UC Berkeley researchers team up for first-of-its-kind lawsuit over Trump funding cuts
BERKELEY, Calif. — University of California faculty members and researchers filed suit against President Donald Trump and several federal agencies late Wednesday in what they hope will become a first-of-its-kind class action challenging the administration's sweeping cuts to research funding.
The flurry of grant terminations has resulted in layoffs, the lawsuit states, and halted a variety of projects, ranging from studies on the effects of wildfire smoke to an effort to make all of Mark Twain's work available to the public.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, is the brainchild of Claudia Polsky, founding director of the environmental law clinic at the University of California, Berkeley. Though she didn't face funding cuts herself, she said she felt inspired to organize colleagues — without any institutional backing — to file a suit that could have significant implications for other academics nationwide.
'I really think the faculty are ultimately going to have to stand up for themselves,' said Polsky, who is also one of the attorneys on the case, along with UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.
The University of California system is squarely in the crosshairs of the Trump administration. Apart from cutting research grants it deemed unnecessary, the administration has accused UC of failing to adequately address antisemitism on its campuses.
Late last month, Leo Terrell, a senior counsel at the Justice Department who leads the federal antisemitism task force investigating the UC system, told Fox News there would be 'massive lawsuits' against the UC system and other colleges.
A UC system spokesperson said it is cooperating with the administration. 'The University of California abhors antisemitism and is diligently working to address, counter and eradicate it in all its forms across the system.'
The UC system, which has 10 campuses, conducts around 8% of all academic research in the country. The lawsuit was filed by five UC Berkeley staff members and one at UC San Francisco, all of whom recently lost funding, according to the suit. It accuses a host of government agencies of disregarding federal regulations and violating the researchers' free speech and due process rights by cutting funding for their studies based on questionable financial concerns or due to their subject matter and failing to follow legally required steps.
Asked about suit, White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the cuts. 'Research grants are not a government entitlement that is guaranteed by the First Amendment,' he said, adding that President Trump is eager to 'restore common sense and realign government spending to match the priorities of the American people.'
The litigation represents a new approach among the now vast array of lawsuits against the Trump administration, one fittingly born at UC Berkeley, known for its role in the Free Speech Movement. Faculty members there have pressed university leaders to mount a vigorous defense if and when Berkeley faces government demands like those at Columbia and Harvard before they suffered additional funding cuts.
'Individual UC Berkeley faculty have every right to pursue litigation on their own behalf,' wrote Dan Mogulof, a UC Berkeley spokesman, in an email. 'The campus administration has played no role in the initiation, development, or funding of this legal action.'
A University of California spokesperson said the regents have joined two lawsuits challenging funding policy changes and dispatched administrators to Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers multiple times since March.
'These cuts threaten to stifle lifesaving biomedical research, hobble U.S. economic competitiveness and jeopardize the health of Americans who depend on cutting-edge medical science and innovation,' Stett Holbrook, a university system spokesman, said in an email. 'Appeals to grants are being handled on a case-by-case basis.'
Peter Lake, director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy at Stetson University in Florida, sees a benefit to legal action that comes from university staff members.
'It makes a really powerful statement that the professors themselves are stakeholders and that it's just not the institutions alone,' he said. 'It's a way of saying, 'Well, if you're slow to the battlefield, we're going to get there first.''
The University of California schools are some of the largest recipients of federal research funding in academia; they took in $4 billion cumulatively last year.
And they've been hit hard by the cuts. Though it's difficult to track exactly how much universities — in California or elsewhere — have lost, UC administrators have said that it's in the hundreds of millions of dollars and that it led them to impose a hiring freeze in February.
The lawsuit names President Trump, the Department of Government Efficiency, and 16 federal agencies — including the National Institutes of Health; the departments of Agriculture, Education, Health and Human Services, State and Transportation; the National Science Foundation; and the Environmental Protection Agency — as defendants. The EPA, USDA, NSF, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of the Interior said they do not comment on pending litigation. The other agencies did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the suit.
Early in his presidency, Trump signed executive orders that directed government offices to end funding for programs deemed to promote diversity, equity and inclusion, along with green energy initiatives. The Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency also canceled a swath of grants across many federal agencies that it considered wasteful. Government officials at multiple departments then sent notices to researchers who'd already been approved to receive grants and who were often in the middle of multiyear investigations that their funding would be cut off immediately. Some cuts were blocked by injunctions, but many still stand.
