Politics
UCLA Chancellor Gene Block heads to D.C. for grilling on campus antisemitism
UCLA Chancellor Gene Block will testify before a Republican-led House committee Thursday, where he is expected to face aggressive questioning about antisemitism on his campus and how a pro-Palestinian encampment ended in violence.
His appearance comes as UCLA, among the nation’s most prestigious public universities, has been roiled by months of tense protests over the Israel-Hamas war, including a violent mob attack three weeks ago on a pro-Palestinian encampment.
The testimony — which will take place just over two months before Block steps down as chancellor — will be the first time the head of a California university addresses the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. The group has grilled university presidents and K-12 school leaders on a national stage since the fall, contributing to the resignations of the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.
Setting the tone for questioning, chair Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said in a Monday statement that the “committee has a clear message for mealy-mouthed, spineless college leaders: Congress will not tolerate your dereliction of your duty to your Jewish students. No stone must go unturned while buildings are being defaced, campus greens are being captured, or graduations are being ruined.”
In a campus-wide letter distributed Monday, Block said he would “speak honestly, and personally, about the challenges UCLA faces and the impact of this pernicious form of hate” during the testimony. “I will continue to insist that antisemitism — as well as Islamophobia, anti-Arab hate and any form of bigotry, hostility or discrimination — is antithetical to our values, corrosive to our community and not to be tolerated.”
Thursday’s testimony will represent a key moment in Block’s 17-year career at UCLA and comes a week after he survived a “no confidence” vote by the university’s Academic Senate but saw half of voting faculty representatives endorse censuring him for his response to pro-Palestinian protesters.
The House committee is investigating how UCLA handled the encampment that was dismantled May 2 by police who arrested more than 200 people, in addition to allegations of antisemitism that have grown on the Westwood campus since the Oct. 7, when Hamas militants attacked Israel and the nation launched its retaliatory war in Gaza.
The committee, made up of 44 representatives — 24 of them Republicans — has three Californians, Republican Rep. Michelle Steel and Democratic Reps. Mark Takano and Mark DeSaulnier. The panel describes itself on its website as “promoting access to high-quality education for students” and opposing “one-size-fits-all government-run schools.”
During an explosive Dec. 5 committee hearing on antisemitism, the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology faced pressure after giving evasive responses to whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” was a violation of student conduct rules, including saying in their answers that it depended on “context.” Presidents and school administrators facing elected officials since then have fared better on similar questions.
Block will be joined by the leaders of Northwestern and Rutgers universities, where presidents recently signed off on agreements with protesters to end encampments but did not agree to their main demands: to divest from weapons companies and ties to Israel and to boycott academic partnerships with Israeli universities. Block has not made any agreements with pro-Palestinian activists.
The presidents of Yale and Michigan, who were previously slated to testify alongside Block at the hearing, titled “Calling for Accountability: Stopping Antisemitic College Chaos,” will be called to appear for transcribed interviews. The head of the Berkeley public school district testified earlier this month in during a similar hearing aimed at K-12 schools.
Foxx has admonished UCLA and the other universities for making what she sees as “shocking concessions to the unlawful antisemitic encampments on their campuses” and criticized UCLA leadership for failing to have police prepared to intervene April 30 when the mob attacked the pro-Palestinian camp.
UC released a statement Tuesday describing UCLA’s free speech and anti-discrimination policies.
“While free speech is protected on UCLA’s campus — and at all other public universities — that right is not absolute. We also have legal obligations under the federal law to protect students from discrimination and harassment,” said Charles F. Robinson, general counsel and senior vice president. “Our policies do not allow for anyone to intimidate, harass or stop someone from moving freely about our campus. UCLA follows the University of California’s Anti-Discrimination Policy, which prohibits harassment and discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived protected category. The protected categories include religion and national origin [shared Jewish ancestry].”
Critics say the hearings are an attempt by House Republicans to use campus unrest for political gain during an election year. They also point out that while reports of campus antisemitic incidents have grown significantly since Oct. 7, there have been no similar hearings on the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hatred that has also shot up.
A spokesman for the committee did not respond to a request to interview Foxx. A UCLA spokesman also did not respond to a request to interview Block.
Foxx previously directed Block, UC President Michael V. Drake and Rich Leib, chair of the UC Board of Regents, to produce all documents, communications and security videos related to alleged antisemitic incidents at UCLA since Oct. 7. She gave them until Tuesday afternoon to share those documents, as well as texts and other communications from staff, police and the regents.
