In a major development in the ongoing lawsuit known as Thakur v. Trump, federal agencies have formally admitted in signed court stipulations that they utilized specific keyword searches to systematically terminate nearly $2 billion in research grants. Lawyers representing University of California professors argue this admission provides definitive proof that the government's actions were illegal. The legal team is now requesting that Judge Rita F. Lin skip a full trial and issue a formal declaration that the White House repeatedly violated the Constitution, including the First Amendment. A court hearing to address this request is scheduled for October 20.
The stipulations filed in federal court last week clarify that the agencies did not terminate these grants based on any alleged noncompliance with the specific terms of the awards. Instead, the government relied on general criteria rather than conducting a grant-specific assessment of each project's performance. Counsel for the UC professors contends that this admission proves three wide-ranging constitutional violations. First, they argue that by using keyword searches to review and terminate hundreds of grants en masse, the administration targeted research it found politically disfavorable, which constitutes a First Amendment violation. Second, they assert the administration wrongly punished researchers based on their location, noting that 283 Department of Energy grants were terminated in states where a majority voted for Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, while similar grants in other states remained untouched. Third, the lawyers argue that by terminating billions in funding without rerouting the money to other opportunities, the administration violated the Constitution by failing to spend funds in the manner specifically required by laws passed by Congress.
On July 16, CalMatters reached out to the U.S. Department of Justice, which serves as the legal defense for the federal agencies, to ask if it agrees that these stipulations indicate a violation of the researchers' constitutional rights. A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not provide a response by the time of publication. Throughout the case, Judge Rita F. Lin has repeatedly sided with the UC professors, issuing several preliminary injunctions that forced federal agencies to restore grants while she reviews the full merits of the case. This includes the restoration of hundreds of grants at UCLA that the administration sought to suspend over allegations that the university tolerated antisemitism and permitted transgender women to compete on women’s sports teams.
Those allegations were also the subject of a demand from the White House for UCLA to pay $1.2 billion or face a cascade of further research freezes. However, months before the Trump administration sought that settlement, UCLA had already taken steps to address antisemitism on campus, including the commissioning of a task force to recommend ways to create a more welcoming environment for Jewish students. Lawyers for the professors in the Thakur case are now urging Judge Lin to issue a final ruling ordering the permanent restoration of the grants. They warn that the stakes are immense; if the White House is allowed to terminate this funding, the researchers, graduate students, and program staff who rely on these grants will suffer significant damage to their reputations and careers. The legal team further warned of the loss of potential lifesaving cures, unexplored scientific understandings of diseases, and a decline in the country’s global standing as a leader in publicly funded research.
According to a review of the new court filings, the agencies admitted to using keywords in various ways. For instance, the Department of Transportation identified six grants worth approximately $42 million for termination because they sought "transportation equity," prioritized "disadvantaged communities," or focused on "diversifying the transportation workforce" and "equity." The termination of three of those grants, which were led by a UC Davis professor, resulted in 77 researchers abandoning 79 in-progress projects. Lawyers for the plaintiffs noted that the project leaders were forced to lay off or scramble to replace funding for more than 40 graduate and undergraduate research assistants. In a separate development, a federal district judge in Massachusetts recently dealt the administration a blow regarding its ability to withhold funding. The White House had relied on the phrase "no longer effectuates agency priorities" to justify cancellations, but the judge agreed with California and 22 other states that there is no legal right for the government to cancel funding based on new goals after grants have already been awarded.