Researchers can usually appeal their individual grant cancellations to the agencies, but Polsky compared such appeals to 'trying to prop individual trees back up when the entire forest is being lit on fire.' And even successful appeals may come with new conditions attached by the Trump administration.
Jedda Foreman, director of the Center for Environmental Learning at the Lawrence Hall of Science, is one of the plaintiffs. Her interactive museum at UC Berkeley lost over $6 million from nine grant cancellations, according to the suit. Some funding from the NSF, for instance, supported projects intended to broaden interest in science education across different communities, she said.
The NSF declined to comment on the terminations but said it canceled some awards because they were 'not in alignment with current NSF priorities.'
Another lead plaintiff, history professor Christine Philliou, lost a $250,000 National Endowment for the Humanities grant to study Greek Orthodox Christians in 19th century Turkey. It was canceled in April with no explanation other than that the agency's priorities had changed, leaving her team 'flabbergasted,' she said. The National Endowment for the Humanities didn't respond to requests for comment.
'We believed in rule of law and felt like, 'Well, we have this grant; they can't just take it last-minute,'' Philliou said.
Ken Alex, director of Project Climate, UC Berkeley Law's initiative to advance solutions to global warming, is another plaintiff. He had been in the middle of a three-year study, funded by the EPA, using drones and robots to find cheaper ways to monitor methane emissions from landfills, a major contributor to climate change.
But the EPA cut off Alex's funding in late April. Like many of the stop-work orders, it said only that the study no longer meets government priorities.
The EPA declined to comment on funding for UC Berkeley but said it continues to invest in research 'to advance the mission of protecting human health and the environment.'
The Trump administration's impact on UC Berkeley goes beyond funding cuts.
In addition to a federal investigation into how the UC system addressed allegations of antisemitic incidents, the Education Department is probing UC Berkeley's finances. And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has demanded and received information from university administrators about more than 800 faculty members who signed open letters about student activism against Israel's strikes on Gaza. Several have already received calls from one or both of the agencies.
The scrutiny has put professors on edge. Polsky and others organized demonstrations against the funding cuts this semester — unusual for faculty members, even at a hotbed of activism like Berkeley. The Academic Senate also passed a resolution urging the school administration to resist any intrusive government demands for reform.
'Never in the 12 years I have been at Berkeley have I seen this much faculty agreement about anything, period,' said Poulomi Saha, an associate professor of English at UC Berkeley, one of the faculty members who organized rallies.
If the suit survives to be certified as a class action — a process that usually takes months — it could be opened up to any other UC faculty members or researchers whose funding has similarly been terminated since Trump returned to office.
Sabeeha Merchant, a Berkeley professor of plant biology, could become one of them. Her Department of Energy grant for research developing biofuels is at risk, but a separate lawsuit has kept it in place, at least temporarily. She said she sees the UC lawsuit as sending a message to the government about the haphazard way research funding has been cut.
'You can't just snap your fingers and say, 'I don't like you and I don't like what you study; I'm going to take it away,' she said. 'I think that if we fight back and we show that our laws still work, it means something to people.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Who will be Trump's new Silicon Valley bestie?
