The Department of Justice has dropped its appeal of a court order blocking its proposed $1.2 billion settlement with UCLA, a move that halts, for now, a sweeping effort to reshape the university’s policies, and practices. The decision, filed Wednesday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, comes after a federal judge in November stalled the proposed settlement, which critics characterized as an attempt to exert ideological control over the University of California system.
The proposed settlement stemmed from accusations by the Trump administration that UCLA violated civil rights laws. The administration alleged violations related to admissions practices, the recognition of transgender identities, and the handling of antisemitism complaints during pro-Palestinian protests in 2024. While the DOJ is no longer pursuing this specific financial penalty, the investigation into the University of California system continues, signaling a broader campaign to influence higher education policy.
The initial proposal, delivered to UC leaders on August 8, 2024, followed a freeze of $584 million in federal research funding for UCLA, according to reporting from the Los Angeles Times. The settlement document itself outlined demands that would have dramatically altered UCLA’s operations, and by extension, the entire UC system.
Sweeping Changes Proposed by the DOJ
The administration’s proposed settlement included a series of controversial stipulations. These included a ban on diversity-related scholarships, restrictions on the enrollment of foreign students, and a directive to effectively deny the existence of transgender individuals. Further demands included ending gender-affirming healthcare for minors and limiting free speech on campus. Perhaps most concerning to critics, the proposal sought nearly unfettered access to university personnel data by the government. The ProPublica reported that the DOJ’s actions were part of a broader “playbook” to bring colleges into compliance with conservative priorities.
Dozens of UC faculty groups and unions filed suit to block the settlement, arguing the financial burden would be unsustainable and the proposed changes violated academic freedom. UC officials stated the system could not afford the $1.2 billion fine and were open to discussions, but opposed the sweeping ideological demands.
Injunction Modified, Investigation Continues
As part of the agreement to drop the appeal, the administration and lawyers representing the plaintiffs jointly requested modifications to the November injunction from U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin of the Northern District of California. Judge Lin approved the request on Friday, February 13, 2026. The modified injunction clarifies that it does not prevent the voluntary resolution of civil rights investigations and litigations with the UC system. It also prevents the government from coercing the UC into accepting the terms of the August settlement offer by threatening federal funding, a tactic that relies on violating the First and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
UC spokesperson Rachel Zaentz stated the university “remains focused on our vital work to drive innovation, advance medical breakthroughs and strengthen the nation’s long-term competitiveness” and “remains committed to protecting the mission, governance and academic freedom of the university.”
UC Irvine law professor Veena Dubal, general counsel for the American Association of University Professors, celebrated the development, stating, “The Trump administration’s decision to not appeal this preliminary injunction means that for the foreseeable future, they cannot use civil rights laws or federal funding as a cudgel to remake the UC in its ideological image.”
Broader Campaign Against Universities
The Department of Justice’s move comes as the administration continues to pursue similar actions against other universities. On Friday, February 13, 2026, the government sued Harvard University, accusing it of refusing to provide records related to its admissions practices and alleged violations of affirmative action policies. The administration has also joined a lawsuit alleging that UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine illegally considers race in its admissions process, a claim the university denies.
The UC workers’ lawsuit will continue to move forward in federal district court, currently in the discovery phase, and could eventually proceed to trial. The Department of Justice has not commented on the ongoing litigation.
What comes next remains to be seen, but the administration’s continued investigations and legal challenges suggest a sustained effort to influence the direction of higher education in the United States. The outcome of the Harvard lawsuit and the ongoing UC case will likely set precedents for how the federal government can engage with universities on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
What are your thoughts on the DOJ’s actions? Share your perspective in the comments below.