In a letter last week demanding the documents, Foxx described what she saw as an antisemitic trope: an image of Block, who is Jewish, displayed at the encampment that “featured him with horns and red eyes.”
Before the protests began, Block was widely praised for expanding enrollment, diversity, philanthropy and research funding to get the university through a financial crisis and the global pandemic. The last controversy Block faced was in 2019 when The Times revealed that years earlier, UCLA had been aware of allegations of parents pledging donations to its athletic programs in exchange for their children being admitted to the university.
But after the encampment attack overnight on April 30 and a hours-long delay in the police response to quell the melee, he has faced condemnation from some elected officials, faculty, students and staff. While his biggest critics at UCLA have been from the left, he’s more likely to face opposition at the hearing from the right, following a pattern in previous hearings.
Pro-Palestinian UCLA faculty have expressed frustration that their chancellor has flown to Washington, D.C., while the campus remains unsettled.
“UCLA is the center of the fire across American universities, yet he’s focusing on the hearing,” said Yogita Goyal, a professor of English and African American studies and a voting member of the Academic Senate who said she opposes Block’s leadership. “Congress should not dictate what happens on our campus.”
Graeme Blair, an associate professor of political science who is part of UCLA Faculty for Justice in Palestine, said he hoped Block would use the hearing to “push back against the narrative of the committee, which is focused on antisemitism to the exclusion of anti-Palestinian hate … the dominant force on our campus leading to violent harm to our students.”
“UCLA’s response to the encampment on campus failed to protect students against anti-Palestinian violence, but it has a chance now to come clean and start to make changes,” Blair said.
Inna Faliks, a professor of piano who is Jewish, said she “hoped the hearing would help” but that it was “hard to tell” if previous ones had made a dent.
Faliks, a voting member of the Academic Senate who opposed the recent ballots against Block, charged the UCLA encampment with being “pro-Hamas” because of its slogans and checkpoints that would not let Zionists through, saying they “made Jewish faculty and staff feel horrible.”
Judea Pearl, an Israeli American professor of computer science, said that he, too, felt the sting of antisemitism on campus but thought the issue was too often brushed aside by activists who described themselves as anti-Zionist but not antisemitic.
“There is a zionophobia on campus. But Zionism is not a bad thing,” said Pearl. “It is good to partner with Israeli universities, for example. We need their research because it’s good research.”
Pearl disapproved of Block’s handling of the encampment, he said, because it was not cleared more quickly after going up April 25. He also said that a tense pro-Israel counter-protest before the attack has been overshadowed by the night of violence.
“Unfortunately, this hearing is being done by Republicans. I wish it was done by Democrats who actually care about higher education,” Pearl said. “But it’s better than doing nothing.”
In addition to the hearing, UCLA is preparing for a possible strike by graduate student workers. The union representing such workers across the University of California’s 10 campuses voted last week to authorize a strike in response to the arrests and use of force in dismantling the pro-Palestinian encampments at UCLA and elsewhere. The strike began Monday at UC Santa Cruz.
Gene McAdoo, a doctoral student in the UCLA School of Education and Information Studies who is part of the union and joined the pro-Palestinian encampment, said he thought Block would “get it really bad.”
“I don’t think he will come out of that in one piece,” McAdoo said. “He’s been getting pressure from the left to resign, but after this it might be coming from all sides.”
new video loaded: How Rubio Is Driving the U.S. Pressure Campaign on Cuba
By Michael Crowley, Nikolay Nikolov, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, Jon Miller and Whitney Shefte
May 20, 2026
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
A newly active X account bearing former first son Hunter Biden’s name drew mockery from GOP lawmakers and prominent social media personalities after posting its first message Tuesday.
“Your laptop’s reputation precedes you,” Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn wrote in response to the “@HunterBiden” account.
Fox News Digital reached out to X and Hunter Biden’s art gallery to verify if the account belongs to the former president’s son, but did not receive confirmation. The account has garnered thousands of followers and interactions since Tuesday, when it launched its first message.
“I’m Hunter Biden. You’ve never actually heard from me,” the account blaring the former first son’s name posted.
The account’s profile reads: “Artist. Author. Recovery Advocate.”
