The Trump administration’s approach to federal scientific research has come under renewed scrutiny following revelations filed in federal court that suggest political biases influenced the cancellation of billions of dollars in research grants. These disclosures emerged in a lawsuit brought by University of California researchers, challenging the abrupt termination of their funding under the previous administration.
Court-ordered stipulations submitted by six federal agencies—the Departments of Defense, Energy, and Transportation, alongside the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)—admit to using non-scientific criteria and automated keyword searches to target grants for termination. The documents, filed July 15 in the Northern District of California, include extensive spreadsheets listing grants cut and the reasons provided for those decisions.
The NIH, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, acknowledged employing keyword filters that flagged applications containing terms such as “workforce diversity,” “equity, diversity, inclusion,” “sexual orientation,” “scientific evidence,” and “health equity.” According to the agency, some grants were identified through a list provided by an entity known as DOGE, alleged to be a budget-cutting body led by Elon Musk. The NIH indicated that the goal was to eliminate funding to projects expressing viewpoints incongruent with agency priorities.
Similarly, the NSF cited using a list of disfavored phrases supplied by Senator Ted Cruz, including “advocacy,” “climate action,” “racism,” and “gender preference,” to guide grant terminations. The National Endowment for the Humanities targeted terms such as “transgenderism,” “green new deal social engineering policies,” and “environmental justice.”
Most notably, the Department of Energy conceded to ending 283 grants solely based on recipients’ geographic locations in states that supported Vice President Kamala Harris and held two Democratic senators in the 2024 election. Concurrently, 340 grants from states voting for former President Donald Trump were retained, irrespective of programmatic or performance-based factors. This apparent political discrimination echoes similar disclosures in prior lawsuits, where Energy Secretary Chris Wright admitted to terminating grants primarily because their recipients were situated in “blue states.” Courts have since ordered reinstatement of these grants.
A spokesperson for the Department of Energy denied that funding decisions were politically motivated, maintaining that explanations had been provided in Congressional briefings. However, internal correspondence and judicial filings offer a contrasting narrative, underscoring ideological influence in grant cancellations.
The case represents a significant challenge to the Trump administration’s proclaimed commitment to merit-based federal research funding, a stance highlighted in a 123-page report led by Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which described its agenda as ushering in a “new golden age” for American science. Critics argue that these findings contradict that assertion.
The widespread reduction of funding under Trump impacted key agencies involved in health and environmental research. Studies found the NIH and NSF cut new grants by approximately 25%, disproportionately affecting projects addressing vaccine hesitancy, misinformation, infectious diseases, and research related to underrepresented ethnic and gender groups. Staff reductions exceeding 20% occurred at the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA, raising concerns about the administration’s commitment to climate science. Similar budget cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been linked to weakened public health responses.
Legal victories secured by the University of California researchers, including a preliminary injunction issued in June 2025 by Judge Rita F. Lin to reinstate terminated grants, mark early success in the battle over research funding. A hearing scheduled for October 20 will determine whether the injunction becomes permanent.
Despite these developments, institutional responses have varied. While UC President James B. Milliken’s office emphasized ongoing evaluation of legal strategies, the university itself has not spearheaded litigation, often aligning as a co-plaintiff alongside broader academic associations. Observers note that Harvard University stands alone among major educational institutions in mounting a direct legal challenge, while others have opted for settlement.
Legal experts contend that greater institutional resolve might have better protected scientific endeavors from politically motivated interference. The unfolding litigation underscores tensions between federal research priorities and the political landscape during the Trump administration.