Mark Zuckerberg, Meta Platforms founder and CEO Zuckerberg was something of a MAGA stan earlier this year. Meta, his company, dropped $1 million on Trump's inauguration, and Zuck even co-hosted a black-tie soirée that night to honor the second-time president. Now, with Meta in the throes of a federal antitrust lawsuit, Zuckerberg may not be on Trump's good side. But the Meta CEO could be playing the long game here: He snapped up a $23 million, 15,000 square-foot DC mega mansion, establishing more of a presence in the capital. Zuck has also been on a bit of a rebrand journey, from a hoodie-wearing founder to a gold chain-wearing CEO with unapologetic swagger. Part of this transformation has included podcast appearances, like an episode with Trump-endorsing Joe Rogan in which Zuck talked about his "masculine energy" and his proclivity for bowhunting. Sam Altman, OpenAI cofounder and CEO Altman has also been circling the throne. First came Stargate: the $100 billion AI infrastructure plan between OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank, announced the day after Trump's inauguration. Then, in May, the OpenAI CEO joined Trump on a trip to Saudi Arabia while Altman was working on a massive deal to build one of the world's largest AI data centers in Abu Dhabi. This reportedly rattled Musk enough to tag along at the last minute, according to the Wall Street Journal. OpenAI was ultimately selected for the deal, which Musk allegedly attempted to derail, the Wall Street Journal reported. Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and executive chairman, Washington Post owner, and Blue Origin founder Back in 2015, Bezos wanted to launch Trump into orbit after the at-the-time presidential candidate fired shots at Bezos on what was Twitter, now X, calling the Washington Post, which Bezos owns, a "tax shelter," Bezos responded that he'd use Blue Origin, a space company Bezos founded, to "#sendDonaldtospace." Times have certainly changed. In January, Bezos said he is "very optimistic" about the administration's space agenda. Behind the scenes, he has reportedly given Trump political advice, allegedly as early as the summer of 2024, according to Axios. There was a brief flare-up in April, though, after Amazon reportedly considered listing Trump's tariffs next to products' prices on the site, according to Punchbowl News. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the plan a "hostile and political action." The idea, which was never implemented, was scrapped, and an Amazon spokesperson insisted it was only ever meant for its low-cost Haul store. If Trump does cancel Musk's SpaceX government contracts as he threatened to do, Bezos' Blue Origin, and rival to SpaceX, could stand to benefit. Blue Origin already has a $3 billion contract with NASA. Jensen Huang, Nvidia cofounder and CEO While Huang was notably missing from Trump's second inauguration in January, he did attend the Middle East trip in May. Nvidia is partnering with Oracle, SoftBank, and G42 on the OpenAI data center plans in the UAE. But Nvidia hasn't gotten off too easy: In April, Trump banned the chip maker from selling its most advanced chips, the H20, to China, a move that Nvidia says cost it $5.5 billion and reportedly prompted the company to modify the chip for China to circumvent US export controls. Sundar Pichai, Google CEO In April, a federal judge ruled that Google holds an illegal monopoly in some advertising technology markets. This is one of two major legal blows to Google in the past year: Back in August 2024, a federal judge ruled that Google violated antitrust law with its online search. If Google has to sell Chrome, Barclays told clients on Monday, Alphabet stock could fall 25%. This flurry of litigation — and potential divestment of the Chrome business — puts Pichai between a rock and a hard place. While the CEO was spotted with the rest of the technorati at Trump's inauguration, it's hard to say how he might cozy up to Trump, and whether friendly relations would do anything to remedy these rulings.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump boasts of ‘big win' over AP as court allows WH to ban access after ‘Gulf of America' spat
President Trump celebrated a 'big win' Friday as a federal appeals court ruled that his administration can ban the Associated Press from entering the Oval Office and other restricted areas amid its ongoing legal spat with the outlet over the Gulf of America. The White House can now restrict the wire service from the Oval Office, Mar-a-Lago and Air Force One, per a split 2-1 ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 'Big WIN over AP today,' Trump posted on Truth Social. 'They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' The court ruled Friday that certain White House spaces aren't open to the public or large press pools – effectively giving officials the power to decide which journalists and outlets get access, CNN reported. The decision comes after a lower court judge blocked the administration from restricting the AP from privileged areas where the press is typically allowed. 'We are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options,' a spokesperson for the Associated Press told the outlet. The legal dispute erupted in February when the White House barred the outlet from the Oval Office in response to the agency's refusal to update its style guide to reflect Trump's executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The AP, which manages the media's go-to style guide 'Associated Press Stylebook,' argued the large ocean basin has been called the Gulf of Mexico for 'more than 400 years' and other international groups have not acknowledged the change. 'VICTORY! As we've said all along, the Associated Press is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations,' White House press secretary Karoline Levitt posted to X following the ruling. 