Turning Point?

Federal Overreach, State Silence, and the Resignation of Jim Ryan

“...Or we will bleed you white.” It sounds like a mob threat from a B-movie. But it captures the essence of what Trump’s Department of Justice told University of Virginia officials: remove President Jim Ryan—or face financial ruin.

Jim Ryan’s departure marks a significant moment—not only for UVA and higher education, but for public institutions across the country. It is exceedingly rare for the federal government to exert such direct influence on the leadership of a state university. Public colleges and universities, along with the officials who oversee them, should take note.

Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice has increasingly used pressure tactics to influence the direction of higher education. Some private universities, including Columbia and Penn, quickly yielded. Harvard has fought back, but no one is sure whether their resistance will succeed, and at what cost. Virginia became the next institution to feel the heat. The implications are serious—and extend well beyond Virginia. And many important questions remain about how this unfolded.

What Role Did Governor Youngkin Play?

Gov. Glenn Youngkin has been actively engaged in UVA’s internal affairs. He pushed to dismantle DEI programs, installed political allies on the Board of Visitors, and sought to seat Ken Cuccinelli, a nominee not confirmed by the General Assembly.

The Virginia Constitution states that a gubernatorial appointee cannot serve without confirmation by the General Assembly, which has not occurred since the body has not yet returned to Richmond. Cuccinelli was also rejected by a State Senate committee that screens nominees, though he has been participating in BOV meetings under a Virginia tradition that had allowed appointees to participate prior to a formal vote of the General Assembly. Youngkin says Cuccinelli can participate; state Democrats say no. The issue is now before a court.

As federal pressure on UVA escalated, the governor remained silent. Did he not grasp the consequences of cutting off federal grants or financial aid to students who could not otherwise attend the school? Why not intervene to protect against a threat that could change the Commonwealth’s flagship university as we know it? The consequences of allowing federal threats to dictate university governance could be profound—not just for UVA, but for other public institutions across the Commonwealth like George Mason, VMI, and the College of William and Mary. There is little indication that Governor Youngkin took any meaningful steps to limit the risk to Virginia’s flagship university. In the end, the responsibility—and the burden—fell to Jim Ryan.

Where Was Attorney General Miyares?

As the University’s lawyer, Attorney General Jason Miyares should understand that when DOJ opens an investigation involving your client, it's all hands on deck. Yet in UVA's hour of need, Miyares was conspicuously absent, leaving the task of providing advice to a deputy. DOJ’s letters clearly threatened legal action, and Miyares’s duty was to defend the University and advise its governing board. If Miyares was unwilling or unprepared to do so, he could have retained outside counsel. Instead, the Board hired its own independent counsel.

Despite DOJ’s escalating demands and threats of legal action, Miyares offered no public defense of the university or its leadership. At the very least, Miyares could have issued a public statement making clear that, given the DOJ’s investigation, it would be inappropriate to comment until all facts were known. That would have helped shield the University from political opportunists looking to exploit the silence.

Instead, the vacuum left by the Attorney General’s silence created space for misinformation and political maneuvering. Eventually, the Board of Visitors retained its own legal counsel—an unprecedented move, and one that raises questions about the support the BOV was receiving from the Commonwealth’s chief legal officer.

Was Ryan’s Silence a Sign of Inaction?

Some critics, including the Jefferson Council, seized on Ryan’s silence as evidence of resistance or neglect. The facts suggest otherwise. On March 7, 2025, almost a month prior to DOJ’s first letter to UVA, the Board of Visitors directed Ryan to dismantle the Office of DEI. He did so. He was also required to submit a report about DEI unwinding within 30 days. There is no indication that Ryan failed to provide the report. If he did not, the Board could have convened a special meeting to hold him accountable. No such meeting occurred.

Instead, the Board met on April 29, 2025—shortly after the DOJ had formally announced its investigation in its April 11 letter. While Ryan’s report was not made public, its existence is not in doubt. At that meeting, the Board unanimously passed a resolution citing “progress” on “implementing the directives of the Board of Visitors’ March 7 resolution.” Why would the Board pass such a resolution without receiving a report about Ryan’s actions? In short, Ryan acted and the Board resolution confirms it.

