Copyright forbes
Following a court order, the University of California released the $1.2 billion settlement document the Trump administration has proposed for UCLA. The California Supreme Court ordered the University of California to make public the Trump administration’s $1.2 billion settlement demand document for UCLA, rejecting the university’s argument that releasing the document would cause “irreparable harm” to its continuing negotiations with the federal government as well as jeopardize future negotiations involving other parties. The university had appealed a lower court’s order that it release the document after the UCLA Faculty Association and the Council of University of California Faculty Associations filed a lawsuit in September to gain access to it, but on Friday, California’s highest court ruled that the university had to disclose the proposed settlement to the public. The University of California posted the proposed 27-page settlement later that day. “As required by the court, the University has released a copy of the proposed settlement agreement sent by the Department of Justice to the University on August 8, 2025,” UCOP spokesperson Omar Rodriguez said in an emailed statement to the Daily Bruin, adding that “UC has been clear it must evaluate its response to the administration’s settlement proposal that, like all settlement communications, is confidential.” What The Settlement Demands The document contains a long list of demands that the Trump administration is making of UCLA in order for the university to regain hundreds of millions of dollars in research funding the administration had frozen over its allegations that the university had violated federal laws in its hiring and admissions practices and had failed to handle antisemitic conduct on campus properly. (In August, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to restore a portion of the federal grants it had suspended.) MORE FOR YOU The proposed settlement would obligate UCLA to pay $1 billion to the U.S. in equal installments over three years. as well as $172 million into a claims fund for individuals claiming they had been harmed by violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Under the proposed agreement, UCLA would be required, among other things, to: end gender-affirming care for minors at its medical centers; revise its hiring, retention, promotion, and tenure policies to remove goals for diversity based on race, sex, or ethnicity; bar the disclosure of information about candidates’ race, sex, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics to faculty or other UCLA personnel with decision-making authority over hiring, retention, promotion or tenure; eliminate the use of diversity statements as criteria for faculty hiring, tenure, or promotion; discontinue any race-based or ethnicity-based scholarships; engage an external party to conduct a campus climate survey for UCLA students, including the climate for students with shared Jewish ancestry; adopt stricter rules about campus protests and demonstrations; provide an external monitor, which it must pay for, who would have access to its admissions data “showing applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students broken down by race, color, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests;” establish processes “to provide that foreign students likely to engage in anti-Western, anti-American, or antisemitic disruptions or harassment are not recruited or admitted to UCLA;” ensure that it is not financially reliant on foreign student admissions or partnerships with foreign entities; comply with Title IX and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, “as interpreted by the Department of Education, in all of its athletics programs;” provide that “the United States and its consultants and agents will have full and direct access to all UCLA staff employees, facilities, documents, and data related to the Agreement, in coordination with legal counsel for UCLA, except any documents or data protected by work product or the attorney-client privilege.” In July, UCLA Chancellor Julio Frank said that the suspension of the university’s federal grants was “not only a loss to the researchers who rely on critical grants. It is a loss for Americans across the nation whose work, health, and future depend on the groundbreaking work we do.” UC System President James B. Milliken described the federal action as “one of the gravest threats to the University of California in our 157-year history.” While UC officials have insisted that the $1.2 billion payment demanded by the government would be devastating, they have have offered few comments about the progress of their negotiations with federal officials. That may now change as a result of the terms of the government’s proposed settlement becoming public. The scope of those demands and the extent of proposed ongoing federal government involvement in the university’s affairs are simply unprecedented, providing a new glimpse into the degree to which the administration is attempting to control higher education. Editorial StandardsReprints & Permissions