'Thousands of other journalists have never been afforded the opportunity to cover the President in these privileged spaces. Moving forward, we will continue to expand access to new media so that more people can cover the most transparent President in American history rather than just the failing legacy media. 'And by the way @AP, it's still the Gulf of America.' Hundreds of reporters have a so-called 'hard pass' which allows access to the White House briefing room and press working area. A second, more limited group of journalists — referred to as the pool — is granted access to more intimate or restricted events with greater opportunity to ask the president face-to-face questions. The pool used to be decided by the White House Correspondents Association, until the Trump administration took it over to hand-pick which journalists they could add to — or remove from — the pool. The AP previously had access to the president's limited events every day alongside fellow wires Reuters and Bloomberg. Now only one wire service is allowed in the pool each day.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Boasts of ‘Big Win' Over ‘Fake News' AP After Court Rules White House Can Ban News Outlet's Access Over Its Refusal to Cite ‘Gulf of America'
A federal appeals court ruled that the White House has the latitude to exclude any journalists it chooses from the Oval Office and other 'restricted areas' — including on the basis of a news outlet's 'viewpoint.' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a 2-1 decision Friday, ruled against the AP, which had sued three Trump administration officials in February over a ban on the news organization's access to presidential events as part of the White House press pool. The White House blocked the AP after the outlet continued referring to the body of water on the southeastern periphery of the North America as the Gulf of Mexico, after Trump decreed on Jan. 20 that henceforth it should be known as the 'Gulf of America.' More from Variety Seth Meyers Roasts Elon Musk for Waiting Until Now to Allege 'That Trump Might Be a Pedophile': 'You Already Knew That and It Wasn't a Dealbreaker' Elon Musk Claims Donald Trump 'Is in the Epstein Files': 'That Is the Real Reason They Haven't Been Made Public' Donald Trump Says Elon Musk Has 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' as Rift Grows: 'I Don't Know If We Will' Have a 'Great Relationship' Anymore The development was welcomed by President Trump. 'Big WIN over AP today. They refused to state the facts or the Truth on the GULF OF AMERICA. FAKE NEWS!!!' Trump posted on his Truth Social account Friday. The Gulf of Mexico has been known by that name since at least the late 16th century, according to Encyclopaedia Britannica. The appeals court issued a stay, pending appeal, on a lower court's preliminary injunction holding that the Trump administration cannot discriminate against the AP over the Gulf of Mexico/Gulf of America issue. Under the First Amendment, Judge Trevor McFadden wrote in the April decision, 'if the Government opens its doors to some journalists — be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere — it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints.' In the ruling Friday, the appeals court disagreed. 'Restricted presidential spaces' such as the Oval Office and Air Force One 'are not First Amendment fora opened for private speech and discussion,' Judge Neomi Rao wrote in the ruling, joined by Judge Gregory Katsas. 'The White House therefore retains discretion to determine, including on the basis of viewpoint, which journalists will be admitted.' Both of the judges are Trump appointees. 'If the president sits down for an interview with [Fox News host] Laura Ingraham, he is not required to do the same with [MSNBC's] Rachel Maddow,' Rao wrote in the opinion. 'The First Amendment does not control the president's discretion in choosing with whom to speak or to whom to provide special access.' The two judges added that without a stay, 'the government will suffer irreparable harm because the injunction impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces.' In a dissenting opinion, Judge Cornelia Pillard of the D.C. Court of Appeals, an Obama appointee, wrote that 'my colleagues assert a novel and unsupported exception to the First Amendment's prohibition of viewpoint-based restrictions of private speech — one that not even the government itself advanced.' She said that 'if the White House were privileged to exclude journalists based on viewpoint, each and every member of the White House press corps would hesitate to publish anything an incumbent administration might dislike.' The Associated Press indicated that it will continue its legal fight in the matter. 'We are disappointed in the court's decision and are reviewing our options,' AP spokesman Patrick Maks said in a statement Friday. According to the AP's report on the ruling, one possibility is that the news organization will seek an expedited review of the full case on its merits. The AP's lawsuit names White House chief of staff Susan Wiles, deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich and press secretary Karoline Leavitt as defendants. On Friday, Leavitt trumpeted the appeals court decision. 'VICTORY!' she wrote in a post on X. 'As we've said all along, the Associated Press is not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in other sensitive locations. Thousands of other journalists have never been afforded the opportunity to cover the President in these privileged spaces.' Leavitt continued, 'Moving forward, we will continue to expand access to new media so that more people can cover the most transparent President in American history rather than just the failing legacy media. And by the way @AP, it's still the Gulf of America.' She ended the post with a smiley-face emoji and the U.S. flag. Best of Variety 25 Hollywood Legends Who Deserve an Honorary Oscar New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week Emmy Predictions: Animated Program — Can Netflix Score Big With 'Arcane,' 'Devil May Cry' and the Final Season of 'Big Mouth?'