By Liam Knox, John Gittelsohn and Maxwell Adler, Bloomberg
As the University of California at Los Angeles works to follow other schools in reaching a deal with the White House to restore federal funding, it faces a unique complication: Governor Gavin Newsom’s crusade against the Trump administration.
Leaders at the sprawling University of California system have discussed how to insulate their talks with administration officials from political backlash to the governor, according to a person familiar with the matter. And after Newsom vowed to fight the administration on the funding freeze, some researchers at UCLA expressed worries that the approach could backfire.
RELATED: House Republicans expand antisemitism investigation to UCSF, UCLA
Newsom’s posture is already having an impact. This month, the UC system shelved a planned $1.5 billion sale of municipal bonds. If Newsom were to successfully push for a lawsuit over the funding, that would make its risk disclosures to investors more challenging, Bloomberg has reported.
Related Articles
A life reclaimed: From incarceration to UC Berkeley
House Republicans expand antisemitism investigation to UCSF, UCLA
Professor explains ‘canceling class’ over Swift and Kelce’s engagement news
San Jose State University sees record enrollment despite Trump concerns
Student housing proposed at former San Jose restaurant site
For Newsom, it’s the latest front in a wide-ranging campaign to counter President Donald Trump that has included his recent move to redistrict the state’s Congressional maps in favor of Democrats. In response to Newsom’s threat to sue over the freeze, the White House told the likely 2028 presidential hopeful to “bring it on.”
The political jousting could prove especially consequential for the first public university to face a broad funding freeze from the Trump administration. The UC system is more dependent on federal dollars than private schools like Columbia or Harvard. The 10-campus system receives $17.3 billion a year from the federal government, including $4 billion in research funding — more than half of its total research budget.
Newsom also is inextricably linked to the school: In his role as governor, he is an ex officio member of its Board of Regents, and he also has the authority to appoint many of the board’s other members.
Members of that board, including UC President James B. Milliken, have initiated discussions with administration officials to try to regain funding, according to the people familiar with the matter.
Away from the limelight of Newsom’s brash public messaging, school officials are taking a more circumspect approach in their talks, the people said. Avoiding a protracted court battle, one of the people said, is a top priority for the school.
Rachel Zaentz, senior director of strategic and critical communications for the UC Office of the President, declined to say how leaders viewed Newsom’s approach, but said the school is “evaluating the demands of the administration” and that it continues to “coordinate with state and federal policymakers to ensure UC has the support it needs.”
Divergent Strategies
The Trump administration suspended research funding to UCLA after the Department of Justice accused the school on July 29 of acting with “deliberate indifference” to allegations of antisemitism on campus following the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israel. The Justice Department threatened to file a complaint in federal court by Sept. 2 unless the school agreed to enter into talks.
When UCLA’s funds were frozen, Milliken put the stakes in stark terms: A failure to recoup the money would be a “death knell” for the university’s research, he wrote in a Aug. 6 statement. He also announced that campus officials were “engaged in dialogue” with the administration about the matter, suggesting the school was likely to take the well-worn path toward an attempted reconciliation.
Newsom took a much less diplomatic tone. He would “fight like hell” against the funding freeze, he said, chiding institutions like Columbia and Brown for capitulating to Trump, whom he called an “aggrieved individual.”
The White House proposed a $1 billion payment to settle the matter — almost twice as much money as had already been suspended, and far more than what Columbia and Brown agreed to pay to restore their funding. Newsom shot back by threatening to sue the federal government, an escalation that, so far, only Harvard University has pursued.
Newsom’s approach was in keeping with the pugilistic style that has made him a key Trump foe in the president’s second term. As of early August, the state had sued the federal government on average more than once a week since January, over immigration, environment, education and numerous other issues.
It also notably strays from other universities’ strategies with the administration. Many colleges facing funding threats have opted to work behind the scenes toward a solution, largely refraining from public sparring.
Even at Harvard, President Alan Garber’s comments have centered not on Trump personally but the implications of his actions for academic freedom and higher education.
A spokesperson for the governor’s office declined to say whether Newsom was coordinating with the university on messaging.
‘Everyone Is Scared’
Newsom can’t move unilaterally to sue on behalf of UC; that decision lies with the Board of Regents.
But he has ways to influence possible outcomes for the UC system. A large enough settlement could force the university to ask for more public funding, requiring the governor’s support.
Speaking on Wednesday evening, Newsom said he has “moral authority” over the board’s negotiations. “I also have some formal authority. I’m a member of that body, and I also help fund it,” he said at a Politico event in Sacramento.
“The Regents need to do the right thing. That said, I get it, they’re all scared, everyone is scared,” he said.
The Los Angeles Times reported that UC leaders are eager to ink a deal that allows the school to preserve its autonomy, but are open to a payment that is “more palatable” than the White House’s $1 billion proposal.
Milliken, who stepped into his job on Aug. 1, is poised to play a key role in securing an agreement.
Before his arrival, all ten of the UC campuses had recently been placed under federal investigation, and he was seen by many as a safe choice to steer the system through the choppy waters of the Trump administration. He had previously been the chancellor of the University of Texas system, where he helped dismantle DEI offices to comply with state law and built a reputation for bipartisan political savvy.
Timothy Clare, a long-serving member of the University of Nebraska Board of Regents, worked with Milliken when he was president of the Nebraska system from 2004-2014. Clare said that over the years Milliken has cultivated a robust network of decision makers across the aisle in Washington who could be useful allies in facilitating more productive White House talks.
“He’s a very calculating guy, in the best sense of the word,” Clare said. “It’s hard to tell someone you have a good relationship with to go pound sand.”
On Aug. 11, Milliken and the UC Board of Regents convened an “emergency meeting” to evaluate the administration’s $1 billion demand and “discuss a path forward,” according to Meredith Vivian Turner, senior vice president of communications in UC’s Office of the President. Zaentz declined to say whether Newsom attended or what was discussed at the meeting.
According to a person familiar with the matter, UC officials discussed at that meeting how the governor’s rhetoric might be an added challenge to overcome.
Treading Lightly
Thomas Carmichael, chair of the neurology department at UCLA’s medical school, said he understood why Newsom spoke out publicly against the funding freeze, even if it frays relations between the school and the Trump administration.
But he added that he’s worried about the $23 million in National Institutes of Health funding for neurological projects he oversees, including dementia research, for which a prolonged standoff like Harvard’s could be devastating. Faculty are cobbling together funds from stopgap grants, he said, and staff are working with no guarantee of a paycheck. If they can’t resume spending soon, they may have to euthanize laboratory mice central to dozens of projects.
Getting that money back, he said, will likely depend on tactful diplomacy and closed-door talks.
“There needs to be a sense of compromise on both sides,” Carmichael said. “And that part probably should not occur with expressions of outrage and condemnation.”
Faculty worry the funding threats could extend beyond UCLA to the other campuses in the system, such as UC Berkeley and UC Irvine.
Carrie Bearden, a psychiatry professor at UCLA, leads her own lab with dozens of research projects. She said that while some of the projects she oversees were spared, university leaders told her not to rule out further funding freezes.
“Given the whiplash other universities experienced with multiple rounds of funding freezes, you can’t assume that you’re safe,” she said.
–With assistance from Eliyahu Kamisher, Danielle Moran, Felipe Marques and Bill Faries.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.