Attorneys representing UC researchers say the admission is significant — proof, in their view, that the agencies unlawfully stripped nearly $2 billion in funding. It marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing lawsuit brought by UC researchers against the Trump administration, who are fighting to get their grants restored for good. The researchers’ legal team is now asking a federal judge to skip a trial altogether and rule outright that the White House repeatedly violated the Constitution, including the First Amendment. A hearing on that request is set for October 20.

The keyword admissions came in stipulations signed and filed last week in federal court in a case known as Thakur v. Trump, which has been working its way through the system since last spring.

According to those stipulations, the agencies “did not rescind any grant for alleged noncompliance with the terms of the grant itself.” Instead, plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote, the agencies applied “generalized criteria, rather than grant-specific evaluation of compliance or performance.” Lawyers for the UC faculty argue this reveals three sweeping constitutional violations.

First, by running keyword searches across hundreds of grants and canceling them in bulk rather than reviewing each one on its individual merits, the administration effectively targeted research it viewed as politically unfavorable — a violation of the First Amendment.

Second, by canceling 283 Department of Energy grants in states that voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election while leaving similar grants untouched in Republican-leaning states, the administration unfairly punished researchers simply for living in states it opposed politically.

Third, by canceling billions in grants without redirecting that money toward other approved funding opportunities, the administration failed to spend federal research dollars the way Congress specifically directed through the laws it passed — a violation in its own right.

On July 16, CalMatters asked the U.S. Department of Justice, which is defending the federal agencies in court, whether it agreed that the stipulations amounted to an admission that the Trump administration violated researchers’ constitutional rights. A department spokesperson had not responded by the time of publication.

A history of legal setbacks for the administration

U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin has repeatedly sided with UC researchers throughout the case, issuing a string of preliminary orders forcing federal agencies to reinstate grants while she considers the underlying legal questions. That has included restoring hundreds of grants at UCLA that the administration tried to freeze over allegations that the university tolerated antisemitism and allowed transgender women to compete on women’s sports teams.

Those same allegations later fueled a White House demand that UCLA pay $1.2 billion or face another wave of research funding freezes. But months before that demand was made, UCLA had already taken steps to address antisemitism on campus, including forming a task force to recommend ways to make the campus more welcoming for Jewish students.

Lin, a Biden appointee, criticized the administration in a separate but related preliminary order for ignoring those efforts. She wrote that the government’s justification for canceling the grants made no mention of the corrective steps UCLA had already taken to address the very concerns it cited.

Attorneys for the professors in the Thakur case are now asking Lin to issue a final ruling ordering the grants restored, rather than another preliminary order. Even so, the federal government could still appeal any decision Lin makes to a higher court.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote that the stakes are enormous. If the administration is allowed to pull this funding, they argued, “researchers, graduate students and program staff who depended on the grants to develop the work of their lifetimes will suffer significant harm to their reputations and their professional careers.”

The attorneys warned of potentially life-saving cures that may never be developed, new understanding of diseases that will go unexplored, and a decline in the nation’s standing as a global leader in publicly funded research.

Keyword searches used to flag disfavored grants

A CalMatters review of the newly filed court documents found that federal agencies used keyword searches in a variety of ways.

The Department of Transportation identified six grants worth roughly $42 million for cancellation because they sought to advance “transportation equity,” prioritized “disadvantaged communities,” or focused on “workforce diversification” in transportation and “equity” more broadly.

The cancellation of three of those grants, led by a UC Davis professor, forced 77 researchers to abandon 79 ongoing projects. Plaintiffs’ attorneys said the project leaders also had to lay off or scramble to find new funding for more than 40 graduate and undergraduate research assistants.

The National Institutes of Health admitted using an internal search tool to identify UC grants that referenced terms such as “health equity,” “workforce diversity,” “structural racism” and “sexual orientation.” NIH alone suspended or canceled more than 1,000 UC grants, including nearly 700 at UCLA, covering research on vaccines, cancer and disparities in health outcomes. That figure, recently disclosed in court filings, is notably higher than the roughly 500 NIH grant cancellations UCLA had previously reported last year. The health research agency also acknowledged that DOGE — the short-lived federal office once led by billionaire Elon Musk — may have used artificial intelligence to help identify grants for elimination.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys told the judge these admissions show that the agencies “identified the viewpoints they wanted to suppress, searched the grants they funded for those that expressed those viewpoints, and canceled those grants for that reason” — a direct violation of researchers’ First Amendment rights, they argued.

The Environmental Protection Agency, another defendant named in the case, is reportedly working toward a settlement with UC faculty attorneys to avoid further litigation.

Separately, a federal district judge in Massachusetts dealt the Trump administration a significant setback last week regarding its authority to cancel grants and withhold federal funding. The administration had leaned on a common legal justification for many of its funding cuts — that a grant “no longer effectuates agency priorities.” California and 22 other states sued, arguing there is no legal basis for the federal government to cancel already-awarded funding simply because the White House later decides it wants different program priorities. The judge agreed with the states.

