Trump Seeks to Control Universities Through Punishment | Opinion

The Illegal and Unconstitutional Cuts to University Funding

The recent decision by the Trump administration to cut off funding to universities, including UCLA, is not only unlawful but also unconstitutional. This action is aimed at causing significant harm to higher education institutions, as highlighted by statements from key figures in the administration. For instance, it was reported that Trump would settle with UCLA for $1 billion, indicating a clear intent to target these institutions.

Christopher Rufo, an influential figure in shaping Trump's policies on higher education, has emphasized that the goal is to instill "existential terror" in universities and push them into a "deep recession." This approach raises serious concerns about the integrity of the American university system, which is among the best in the world. It is baffling why anyone would consider cutting funding for medical research from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, especially when China is making substantial investments in its own higher education system.

If the Trump administration is going to cut off funds for universities, it must do so in a lawful manner. On August 1, the Trump administration announced the suspension of nearly $600 million in grants to researchers at UCLA. This decision was communicated through brief letters without any meaningful due process, leaving the university and its researchers in a state of uncertainty.

A letter dated August 1, 2025, from the head of the National Science Foundation to Dr. Julio Frenk, chancellor of UCLA, stated that the grants were being suspended due to alleged violations of "illegal affirmative action" policies, failure to combat "antisemitism and bias," and discrimination against women by allowing transgender individuals to compete in athletics. However, federal law mandates specific procedures for such actions.

According to a federal statute (42 U.S.C. 2000d-2), universities must be given notice and have a hearing before funds are suspended or terminated. There must be findings that the university acted illegally. Additionally, the law requires that both the Senate and the House of Representatives be notified 30 days before funds are cut off. The Trump administration did not follow any of these requirements.

Moreover, the suspension of funds by the National Science Foundation violated a court order. In early June, a lawsuit was filed in federal district court in San Francisco on behalf of researchers throughout the University of California system. I am co-counsel in this lawsuit. On June 23, Judge Rita Lin found that the termination of grants by three agencies—National Science Foundation, National Endowment of the Humanities, and Environmental Protection Agency—violated the law. Lin concluded that the mass termination of grants, without individualized consideration, violated the federal Administrative Procedures Act.

Lin determined that the agencies' actions were "arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion." She also noted that the termination of grants that used the word "diversity" violated the First Amendment. Lin issued a preliminary injunction against the agencies to prevent further grant terminations. Thus, the National Science Foundation's termination of grants to UCLA researchers violated Lin's order.

On August 12, Lin held a hearing regarding whether the government should be found in contempt. The government argued that the judge had prevented "termination" of grants, while the National Science Foundation had merely "suspended" them. Lin rejected this argument, emphasizing that for grant recipients, there is no difference between termination and suspension. Their research must stop, labs must close, and students cannot be paid. Furthermore, the law requires adherence to procedural requirements regardless of terminology.

This issue extends beyond one agency and one university. Billions of dollars of research money have been cut off across the United States, all done illegally. The impact on higher education, research, and people’s lives will be profound. All of this stems from a desire to punish universities and make them submit to the administration's will.

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean and professor of law at the UC Berkeley School of Law.