The National Science Foundation (NSF) has suspended at least 18 research grants at UC Berkeley, a move that comes despite a federal court injunction specifically designed to prevent such actions. The suspensions, which occurred in April, have reignited a legal battle between academic researchers and the second Trump administration over the autonomy of scientific inquiry and the use of federal funds.
At the center of the dispute is a conflict over “priorities.” The current administration has moved aggressively to defund projects that do not align with its ideological agenda, particularly those focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). For the scientists at Berkeley, Here’s not merely a budgetary disagreement but a systemic effort to stifle research that examines marginalized communities and Indigenous knowledge.
One of the most visible casualties is a $1.4 million project at the Lawrence Hall of Science. The grant supports a series of mixed-reality exhibits designed to showcase Indigenous Ohlone knowledge of the natural world. The project, co-designed with Ohlone youth, aims to determine if participating in the creation of these exhibits encourages Indigenous students to pursue STEM careers. Now, the future of the project—and its scheduled May 17 opening—hangs in the balance.
The suspensions are part of a broader, more volatile pattern of federal science management. In late April, President Trump fired all 22 members of the independent board of scientists that oversaw the NSF. This purge, combined with a proposal to slash the agency’s budget by more than half by 2027, suggests a fundamental restructuring of how the United States funds basic and applied research.
The “Foreign Funding” Loophole
The mechanism used to freeze the grants has raised alarms among legal experts. Jedda Foreman, an associate director at the Lawrence Hall of Science, reported that her team was notified of the suspension via an email from UC Berkeley’s vice chancellor of research, Katherine Yelick. The email cited a letter from the NSF raising concerns about “foreign funding.”
However, the NSF did not provide the actual letter or offer a detailed explanation. Foreman maintains that the Lawrence Hall of Science has received no foreign funding for the Ohlone project. This lack of transparency is a recurring theme in the current dispute. Claudia Polsky, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law representing the researchers, argues that the grantees were given “near-zero information” about what was allegedly problematic in their execution.
Polsky suggests that the “foreign funding” claim may be a pretext. Last June, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin issued a preliminary injunction barring federal agencies from revoking funds using vague form letters or based on anti-DEI executive orders. By labeling the action a “suspension” based on funding sources rather than a “cancellation” based on content, the administration may be attempting to circumvent the court’s orders.
A Pattern of Federal Retraction
The situation at Berkeley is not an isolated incident. The NSF has terminated nearly 2,000 grants nationwide, citing a lack of alignment with administration priorities. This campaign of defunding extends across multiple federal agencies, including the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The scale of the instability is reflected in the following timeline of recent administrative and legal actions:
| Timeline | Action/Event | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Last Year | Class action suit filed | Researchers contest mass grant reversals across multiple agencies. |
| Last June | Judge Rita Lin’s Injunction | Court orders restoration of grants; bars vague “form letter” cancellations. |
| August | UCLA Grant Freeze | NSF freezes hundreds of grants amid a $1 billion settlement dispute. |
| Late April | NSF Board Purge | President Trump fires all 22 independent board scientists. |
| April 17 | Berkeley Suspensions | At least 18 grants frozen, including the Ohlone mixed-reality project. |
The volatility has created a climate of uncertainty for the University of California system, which received $525 million in NSF grants in the 2024-25 budget year. While UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof stated the university remains committed to compliance with federal laws, the administration has declined to comment on the specific grants affected or the total amount of funds currently frozen.
The Pivot to State and Global Funding
Facing an unreliable federal partner, the University of California is aggressively seeking alternative revenue streams to protect its research enterprise. UC President James Milliken has joined calls for state legislation to create a $23 billion fund for scientific research. If passed, this would place a bond measure on the November ballot, directing funds toward pandemic preparedness, wildfire research, and new medical treatments.
Beyond state borders, UC provost Katherine Newman is exploring international alliances. She has been in discussions with the Russell Group—a consortium of the United Kingdom’s top universities—to collaborate on research in climate change, clean energy, and public health. These are the exact areas where federal funding has become most precarious.
For the researchers on the ground, these high-level strategic pivots offer little immediate relief. “We’re doing a lot of hoping and finger-crossing that something works out,” says Foreman. The stakes extend beyond the budget; they involve the ability of Indigenous youth to see their own knowledge reflected in the halls of scientific institution.
Disclaimer: This article discusses ongoing legal proceedings and court injunctions. The information provided is for journalistic purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
The next critical checkpoint for the funding crisis arrives on May 14, when the California state assembly’s appropriations committee is set to consider the $23 billion research bond bill. The outcome of this meeting will determine if the university’s bid for financial independence from federal volatility moves closer to a public vote.
What do you think about the shift toward state-funded research to bypass federal restrictions? Share your thoughts in the comments or share this story with your network.
