Ctrl+F: Federal agencies used keyword searches to nix grants en masse, court records show

Dive Brief:

• The Trump administration used keyword searches to determine which federal grants to cancel as part of its campaign to cut funding for diversity, equity and inclusion-related research en masse, recent court documents show.
• Federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Healthand the National Science Foundation, cut grants awarded to the University of California system and its researchers “that expressed, or were presumed to express, viewpoints disfavored by the Administration” based heavily on a roster of terms like “diversity” and “health equity,” they said in court documents last week.
• UC researchers and faculty sued the administration overallegations federal officials violated their free speech rights by terminating roughly $2 billion in grants based on their viewpoint and subject matter. Last week, they argued that the newly shared keyword lists prove that and askeda federal judge to declare the Trump administration’s actions unconstitutional.

googletag.display(‘dfp-hybrid1-mobile’)); googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function (event) { var adUnitPath = ‘/3618/highereddive/highereddivehybrid1’; var onProformative = false; if (onProformative && event.slot.getAdUnitPath() === adUnitPath && !event.isEmpty ) { var adUnitPathWithVisibility = adUnitPath + ‘-mobile’; var selector = ‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper #dfp-hybrid1-mobile’; if (!$(selector).closest(‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper’).hasClass(‘borders’)) { $(selector).closest(‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper’).addClass(‘borders’) } } }); } }); }); ]]>

googletag.display(‘dfp-hybrid2-desktop’)); googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function (event) { var adUnitPath = ‘/3618/highereddive/highereddivehybrid2’; var onProformative = false; if (onProformative && event.slot.getAdUnitPath() === adUnitPath && !event.isEmpty ) { var adUnitPathWithVisibility = adUnitPath + ‘-desktop’; var selector = ‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper #dfp-hybrid2-desktop’; if (!$(selector).closest(‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper’).hasClass(‘borders’)) { $(selector).closest(‘.pf-comments__ad-wrapper’).addClass(‘borders’) } } }); } }); }); ]]>

Dive Insight:

Shortly after retaking office, President Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders targeting DEI initiatives, including one directing federal agencies to terminate “equity-related” grants. 

The NIH and other federal agencies began systemically terminating grants tied to DEI and other topics at odds with the Trump administration’s priorities. Researchers often learned their funding had been pulled mid-project, with little explanation beyond termination letters stating that their work no longer aligned with the administration’s priorities.

The cancellations spurred several high-profile lawsuits from researchers, states and education advocates.

In the case brought by UC researchers and academics, the Trump administration said in court documents that it heavily relied on broad keyword searches when cutting their grants.

The terms varied across agencies but centered on subjects the Trump administration has condemned, such as diversity and climate change.

NSF told the court it created its keyword list based on a 2024 report from Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. The report — titled “D.E.I. Division. Extremism. Ideology.” — accused NSF of politicizing science under the Biden administration and provided an extensive list of terms meant to identify the agency’s DEI-related grants and those promoting “neo-Marxist perspectives about enduring class struggle.”

Among hundreds of terms, the list included:

• Advocates.
• Biases.
• Bigotry.
• Clean energy.
• Climate research.
• Desegregation.
• Equitable.
• Hate speech.
• Historically.
• Inclusivity.
• Masculinity.
• Women and gender.

The report also called out terms related to race and gender — such as references to Black men, Indigenous women, Hispanic community, and White people — to flag those potentially related to DEI.

NSF in turn used this list and an internal search tool to identify which grants to cancel “using general criteria” instead of assessing each grant individually, it told the court. The agency said it notified grant recipients that their funding was being terminated via form letter. 

Furthermore, NSF said it did not consider the losses each researcher would face from the grant cancellations, nor did it reallocate the funds to other projects.

The agency provided the court with a list of the grants it terminated using its search term method, though it did not specify which search terms triggered each canceled grant.

However, NIH did tie specific terms to cancellations in some cases.

In one instance, the agency canceled an $800,000 grant to the University of California, San Francisco to study how discrimination affects health inequities among older gay menbecause the project had “structural racism” in the title.

NIH canceled another grant to the university, worth nearly $200,000, to fund research into Alzheimer’s and dementia among Black women over the same term.

One project at the University of California, Irvine, which focused on recruiting and retaining underrepresented minority students in STEM programs, lost roughly $256,000 in grant money because it used the phrase “workforce diversity,” the agency said.

All three grants have since been reinstated following court orders.

In addition to looking for terms like “sexual orientation” and “increase diversity and inclusion,” NIH said it specifically looked to terminate grants issued to the UC system’s 10 campuses.

The Trump administration has frequently targeted the UC system, suspending over $500 million in funding to the University of California, Los Angeles — which a federal judge ordered reinstated — and accusing three of its medical schools of using illegal admissions practices. 

The lawsuit from UC researchers is one of many the administration is facing over its attack on federal grants. 

In June 2025, a federal judge ruled the NIH’s anti-DEI directives were illegal and ordered the agency to reinstate the affected funding. However, the U.S. Supreme Court later ruled the district court did not have the authority to restore the funding. Instead, the high court said, grant recipients must pursue their case through the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which hears monetary claims against the federal government.

In another case brought by 16 state attorneys general, NIH agreed in a settlement to restart its review process for grant applications without following anti-DEI guidance.

Similarly, NSF is also facing a lawsuit over internal anti-DEI guidance that shaped its mass grant terminations.

On July 17, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration does not have the authority to cancel existing grants because they do not align with the president’s new policy priorities.