Original source: CalMatters

The post White House Admits to Using Keywords to Cancel Major California Research Grants appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Attorneys representing the affected UC researchers say the admission amounts to hard evidence that nearly $2 billion in canceled grants were pulled illegally. The disclosure marks a significant turn in an ongoing lawsuit, Thakur v. Trump, in which UC scientists are suing the administration to have their funding permanently reinstated. Their legal team is now urging the presiding judge to bypass a full trial and rule outright that the White House violated the Constitution — including the First Amendment — in how it targeted the grants. A hearing on that request is set for Oct. 20.

The keyword admission surfaced in signed stipulations filed last week in federal court, part of a case that has been working through the system since last spring. According to those filings, the agencies acknowledged they did not terminate grants because of any specific violation of grant terms. Instead, they applied broad screening criteria rather than evaluating each award individually for compliance or performance, according to the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Lawyers for the UC professors argue the admission points to three separate constitutional violations. First, by using keyword sweeps to mass-terminate grants instead of reviewing them case by case, the administration effectively targeted research based on its political content — a First Amendment issue. Second, the Department of Energy canceled 283 grants overwhelmingly concentrated in states that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024, while leaving similar grants in Republican-leaning states untouched, which the attorneys say improperly punished researchers based on where they live. Third, by canceling billions in awarded funding without redirecting it to other approved research purposes, the administration allegedly failed to spend money the way Congress had legally mandated.

CalMatters reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the federal agencies in court, asking whether officials agree that the stipulations reflect constitutional violations. As of publication, the department had not responded.

**A case with a history of setbacks for the administration**

U.S. District Judge Rita F. Lin, who is overseeing the case, has repeatedly ruled in favor of the UC researchers, issuing a series of preliminary injunctions ordering federal agencies to restore grants while the broader legal questions are resolved. That includes hundreds of grants at UCLA that the administration had tried to suspend over accusations that the university failed to adequately address antisemitism and allowed transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports.

Those same allegations were central to a separate demand from the White House that UCLA pay $1.2 billion or face further funding freezes. But months before that ultimatum, UCLA had already taken steps to respond to concerns about campus antisemitism, including forming a task force focused on improving conditions for Jewish students.

Lin, appointed by President Biden, criticized the administration for ignoring those efforts when she issued an injunction in a related case, noting that the government’s justification for pulling the grants failed to even mention the corrective steps UCLA had already taken.

Now, attorneys for the professors in the Thakur case are asking Lin to issue a final ruling — not just another temporary injunction — ordering the grants restored. Even if she does, the federal government could still appeal to a higher court.

The researchers’ legal team describes the stakes as severe. If the funding freeze is allowed to stand, they argue, scientists, graduate students and support staff who built their careers around this research will suffer lasting professional and reputational harm. They also warn of broader consequences: potential medical breakthroughs that never happen, diseases that go unstudied, and a decline in the United States’ global leadership in publicly funded research.

**How the keyword system worked**

A CalMatters review of the new court filings shows the agencies used keyword-based screening in several different ways.

The Department of Transportation, for example, identified six grants worth roughly $42 million for termination because the projects referenced “transportation equity,” focused on “disadvantaged communities,” or aimed at “diversifying the transportation workforce.” Three of those grants were led by a UC Davis researcher, and their cancellation forced 77 researchers to abandon 79 ongoing projects. According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, the affected project leaders also had to lay off — or scramble to find new funding for — more than 40 graduate and undergraduate research assistants.

The National Institutes of Health acknowledged using an internal search tool to flag UC grants containing terms such as “health equity,” “workforce diversity,” “structural racism” and “sexual orientation.” The agency alone suspended or terminated more than 1,000 UC grants — including nearly 700 at UCLA — covering vaccine research, cancer studies and work on health disparities. That total is newly revealed in court records; UCLA had previously estimated closer to 500 canceled NIH grants. The agency also acknowledged that DOGE, the short-lived federal cost-cutting office once led by Elon Musk, may have used artificial intelligence tools to help identify grants for elimination.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue these disclosures show a clear pattern: the agencies identified viewpoints they wanted to suppress, searched their own grant databases for language reflecting those viewpoints, and terminated the funding accordingly — a direct violation of researchers’ First Amendment rights, they contend.

The Environmental Protection Agency, also named in the lawsuit, is reportedly working toward a settlement with the plaintiffs’ legal team to avoid further courtroom battles.

Meanwhile, a federal judge in Massachusetts dealt a separate setback to the administration last week in a related legal fight over funding cancellations. That case centered on a phrase the administration used repeatedly to justify pulling federal dollars — that funding no longer “effectuates agency priorities.” California, joined by 22 other states, argued there is no legal basis for canceling already-awarded federal funding simply because the White House’s goals had shifted. The judge agreed, siding with the states.

Original source: CalMatters

The post White House Acknowledges Using Keyword Searches to Cancel Billions in California Research Grants appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.