White House Admits Using Keyword Searches to Cancel Billions in California Research Grants
By National Desk | Washington, D.C., July 23, 2026
Federal agencies admitted in court filings last week that they used keyword searches — flagging terms like "health equity," "structural racism" and "sexual orientation" — to screen and cancel more than a thousand research grants at the University of California, according to court documents reviewed as part of an ongoing lawsuit.
The admission, filed in signed stipulations in the case Thakur v. Trump, is now at the center of an effort by UC researchers' attorneys to skip a trial altogether and ask a federal judge to rule outright that the White House violated the Constitution. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say the disclosure confirms what they'd long suspected: that the grants weren't reviewed individually on their merits, but swept up by category.
What the Court Filings Actually Say
The stipulations state plainly that agencies "did not terminate any grants based on alleged noncompliance with the terms of the grant." Instead, according to the filings, agencies applied "general criteria, rather than grant-specific assessment of each award's compliance, or performance."
That distinction matters legally. A grant terminated because a specific project failed to meet its obligations is one thing. A grant terminated because it contained a flagged word, regardless of what the research actually did, is another — and it's the second scenario that plaintiffs' attorneys argue amounts to viewpoint discrimination.
Three claims now sit at the heart of the case:
- That keyword-based mass termination targeted research based on its political disfavor, a First Amendment issue.
- That the Department of Energy cancelled 283 grants concentrated in states that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024, while leaving similar grants in Republican-leaning states untouched.
- That billions in cancelled funds were never redirected to other grant opportunities, which plaintiffs say conflicts with how Congress directed the money to be spent.
How the Keyword Screening Worked
The National Institutes of Health
The NIH admitted to using an internal search tool to flag University of California grants containing phrases such as "health equity," "work force diversity," "structural racism," and "sexual orientation." The agency alone suspended or cancelled more than 1,000 UC grants — nearly 700 of them at UCLA — tied to vaccine research, cancer studies, and work on disparities in health outcomes.
That 700-grant figure at UCLA is new. Last year, the university had put the number closer to 500 terminated NIH grants, meaning the newly disclosed court filing shows a larger toll than previously reported.
The NIH also acknowledged something further: it's possible the Department of Government Efficiency, the short-lived federal office once led by Elon Musk before it was shut down earlier this month, used artificial intelligence tools as part of the process for flagging grants.
The Department of Transportation
Separately, the Department of Transportation identified six grants worth roughly $42 million for termination because the projects referenced "transportation equity," prioritized "disadvantaged communities," or focused on "diversifying the transportation workforce."
Three of those six grants were led by a University of California, Davis professor. Their cancellation forced 77 researchers to abandon 79 projects that were already underway, according to plaintiffs' attorneys, and left project leaders scrambling to lay off or find alternative funding for more than 40 graduate and undergraduate research assistants.
Why Lawyers Say This Crosses a Constitutional Line
Attorneys representing the UC professors wrote to the presiding judge that the keyword admissions show agencies "identified the viewpoints they wanted to suppress, searched the grants they funded for those that expressed those viewpoints, and terminated those grants on that basis." That, they argue, is a direct First Amendment violation — the government penalizing speech and research based on its content and subject matter, not its scientific merit.
The geographic pattern adds a second layer to the argument. By concentrating Department of Energy terminations in states that backed Harris in 2024 while sparing similarly structured grants in states that backed Trump, plaintiffs say the administration punished researchers for where they live and work rather than for anything wrong with their projects.
A third claim focuses on where the cancelled money went, or rather, didn't go. Plaintiffs argue that failing to redirect billions in unspent research funds toward other approved grant purposes conflicts with spending laws Congress passed specifically governing how those research dollars must be used.
The Judge's Track Record in This Case
U.S. District Judge Rita Lin, a Biden appointee, has repeatedly ruled in favor of the UC professors as the case has unfolded, issuing several preliminary injunctions ordering federal agencies to restore grants while she considers the full case.