Why, then, was there little public comment? Both the Board and the President were likely advised to refrain from public comment during the DOJ investigation—a standard and prudent legal approach in such circumstances. Reports and communications to the Board were protected under attorney-client privilege. Groups opposing Ryan know this. Yet they—and the DOJ—continued to push the fiction that Ryan had done nothing.

The real question isn’t why Ryan stayed quiet; it’s why his silence was mischaracterized as obstruction.

Why Did DOJ Shift From Policy to Personnel?

DOJ’s April 11 letter opened an inquiry into UVA’s admissions policies and requested the university to supply evidence that it was complying with recent Supreme Court rulings. Over the next two months, DOJ issued a series of increasingly demanding letters. Of the seven letters DOJ sent to UVA between April 11 and June 17, all but the last permitted the University to request additional time to respond to their demands. The university did, all the while gathering documents to provide a comprehensive response. Technically, UVa never missed a deadline.

That all changed on June 17—just one day after DOJ’s most recent communication—when the Department sent its most aggressive letter yet, warning that “Time is running short, and the Department’s patience is wearing thin,” and threatening the withholding of federal financial assistance from the university.

Though none of DOJ’s letters explicitly called for Ryan’s resignation, reporting from the Washington Post and other sources suggest that DOJ made that demand during private communications with BOV leadership. In return, the investigation would be dropped. If true, this approach strays far from DOJ’s usual enforcement practices and raises serious questions about whether federal law, including 20 U.S. Code § 1232a, was breached—particularly provisions that prohibit federal agencies from controlling the administration or personnel of educational institutions.

Public comments of UVa law grad and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon notwithstanding, the only way that justice would relent was for Ryan to go. Was this quid-pro-quo offer to drop the investigation in exchange for Ryan’s ouster made in writing, or merely a promise from an administration not known for sticking by its word? And why would the BOV agree to a deal that might prove to be ethereal? According to Jim Bacon, former Executive Director of the Jefferson Council, DOJ gave the BOV until June 26 to compel the resignation.

There is no dispute that DOJ has a legitimate role in enforcing federal civil rights laws. But in a normal investigation, the agency gathers data, assesses compliance, and—if necessary—demands corrective action. DOJ offered a very different deal that had nothing to do with university policies– it would end the investigation if Ryan resigned. What had begun as a policy review was now focused on one person.

Was the Board About to Give Ryan a Positive Evaluation?

At its June 6 meeting, it’s last of the year, the Board of Visitors went into closed session to discuss legal matters, including the federal investigation and Ryan’s annual performance review. Board minutes indicate that no action was taken. Instead, all matters—including the DOJ response and the president’s evaluation—were deferred to a follow-up meeting scheduled for June 18.

That meeting was suddenly canceled. Speculation centers on the legal uncertainty over Cuccinelli’s participation in the meeting, but it also followed Justice's threatening letter of the day before.

We will never know what might have happened if the Board had met that day. Were some or all the responses to DOJ ready to be reviewed for submission? Would Ryan’s evaluation have been positive?

We will likely never know whether the Board was prepared to support Ryan, but DOJ’s timing suggests concern about that possibility. Its June 17 letter raised the stakes further, threatening federal funding. The next week, Ryan resigned.

Did Ryan Have a Choice?

Ryan faced mounting pressure—not only from the DOJ, but also from critics eager to see him go. Despite disagreements over aspects of his tenure, he remained respected by many for his leadership over seven years. But without clear backing from the Board or state leaders, and under threat of serious harm to the university, he likely saw no viable path forward.

His departure underscores how vulnerable public institutions can be when political pressure goes unchallenged. The precedent it sets—allowing federal pressure to override university governance—is troubling.

With Ryan’s resignation, a core principle of American higher education—its independence—has been weakened. What happens next will shape not just UVA’s character, but the future of public education across the country.