Lawsuit claims nearly $2 billion in research funding was cancelled unconstitutionally
Category: Politics
In a dramatic turn of events, federal agencies have admitted to using specific keywords to terminate over a thousand research grants at the University of California (UC), a decision that has sparked a legal battle with consequences. This admission, made in court filings related to the lawsuit Thakur v. Trump, indicates that the keywords were tied to diversity, gender, vaccine hesitancy, and COVID-19, and were used to screen projects that conflicted with the priorities of the Trump administration.
The implications of this admission are substantial. Lawyers representing the affected UC researchers claim it substantiates their argument that nearly $2 billion in grants were cancelled illegally. The legal team is now urging the presiding judge to bypass a trial and formally declare that the White House violated constitutional rights, including the First Amendment. A court hearing to discuss this request is set for October 20, 2026.
The lawsuit has been underway since last spring, with the researchers asserting that the federal agencies did not terminate grants due to noncompliance but rather employed broad criteria that lacked individualized assessments. According to the stipulations filed in court, the agencies stated they had “not terminated any grants based on alleged noncompliance with the terms of the grant.” Instead, they relied on general criteria, which the plaintiffs argue constitutes a violation of the researchers’ rights.
Lawyers for the UC professors contend that the keyword searches employed by the Trump administration targeted research deemed politically unfavorable, thereby infringing on First Amendment rights. They argue that this approach violates free speech protections and punishes researchers based on their geographic location, particularly those from states that predominantly voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election.
The plaintiffs have outlined three major constitutional violations stemming from the keyword-based terminations. First, the use of keyword searches to review and terminate grants en masse, rather than evaluating them on their individual merits, is claimed to violate First Amendment protections. Second, the termination of 283 Department of Energy grants from states that leaned Democratic in the 2024 election, juxtaposed with the retention of grants from Republican-leaning states, is seen as punitive action against researchers based solely on their political affiliations. Finally, the plaintiffs assert that by failing to reallocate the funds from these terminated grants, the Trump administration did not comply with congressional mandates on how research funds should be utilized.
The stakes are high for the researchers involved. As stated by the plaintiffs’ legal team, allowing the White House to terminate this funding could lead to irreparable damage to the careers and reputations of researchers, graduate students, and program staff who depend on these grants for their work. They warn that the termination of funding could result in lifesaving cures being left undiscovered and new insights into diseases remaining unexplored, thereby diminishing the United States' status as a leader in publicly funded research.
For example, the Department of Transportation identified six grants worth approximately $42 million for termination, citing their focus on “transportation equity” and “diversifying the transportation workforce.” The cancellation of these grants led to the abandonment of 79 in-progress projects by 77 researchers, with many forced to lay off or seek alternative funding for over 40 graduate and undergraduate assistants.
The admissions made by federal agencies in the court filings reveal a troubling pattern of targeting specific viewpoints through keyword searches. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), for example, acknowledged using an internal search tool to flag UC grants that included phrases like “health equity,” “workforce diversity,” and “structural racism.” The NIH alone suspended or cancelled more than 1,000 UC grants, including nearly 700 at UCLA, which were related to vaccines, cancer research, and health disparities.
These admissions have led the plaintiffs to argue that the federal agencies actively sought to suppress certain viewpoints by terminating grants that expressed those perspectives. This practice, they assert, is a clear violation of First Amendment rights.
The case has already seen some preliminary victories for the UC professors, with Judge Rita F. Lin issuing several injunctions that required federal agencies to restore grants during the review process. This includes restoring hundreds of grants at UCLA, which faced suspension over allegations of antisemitism and the inclusion of transgender women in women's sports. Notably, the Trump administration’s justification for terminating these grants did not acknowledge UCLA's proactive measures to address these issues.
As the case progresses, the UC researchers are pushing for a final ruling that would permanently restore their grants. Even if they succeed, there remains the possibility that federal agencies will appeal the ruling, prolonging the uncertainty surrounding the funding.
In the meantime, the situation raises serious questions about the future of research funding in the U.S. and the potential ramifications for academic freedom. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how federal funding is allocated and the extent to which political ideologies can influence research priorities.
As the October court hearing approaches, both sides are preparing for what could be a landmark decision in the battle over academic funding and constitutional rights.