admin
The news that Stewart and Lynda Resnick have pledged $100 million to expand mental and behavioral health services at UCLA is a welcome injection of private generosity into a public crisis, and it deserves cautious praise from conservatives who believe in civic-minded philanthropy over bureaucratic band-aids. The gift will fund the completion of a new neuropsychiatric hospital and broader mental health campus intended to serve Angelenos in need. This is a private solution that directly helps patients and families who have been failed by an overburdened system.
UCLA says the donation will increase inpatient capacity dramatically—boosting beds from 74 to 119 and adding a new 20‑bed unit for acute behavioral health crises—while relocating the facility to a new Mid‑Wilshire campus slated to open later this year with further expansions into 2027. These are concrete, measurable improvements that should reduce wait times and ease the pressure on emergency rooms and law enforcement. If done right, expanded capacity and integrated outpatient care will actually change lives rather than merely generating headlines.
Conservatives should celebrate private citizens stepping up where government spending and policy have fallen short, but celebrate with our eyes open. Philanthropy is powerful precisely because it can move faster and focus on outcomes instead of signaling. Taxpayers and donors both have a right to demand real accountability—how many patients will be helped, what metrics will be used, and how will success be transparently reported?
That scrutiny is especially important in this case because the Resnicks are not just philanthropists; they are industrial agribusiness magnates whose companies have drawn serious criticism over environmental practices, water use, and pesticide concerns. Reporters have noted controversies around the Wonderful Company’s heavy water consumption, alleged pesticide use including paraquat, and its significant stake in the Kern Water Bank—issues that affect rural communities and public health. No gift should be allowed to paper over environmental and community harms without public answers.
The couple’s history of major gifts to UCLA and other institutions is extensive—their lifetime contributions to UCLA are reported to be nearly $200 million, and their philanthropy runs into the billions across education, arts, and science projects. That kind of influence brings both benefit and responsibility: universities must accept donations but also enforce ethical standards, ensuring donors’ business practices do not contradict the public missions of the institutions they support.
Naming rights and glossy press releases are no substitute for hard oversight. Conservatives who defend private charity must also insist that recipients of charitable largesse operate with full transparency and accountability, and that regulators and community leaders ensure philanthropic investments don’t become reputational shields. UCLA and the Resnicks should publish clear, verifiable benchmarks for patient outcomes, community access, and environmental remediation tied to any major donor recognition.
In the end, this is a moment for pragmatic conservatism: applaud the Resnicks for stepping forward to expand mental health capacity, but demand that the generosity come with checks and balances that protect patients, workers, and local communities. Hardworking Americans want solutions that work, not payoffs that let powerful interests keep doing harm while collecting favorable headlines.
