Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Attempt to Pressure UC Through Funding
- A federal judge blocked Trump's plan to defund UC over antisemitism claims, citing First and Tenth Amendment violations. - The $1.2B funding demand and civil rights investigations were deemed coercive tactics to suppress "woke" academic views. - UC warned the financial threat would devastate its research programs, while critics called the strategy authoritarian. - The ruling preserves UC's funding but leaves unresolved tensions over government influence in higher education.
A federal judge has halted the Trump administration’s efforts to withdraw funding from the University of California (UC) system, determining that the attempt to punish the university over claims of antisemitism and discrimination breaches constitutional rights. On November 15, 2025, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction, stopping the administration from levying penalties or suspending federal grants without proper legal procedures. She described the move as part of a larger initiative to eliminate “woke,” “left-leaning,” and “socialist” perspectives from the nation’s top universities
The administration’s campaign began in the summer of 2025, when it demanded that UC pay $1.2 billion to regain access to frozen research funds,
The decision highlights ongoing friction between the Trump administration and higher education, a frequent target of conservative scrutiny. The administration has criticized diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as unfair, claiming they disadvantage white and Asian American students. In October 2025, officials offered a contentious agreement to nine universities,
UC President James B. Milliken cautioned that the $1.2 billion demand would severely harm the system,
The case has sparked strong opposition from advocacy organizations and Democratic leaders. California Governor Gavin Newsom warned that universities accepting the administration’s terms would lose state support, while Democracy Forward, a progressive legal advocacy group,
With the injunction in effect, the UC system has avoided an immediate financial crisis but still faces ongoing risks. The administration’s campaign against universities, presented as a defense of free speech, has instead ignited debates about academic independence and the government’s influence over education. As the legal battle continues, the outcome may set a precedent for resolving federal funding disputes—and determine whether universities can withstand politically driven financial pressure.
Disclaimer: The content of this article solely reflects the author's opinion and does not represent the platform in any capacity. This article is not intended to serve as a reference for making investment decisions.
You may also like
Bitcoin Drops After U.S. Shutdown Ends — History Repeats Itself
What’s the Latest Outlook for XRP? Here Are the Critical Levels That Must Be Protected and Overcome
Is 2025 Worse Than 2022 for Crypto? Nic Carter and McCordic Offer Opposing Views
Litecoin Price: With a 12% Surge and Pearson BTC Correlation at –0.01, Is LTC Gearing Up for $125?