Trump Freezes $339M in UCLA Grants Amid Antisemitism Claims/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Trump administration has frozen $339 million in federal research grants to UCLA, citing civil rights violations including antisemitism, affirmative action, and gender-based discrimination. Federal agencies accuse the school of failing to maintain an inclusive environment. UCLA officials deny wrongdoing and call the penalties harmful to research.
Trump Freezes UCLA Grants – Quick Looks
- $339 million in research grants suspended by federal agencies.
- Accusations include antisemitism, affirmative action violations, and Title IX infractions.
- The Department of Justice found UCLA violated civil rights laws.
- Department of Energy criticized race-based admissions practices post-affirmative action bans.
- Funding suspension includes $240 million from NIH and HHS.
- Trump administration uses Columbia University’s deal as a model.
- UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk called the freeze “deeply disappointing.”
- UCLA recently settled a $6M lawsuit with Jewish students and a professor.
- NSF and DOE cited multiple compliance failures in funding decisions.
- UCLA vows to maintain safety, inclusivity, and transparency on campus.
Trump Freezes $339M in UCLA Grants Amid Antisemitism Claims
Deep Look
The Trump administration has taken a dramatic step against the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), freezing $339 million in federal research grants following allegations of multiple civil rights violations. According to federal officials and internal sources, the move marks one of the most significant actions against a public university in recent memory.
The funding freeze spans multiple federal agencies, including $240 million in suspended grants from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE) also joined the action, citing failures in compliance with agency standards.
At the heart of the controversy are allegations of antisemitism, discriminatory admissions policies, and Title IX infractions related to women’s sports. The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division recently concluded that UCLA violated both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The university was accused of “deliberate indifference” in failing to address a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students.
This crackdown follows a similar case involving Columbia University, which agreed last week to pay a $200 million settlement over comparable civil rights violations. That deal also restored over $400 million in frozen federal funding. According to Trump administration officials, Columbia’s resolution is now considered a blueprint for holding other universities accountable.
Affirmative Action and Admissions Scrutiny
The Department of Energy, in its letter to UCLA, criticized the university for practices resembling race-based admissions—despite a Supreme Court ruling in 2023 that struck down affirmative action nationwide. California had already banned affirmative action in 1996.
The letter noted UCLA’s use of applicant race disclosures in personal statements, ZIP code-based considerations, and income-related factors in admissions decisions. These practices, the DOE argues, represent an “attempt to engage in race-based admissions in all but name,” disadvantaging white, Jewish, and Asian American applicants.
Antisemitism and Campus Climate
Antisemitism allegations also play a central role in the funding freeze. Federal investigators say UCLA failed to ensure a campus environment free from antisemitic behavior. The university recently reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and one professor. The plaintiffs argued that UCLA failed to protect their civil rights during pro-Palestinian protests in 2024, during which demonstrators allegedly blocked Jewish students’ access to classrooms and campus facilities.
UCLA initially argued that it bore no legal responsibility since students—not the administration—led the protests. Nonetheless, the university worked with law enforcement to dismantle unauthorized encampments and restore access.
Chancellor Julio Frenk condemned the funding freeze in a public statement: “With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty, and staff.” He further argued that freezing lifesaving research over unresolved allegations is a “far-reaching penalty” that does not contribute to solving the problems cited.
Title IX and Transgender Participation
The Department of Energy also pointed to UCLA’s athletics policies, specifically criticizing the school for allowing transgender women to participate on women’s sports teams. The DOE claims this amounts to gender-based discrimination under Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Funding Freeze’s National Implications
The Trump administration’s aggressive approach to enforcing civil rights compliance on university campuses is part of a broader initiative. In recent months, President Trump has also threatened to cut all federal funding to Harvard University under similar allegations. With the Columbia University precedent and now the UCLA case, financial penalties are no longer seen as extraordinary but expected in certain investigations.
The National Science Foundation issued a separate statement confirming its decision to pause funding to UCLA, explaining that the university’s policies “fail to align with NSF’s mission of promoting inclusive excellence and integrity in scientific research.”
UCLA maintains that it will continue to implement changes that prioritize safety, inclusivity, and transparency. Despite this, the scale of the funding freeze poses an immediate threat to hundreds of research projects across medical, scientific, and social disciplines.
As the situation unfolds, many in higher education are watching closely to see whether this signals a long-term shift in how federal agencies hold universities accountable—or a politically charged move to reshape academic policy through financial leverage.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.