A district court judge ordered the Trump administration to explain its suspension of National Science Foundation grants to UCLA at a hearing Aug. 12.

California district court judge Rita F. Lin had previously sided with UC researchers in June, ordering a preliminary injunction that blocked the NSF from terminating additional research grants. Lin said in the Tuesday order that the Trump administration must explain at the hearing – which will take place via Zoom – why the funding freeze on NSF grants at UCLA is “not in violation of the Preliminary Injunction provisions.” 

The injunction followed the Trump organization’s termination of 114 UC grants this spring due to an alleged violation of diversity, equity and inclusion guidelines. The NSF froze about 300 UCLA grants July 30 and 31, according to a Friday email to principal investigators from Vice Chancellor for Research and Creative Activities Roger Wakimoto. 

The federal government suspended a total of around 800 grants from the National Institutes of Health, the NSF and the U.S. Department of Energy, which have a combined worth of nearly $600 million. 

[Related: About 800 NIH, NSF research grants suspended following UCLA federal funding cuts] 

The NSF declined to comment on the hearing. 

UC President James Milliken, who took office Friday, said in a Wednesday statement that the cuts are a “death knell.” He added that the University is agreeing to “engage in dialogue” with the Trump administration. The UC Office of the President did not respond in time to a request for comment on the hearing. 

[Related: UC ‘to engage’ in talks with federal administration amid UCLA $584 million loss]

Lin’s order follows a Monday filing from lawyers representing UC researchers, which alleged that the NSF violated the preliminary injunction. 

Department of Justice lawyers claimed that the funding freeze was a suspension, which “is materially different than a termination,” because it allows the UC to regain the funds by responding to the NSF’s concerns. However, attorneys for the researchers said in the Monday filing that the distinction between a termination and an indefinite suspension is “purely semantic” – and that the two are “functionally identical.”

The DOJ lawyers added that the suspension does not violate the original injunction because it was not spurred by Trump’s executive orders targeting DEI programs. 

In her order, Lin asked the defendants to explain – even if the suspensions are not a violation of the original injunction – “why the Preliminary Injunction should not be extended to encompass suspensions of grants” rather than only terminations. 

Wakimoto said in a Monday town hall that letters from the federal government cited UCLA allowing for antisemitism in its research environments, practicing illegal affirmative action and letting “men to participate in women’s sports” as justifications for the suspensions. 

The freeze followed a July 29 letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, which alleged that UCLA failed to protect its Jewish and Israeli students during the spring 2024 Palestine solidarity encampment and allowed for antisemitism on campus following Palestinian political party and militant group Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. 

Lawyers from the Trump administration will be able to submit a supplemental briefing by Aug. 7 arguing why the preliminary injunction should not be extended, to which plaintiffs can choose to respond to by Aug. 11.