Ex-Trump DOJ Lawyers Resign Over Controversial UC Investigations

Nine former attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have revealed that they resigned during a controversial investigation into allegations of antisemitism at the University of California (UC). These lawyers reported feeling pressured to conclude that UC campuses had violated the civil rights of Jewish students and staff, a situation they described as chaotic and politically motivated.

The attorneys, who spoke to The Times, were part of a team tasked with investigating antisemitism complaints at UC. They claimed the Trump administration imposed rushed directives, limiting their ability to conduct a thorough investigation. Ejaz Baluch, a senior trial attorney, remarked, “Initially we were told we only had 30 days to come up with a reason to be ready to sue UC. It shows just how unserious this exercise was. It was not about trying to find out what really happened.”

The backdrop to this investigation includes a series of protests at UCLA in spring 2024, triggered by the conflict in Gaza. Reports surfaced of Jewish students and faculty feeling discriminated against, and a subsequent lawsuit against UCLA resulted in a multi-million dollar settlement. The former DOJ lawyers indicated that this lawsuit, along with articles from conservative media, formed the basis for the investigations into UC.

Baluch noted, “UCLA came the closest to having possibly broken the law in how it responded or treated civil rights complaints from Jewish employees. But we just did not have enough information from our investigation to warrant suing UCLA.” Another attorney elaborated, “To me, it’s even clearer now that it became a fraudulent and sham investigation.”

A spokesperson for the DOJ did not provide a comment regarding these allegations. In late July 2025, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon stated that UCLA had “failed to take timely and appropriate action in response to credible claims of harm and hostility on its campus,” asserting a clear violation of federal civil rights laws. Attorney General Pam Bondi warned that UCLA would “pay a heavy price.”

The investigation has drawn scrutiny, with the attorneys expressing concerns about the integrity of the process. They described being instructed to draft a justification memorandum for a lawsuit “before we even knew the facts.” One attorney expressed that the process felt politically driven, stating, “The political appointees essentially determined the outcome almost before the investigation had even started.”

The political landscape surrounding the investigation has made it difficult for UC officials to communicate openly. They have been cautious, seeking to negotiate an out-of-court settlement to protect the university’s $17.5 billion in federal funding. In August 2025, the DOJ demanded UC pay a staggering $1.2 billion fine and implement sweeping policy changes in exchange for restoring frozen grant funding. California Governor Gavin Newsom condemned this demand as “extortion.”

U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin later ruled against the DOJ’s proposal, deeming it “coercive and retaliatory” and in violation of the First Amendment. Judge Lin criticized the administration’s approach, stating, “Agency officials, as well as the president and vice president, have repeatedly and publicly announced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding.”

The investigations primarily focused on the pro-Palestinian protests that erupted across UC campuses. On April 30, 2024, a pro-Israel group attacked a UCLA encampment, leading to injuries among student activists. The response from campus police was criticized for being inadequate, with former Chancellor Gene Block labeling the incident a “dark chapter” in UCLA’s history.

Reports of antisemitism complaints increased during the 2023-24 protests, with some Jewish individuals alleging harassment linked to their support of Israel. In June 2024, Jewish students and faculty at UCLA filed a lawsuit claiming the university facilitated an environment hostile to Jewish individuals. This suit culminated in UC agreeing to a $6.45 million settlement to resolve federal allegations.

The former DOJ attorneys conveyed that their investigations often felt rushed and prioritized UC over other discrimination cases. They noted that at one point, over half of the employment litigation section’s lawyers were assigned to investigate UC complaints, detracting from addressing other critical discrimination issues.

Dena Robinson, a former senior trial attorney, highlighted her concerns regarding the investigation’s integrity, expressing skepticism about the administration’s genuine commitment to addressing antisemitism. Amanda Huckins, another former attorney, stated she resigned to avoid being involved in arguments that conflicted with existing legal precedents.

As the federal investigations continued, UC has maintained that it will engage in good-faith dialogue while refusing to accept any outcomes detrimental to its core mission. UC spokesperson Rachel Zaentz emphasized the university’s commitment to acting in the best interests of its communities amidst ongoing pressure.

The former DOJ attorneys expressed disappointment over the tactics employed by the Trump administration, believing they compromised the department’s integrity. Baluch concluded that the DOJ had effectively gained the upper hand, stating, “Cutting grants is a huge hit to a university. And the billion-dollar fine is a lot. I see why these universities feel backed into a corner to settle. The threats, they are working.”

As the investigation continues, the future of UC’s negotiations with the DOJ remains uncertain, with many anticipating a settlement may be reached to avoid further financial repercussions.