruling from U.S. District Judge Rita Lin, who declared the NSF’s actions out of line.
“NSF's actions violate the Preliminary Injunction,” Judge Lin stated. Well, that’s a polite way of saying the administration overstepped, and it’s refreshing to see a judge hold the line against bureaucratic overreach, even if the underlying campus issues remain a mess.
The University of California also revealed last week it’s mulling over a settlement offer from the Trump administration that demands UCLA cough up a staggering $1 billion.
The university called this potential payment something that would “devastate” the institution. And let’s be honest, demanding a billion bucks does sound like a heavy-handed tactic—more akin to a shakedown than a solution, especially when academic budgets are already stretched thin.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom didn’t mince words either, labeling the settlement offer a form of extortion. While Newsom’s progressive leanings often skew his perspective, it’s hard to disagree that this financial ultimatum raises eyebrows, even among those of us skeptical of campus protest culture.
Meanwhile, the government’s allegations that UCLA and other universities permitted antisemitism during protests have sparked a counterargument from protesters, including some Jewish groups, who insist their criticism of Israel’s policies isn’t hatred but advocacy for Palestinian rights.
Rights advocates have also pointed out a troubling rise in antisemitism, anti-Arab bias, and Islamophobia tied to the Middle East conflict, yet the administration hasn’t launched parallel investigations into Islamophobia, which feels like a missed opportunity for balance.
Elsewhere, settlements have been reached with Columbia University, which agreed to pay over $220 million, and Brown University, forking over $50 million, while talks with Harvard linger—showing this funding fight is far from a UCLA exclusive.
It’s a stark reminder that federal leverage over universities is a powerful tool, and while curbing campus extremism is a worthy goal, the risk of stifling open debate looms large. Let’s hope for policies that target real threats without turning academia into a battleground for political point-scoring.