Speaking of Extorting Universities
The Trump Administration reportedly wants $1 billion from U.C.L.A.
The New York Times is reporting that as part of its “negotiations” with U.C.L.A., the Trump Administration is insisting the university cough up $1 billion (plus an additional $172 million for a civil rights “claims fund”). This figure easily dwarfs the “fines” Columbia ($220 million) and Brown ($50 million) agreed to pay as part of their “deals.”
The demand figure is classic Trump, who has sued news outlets for tens of billions for non-existent reputational and other harms. The “negotiations” follow a familiar pattern of lawless extortion intended to bring “elite” universities to their knees.
Neither the proposed “settlement” nor previous suspensions of funding follow any of the procedures required under federal law before federal funding can be terminated. It is true that U.C.L.A. recently settled a civil rights claim brought by Jewish students who claimed the university violated Title VI by failing to respond adequately to discriminatory acts against them during campus protests. But the settlement is a far cry from an investigation, and actual proof, of deliberate indifference to discrimination.
In any event, the $1 billion figure is wildly disproportionate to any actual discrimination that is likely to have occurred on U.C.L.A.’s campus.
The demand comes despite actions the university has already taken to combat anti-Semitism. Universities should now understand that such efforts will not factor into any “settlement.” (Which is of course not a reason to suspend or fail to pursue them, but a caution that the “deals” are unrelated to addressing campus anti-Semitism).
The $1 billion “fine” is in addition to the $584 million in already-suspended federal research and other funds. That suspension, which also came without any federal investigation, violates several constitutional standards.
It violates a constitutional doctrine that limits the scope of the government’s power to condition receipt of federal funds. One limit is that the government can’t use its power to condition funding to censor speech in ways it could not do directly. Thus, the government can limit speech or other activities within the scope of a specific program, but cannot impose such restrictions outside the scope of that program. As Professor Mike Dorf put it: “There is no indication that the administration is concerned that by funding research into cancer, heart disease, and infectious diseases (to name three grants highlighted on the Harvard website in early May 2025), it is also funding antisemitism or unlawful racial preferences[.]”
The financial gun to U.C.L.A.’s head also violates two other constitutional principles: (1) government can’t leverage funding or use other indirect threats to suppress or coerce speech, and (2) government can’t retaliate against speakers based on their views. For those who have any lingering doubt that punishing universities is based on ideology, Trump’s Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, praised the Columbia settlement in precisely these terms: "This is a monumental victory for conservatives who've wanted to do things on these elite campuses for a long time," said McMahon.
One could of course say more about the non-civil rights motivations behind the U.C.L.A. “settlement proposal.” It is no secret that President Trump dislikes California voters because they rejected him, dislikes the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, and dislikes the mayor of Los Angeles. President Trump dispatched U.S. Marines and federalized National Guard soldiers to Los Angeles on the glaringly pretextual grounds that there was a rebellion or complete breakdown of law and order there.
The retribution campaign is bigger than Trump. As many have observed, the sustained attacks on universities have little to do with addressing anti-Semitism and a lot to do with, as Secretary McMahon put it, “conservatives who’ve wanted to do things on these elite campuses for a long time.”