That includes an earlier order restoring hundreds of UCLA grants that the administration had tried to suspend over allegations that the university tolerated antisemitism on campus and allowed transgender women to compete in women's sports. Those same allegations were also behind a separate White House demand that UCLA pay $1.2 billion or face further funding freezes.
Months before that demand, UCLA had already taken steps to address campus antisemitism concerns, including forming a task force focused on creating a more welcoming environment for Jewish students. In a preliminary injunction on a related lawsuit, Lin faulted the administration for not acknowledging that UCLA had already acted, writing that the government's justification for the terminations never mentioned the university's remedial steps.
Lawyers for the Thakur plaintiffs are now asking Lin to convert her preliminary rulings into a final judgment, skipping a full trial. Even a favorable final ruling wouldn't necessarily end the fight — the federal agencies would still have the option to appeal to a higher court.
Government Response
Requests for comment sent to the U.S. Department of Justice, which is defending the federal agencies in the case, went unanswered by publication time. The Justice Department has not publicly stated whether it agrees the stipulations amount to an admission of unconstitutional conduct.
The Environmental Protection Agency, also named in the suit, is reportedly in the process of settling with the plaintiffs' legal team rather than continuing to litigate.
A Related Ruling in Massachusetts
The California case isn't happening in isolation. A federal judge in Massachusetts recently ruled against the administration in a related dispute over its authority to cancel already-awarded federal funding.
That case centered on a phrase the White House used repeatedly to justify funding cancellations across agencies: that a grant "no longer effectuates ... agency priorities." California and 22 other states sued, arguing there's no legal basis for the federal government to claw back funding simply because its policy priorities changed after a grant had already been awarded. The Massachusetts judge agreed with the states.
What's at Stake for Researchers
Plaintiffs' attorneys describe the stakes in blunt terms. If the funding terminations are allowed to stand, they argue, "the researchers, graduate students, and program staff that relied on the grants to pursue their lives' work will all suffer significant damage to their reputations and careers."
Beyond individual careers, the lawyers point to broader consequences: treatments and cures that may never be developed, disease research left unfinished, and a weakened position for the United States as a global leader in publicly funded science.
| Key Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case name | Thakur v. Trump |
| Total grants disputed | Nearly $2 billion across more than 1,000 UC grants |
| NIH terminations at UCLA | Nearly 700 grants, up from a previously reported ~500 |
| DOT grants cancelled | 6 grants, roughly $42 million |
| DOE grants terminated in Harris-voting states | 283 |
| Next major court date | Hearing scheduled for October 20 |
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the White House admit about California research grants?
Federal agencies admitted in signed court stipulations that they used keyword searches — flagging terms tied to diversity, gender, and COVID-19 topics — to screen and terminate research grants at the University of California, rather than reviewing each grant individually for compliance issues.
How much research funding was cancelled at the University of California?
Lawyers for the plaintiffs say the terminations add up to nearly $2 billion across more than a thousand grants, with the National Institutes of Health alone responsible for over 1,000 suspended or cancelled UC grants.
What is the Thakur v. Trump lawsuit about?
It's a lawsuit filed by University of California researchers against the Trump administration seeking to permanently restore research grants they say were illegally terminated in violation of the First Amendment and federal spending law.
Which federal agencies used keyword searches to screen grants?
Court filings show the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Transportation both used keyword-based screening. The Department of Energy's terminations followed a separate but related geographic pattern flagged by plaintiffs' attorneys.
What happens next in the case?
Plaintiffs' lawyers are asking Judge Rita Lin to skip a full trial and issue a final ruling declaring the terminations unconstitutional. A hearing on that request is scheduled for October 20, though any ruling could still be appealed by the federal agencies.
Has any of the funding been restored?
Judge Lin has issued multiple preliminary injunctions ordering some grants restored while the case proceeds, including hundreds of UCLA grants. The Environmental Protection Agency is reportedly negotiating a settlement rather than continuing to fight the case in court.
Sources
- CalMatters
- KPBS Public Media
- Court filings, Thakur v. Trump, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
0 Comments
Post a Comment