HUNTER BIDEN HELPED MAKE CAMPAIGN DECISIONS, WAS MAJOR FIXTURE IN FATHER’S ORBIT, AUTHOR SAYS
Hunter Biden posts his first message on X and Substack. (Mandel Ngan/AFP)
Hunter, 56, has re-emerged in the public spotlight as he attempts to rebuild his image following years of controversy involving drug addiction, legal troubles and scrutiny surrounding his personal life.
The X account, @HunterBiden, was first launched in 2013, according to a Fox News Digital review, but posted its first public message on Tuesday. Hunter Biden’s art gallery website is linked to the X account, while the art gallery’s website links to the X account, a YouTube page and a Substack account.
The tweet sparked a wave of mockery aimed at the younger Biden, as well as a handful of accounts quipping that the former first son would allegedly launch a 2028 run.
“We’ve heard plenty,” said Republican Indiana Sen. Jim Banks responded to the account.
“Trust me, we’ve heard and seen ENOUGH from you,” Republican Missouri Rep. Jason Smith chimed in.
Other social media users quickly piled onto the alleged Hunter Biden post, resurfacing past controversies and even floating him as a potential political candidate.
“Oh this oughta be good,” said conservative commentator Nick Sortor in an X response.
“Very real chance he doesn’t remember that we have, in fact, heard from him in hours of podcasting before now,” said Fox News contributor Mary Katharine Ham.
“The 2028 Dark Horse Candidate,” wrote one X user, while another added “He’s running.”
MAMDANI’S WIFE’S ‘STUDENT SKETCHBOOK’ ART IS HUNTER BIDEN EFFECT ALL OVER AGAIN, SAYS US ARTIST
Hunter’s art gallery website links his X account, Youtube, as well as a newly formed Substack which posts the same message. (TheImageDirect.com)
Additionally, Candace Owens tagged the X account in a trailer for her upcoming interview with Hunter Biden, who is continuing a media tour following years of controversy while under the public spotlight.
The @HunterBiden account reposted the video, writing, “She’s got questions. I’ve got answers. Thursday.”
JOE BIDEN POSES WITH HUNTER’S CHINESE BUSINESS ASSOCIATES IN NEWLY SURFACED PHOTOS: ‘INCREDIBLY DAMNING’
Hunter reportedly moved out of the United States amid mounting legal issues, just a year after his father left the presidential office in 2025. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)
HUNTER BIDEN’S FINANCIAL WOES REVEALED IN NEW MOTION TO DROP LAWSUIT: ‘SIGNIFICANT DEBT’
Hunter Biden has been involved in a string of controversies spanning his foreign business dealings, tax and gun charges, and scrutiny tied to his family’s political connections.
Hunter received a pardon from President Joe Biden for any offense he “has committed or may have committed” from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 1, 2024, before his father left office.
In September 2024, Hunter Biden pleaded guilty to nine federal tax charges in California for a scheme evading over $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019. He was also convicted in Delaware in June 2024 for lying on a federal form about his drug use to purchase a firearm in 2018.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Hunter published a memoir titled “Beautiful Things: A Memoir” in 2021 which details his battle with severe substance abuse and family tragedies from his own perspective.
Nearly three months after the United States and Israel launched their large-scale bombing campaign against Iran and about six weeks since the April 8 ceasefire took effect, President Trump faces an inflection point. Does he return to war? Maintain the ceasefire and U.S. blockade on Iranian ports in the hope of cutting a deal on American terms? Or drop his maximalist negotiating stance?
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an informal foreign policy advisor for the White House, continues to press for more aggressive U.S. military action. Trump’s political advisors would prefer that the war end as soon as possible to minimize political repercussions against the Republican Party in a midterm election year.
Trump seems conflicted. Despite weeks of U.S. bombardment and an ongoing naval blockade, Tehran is as protective of its nuclear program today as it was before the war began. “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote on Truth Social over the weekend. A day later, Trump took to the social media platform again to announce he suspended planned U.S. attacks on Iran to give talks more time.
Unfortunately for Trump, he’s proved to be his own worst enemy on this subject. Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium and Tehran’s effective control of the Strait of Hormuz, the regime’s two biggest cards, are a byproduct of Trump’s own policy decisions.
The first is a clear indictment of Trump’s first-term order to withdraw the United States from the Obama-era Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, a highly technical accord that put Iran’s nuclear work in a box by restricting the number and quality of centrifuges it could use, capped the amount of enriched uranium it could produce and compelled Tehran to ship 97% of its stockpile out of the country. When the Trump administration scrapped that hard-won deal, Iran responded by enriching more nuclear material at a faster pace and accumulating the very stockpile the Trump administration is now seeking to neutralize.
The Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s second card, would not even be an issue today if the Trump administration had refrained from going to war in the first place. On Feb. 27, the day before the conflict began, more than 150 tankers and vessels traveled through the strait. The international waterway was open for business.
Not so today. On Thursday, a grand total of three crossings were registered in the waterway. This collapse of commerce is a consequence of Iran’s ability to harass civilian tankers so much that shipping companies no longer view the journey as worth the cost. As Adm. Brad Cooper, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday: “The Iranian capability to stop commerce has been dramatically depleted through the strait, but their voice is very loud. And those threats are clearly heard by the merchant industry and insurance industry.”
By virtue of his own actions, Trump is now left with a series of policy options that range from least bad to terrible. None of them are ideal, and all of them carry some risk.
For starters, Trump could resume the war. Any renewed U.S. bombing campaign would probably expand the U.S. military’s original set of targets to include a portion of Iran’s energy infrastructure, which Trump has threatened repeatedly to hit. A U.S. invasion of Kharg Island, where 90% of Iran’s oil processing takes place, might also be up for discussion. The aim would be to destroy Iran’s remaining military capabilities and further squeeze its oil revenue until Tehran’s strategic calculus on the war shifts to Washington’s liking.
Yet there are no guarantees that doubling down on military force will work. Trump’s entire strategy has relied on a baseline assumption: The more punitive the United States is, the more likely Tehran will be to cave. Yet that simply hasn’t occurred. If anything, Iran is more dug in now than it was in the opening days of the conflict. For the regime, capitulating to Trump is as dangerous as losing the war. Why would more bombing succeed where previous bombing failed?
The risks of additional U.S. military action are considerable as well. Before the ceasefire, Iran was launching ballistic missiles and attack drones across multiple gulf Arab states, hitting Qatar’s largest natural gas processing facility, Saudi Arabia’s east-west oil pipeline and Dubai’s luxurious high-rises. As the Iranians have stated, such attacks will not only resume if Trump orders a resumption of the war but will expand to new targets, including desalination facilities and nuclear power plants. Such strikes would raise global oil and gas prices to even more absurd levels, adding to the extra $40 billion the American people are already paying for fuel since the war began.
What about continuing the status quo? While this contingency would be less costly than another round of bombing or a U.S. ground invasion, it’s unclear whether it would help or hurt negotiations toward a settlement. There’s a possibility that extending the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports could merely reaffirm the regime’s earlier decision to preserve its own shutdown of the strait. Iran is now urging Washington to end its blockade before talks on the nuclear file can be held. And it’s a mystery whether Trump’s blockade is working anyway; the U.S. intelligence community assesses that Iran could withstand this pressure point for three to four more months, which may be too long for Trump to sustain given the oil disruptions that are bound to get worse.
Striking an agreement to end the war, return the strait to open traffic and restrict Iran’s nuclear program would be the most beneficial policy for the United States with the least amount of cost attached — not quite undoing the harm from Trump’s first-term decision to scrap the nuclear deal and his second-term decision to start a war. U.S. and Iranian negotiators are passing proposals back and forth as we speak. But as of now, Trump can’t stomach agreeing to a deal that covers some of Iran’s terms, including but not limited to a shorter suspension of enriched uranium and some kind of Iranian role in the management of the strait. Even if Trump did reassess his position, he would be forced to confront the hawks in his political coalition who would consider anything short of Iran’s total surrender a failure.
In short, Trump is in an unenviable position. He’s got nobody to blame but himself.
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist.
-
Los Angeles, Ca57 minutes agoSouthern California jeweler accused of stealing $1.5 million from customers through Rolex watch scam
-
Detroit, MI1 hour agoAir France flight bound for Detroit diverted to Canada over passenger from Congo, officials say
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoCaltrans considering 140 mph bus that would take passengers from San Francisco to Los Angeles
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoDallas police seek two people of interest seen leaving Deep Ellum shooting that injured five
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoInter Miami nearing deal to bring in Brazilian star Casemiro to pair with Lionel Messi
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoBoston City Council deadlocks on push to reject Mayor Wu’s $4.9B budget
-
Denver, CO2 hours agoDenver weather: More rain to end the week
-
Seattle, WA2 hours agoSeattle leaders’ proposed one-year ban on data centers met with strong support
