Trump Administration Used Keyword Lists to Cancel Federal Research Grants
Court documents reveal federal agencies used political filters to rescind funding for research on topics like structural racism.
The Trump administration utilized keyword lists to identify and terminate federal research grants based on viewpoints disfavored by the government. This practice has sparked legal battles over academic freedom and the First Amendment.
According to court documents, four federal agencies employed these lists to target specific subject matter: the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Among these, the NSF utilized the highest number of keywords, drawing its list from a 2024 report authored by Senator Ted Cruz.
One specific instance of this targeting occurred at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). The NIH canceled a grant for a project studying how racism impacts the mental health and substance abuse of adolescents within the legal system after the project was flagged for using the phrase "structural racism."
The Legal Challenge
These revelations emerged from a lawsuit filed by the University of California against the federal government. The lawsuit alleges that the administration's use of keyword filtering to rescind funding constitutes viewpoint discrimination. By targeting work based on subject matter and political alignment, the university argues that the government violated the First Amendment rights of researchers.
Impact on Academic Freedom
This shift marks a departure from the traditional peer-review meritocracy that has historically governed federal research funding. By introducing political filtering into the process, the government has created a "chilling effect" across academia. Researchers may now avoid critical topics—such as systemic racism or social justice—to ensure their funding remains secure, which could potentially stall progress in scientific and sociological fields.
What's Next
The outcome of the University of California's lawsuit will likely determine whether the government can legally use political keywords to dictate the scope of federally funded research. For now, the extent of the total financial loss across all affected institutions remains a point of contention, though high-profile examples include a $500 million suspension to UCLA that was later ordered restored.