Imagine being pressured to accuse a prestigious university of discrimination before the facts are even clear. That’s exactly what several lawyers within the US Department of Justice claim happened during the Trump administration’s investigation into antisemitism at the University of California. According to these attorneys, they were pushed to conclude that the university had violated the law, even before evidence was fully examined—a move one lawyer bluntly called a ‘hit job.’
In a revealing exposé by the Los Angeles Times, nine attorneys—some speaking anonymously—shared their insider accounts of the federal investigation into California’s research university system. They described an environment where political appointees seemed to predetermine the outcome, prioritizing ideological goals over impartial justice. And this is the part most people miss: all nine attorneys eventually resigned, citing ethical concerns over the handling of the case.
‘The political appointees essentially decided the result before the investigation even began,’ Jen Swedish, a former DoJ lawyer involved in the case against UCLA, told the newspaper. This investigation centered on allegations of antisemitism during pro-Palestinian protests on UC campuses, part of a broader wave of student activism against the war in Gaza that swept universities nationwide.
Since taking office, the Trump administration has launched a series of investigations into university campuses across the US, targeting pro-Palestinian activism, diversity initiatives, and academic freedom. But here’s where it gets controversial: the administration has sued multiple campuses and threatened to withhold research funding, raising questions about whether these actions are genuinely about combating discrimination or a thinly veiled attempt to silence dissent.
Over the summer, the administration demanded that UCLA pay a staggering $1 billion fine and adopt new policies to restore over $500 million in grant funding. However, a federal judge intervened last month, blocking the administration from withholding funds and imposing fines. The judge ruled that the administration was using civil rights investigations as a ‘playbook’ to force universities to align with its ideological stance.
The attorneys interviewed for the LA Times investigation described rushed and politically motivated probes. One attorney noted that while Jewish individuals do face discrimination, the inquiry was a ‘hit job’ that ultimately wouldn’t help anyone. Earlier this year, the DoJ’s civil rights division claimed UCLA allowed antisemitic discrimination during protests, leading the university to settle a $6.5 million lawsuit with Jewish students and a professor. Yet, former DoJ attorney Ejaz Baluch admitted the case had ‘significant weaknesses,’ even though UCLA’s handling of civil rights complaints from Jewish employees came close to potentially breaking the law.
Another attorney went further, calling the UCLA investigation ‘fraudulent and a sham.’ Meanwhile, UCLA faces a separate lawsuit from pro-Palestinian protesters, who accuse the university of failing to protect them during a violent attack by a pro-Israel group. Is this a fair crackdown on discrimination, or an overreach of political power?
The US Department of Justice and the University of California have yet to comment on these allegations. But the question remains: How should we balance the fight against discrimination with the need to protect academic freedom and political dissent? Let us know your thoughts in the comments—this is a debate worth having.
