Federal Updates Under the New Administration

San Diego State University, along with the California State University system, is closely monitoring rapidly changing federal policies and seeking clarity on their potential impact to higher education and the university community. We recognize these changes may cause both confusion and sincere concern, and will continue to provide updates and resources as they become available. SDSU remains committed to its core values, as outlined in its strategic plan, and to its mission of teaching, research and public service.

The current federal administration assumed office on January 20, 2025. Since then, several executive orders and memorandums have been issued that have an impact on the higher education sector, including public universities like SDSU. The following is designed to provide information and guidance to members of SDSU’s community. Note that the information on this page is informational only and is not designed to be inclusive of all actions taken by the administration.

We will update this page regularly, and the information presented is not an exhaustive list of all Executive Orders, policy updates or court actions.

This site contains the following additional sections:

Take Action

As orders and court actions continue to shape the federal research and higher education environment, some are likely to want to take action as individuals. This section provides concrete steps to stay informed and, if you choose, to advocate effectively.

hands typing
Help protect life-changing and life-saving research by taking action. You may choose to email or call your lawmakers. Find your elected official online to share information about your work or the importance of funding academic research and creative projects. More information, including helpful tips, is below. 
SDSU IS R1
As SDSU was recently designated an R1, social media content, graphics, photos and other assets have been developed for you to download to help you tell your story.
reporter talking
If you receive a media inquiry and need support, share the inquiry with the Strategic Communications and Public Affairs media relations team by emailing [email protected].

Contacting Your Member of Congress

  1. Be brief. The staff person who answers the phone or reads your email will have limited knowledge and is looking for the main points in your message.
  2. Look up your member of Congress and contact only that officeholder. Most offices do not track calls or emails from outside of their district.
  3. Be professional, and be kind. Be the best representative of you and your work.
  4. If you are put on hold, please be patient. These are often young staffers or college interns. They are managing the communications to the best of their ability and are often feeling the brunt of people’s frustrations.
  5. If they are short and only allow you to provide your name, address, support or opposition, don’t feel frustrated. That likely means they are receiving a high volume of calls.

“Good morning/afternoon. My name is [Your Name], and I am a constituent of Congressperson [Last Name]. My address is [Your Address] and I am a [faculty/staff] member at San Diego State University.

I am contacting you to express my strong support/opposition to [describe announcement or planned federal action] that will result in a withdrawal of federal funding from California universities and institutions, like my own. This action would have devastating consequences for students, faculty and staff and our entire region and state. Such a decision would also have permanent negative nationwide impacts.

Federal grants support life-saving research and innovation and educational access that benefit all Americans, and are the backbone of public higher education. Such funding also powers our economic competitiveness. Cutting this funding in such a manner would jeopardize thousands of jobs, derail critical discoveries and weaken our nation’s global leadership in science, technology and education. Personally, this would affect me by [add your specific impact, such as losing support for a research project, student services being cut, inability to teach or serve under-resourced students].

I urge you to do everything in your power to stop this harmful decision and protect the future of public education in our state and nation. Thank you for your time and for representing our community.”

  1. Tell the person your name and where you are from. It is important for the office to know you live in the district.
  2. Briefly state why you are calling (e.g. Is it because of the layoff of NSF personnel? Is it due to a proposed cut in F&A rates?).
  3. In one or two brief sentences, state the impact. Does it mean that a specific number of constituents will suffer? Does it mean that the subcontractors will not receive funding and therefore there is an economic impact of a specific dollar amount. Be as specific as possible in the details you briefly offer.
  4. Thank the staff person for their time and for conveying your concerns.

Get Support

Whether you need assistance with your grants, have compliance-related questions, or need help navigating policy changes, these resources are here to support you. This section outlines key services available to faculty and staff who need help.

hepner hall exterior shot
If you receive a stop-work order or official information or guidance from your sponsor agency, forward it immediately to [email protected] and your grant specialist. You may also use this same email for any questions, or if you need direct support or guidance on other matters related to your research.
scientist piping
SDSU has an array of resources to support your physical and emotional wellbeing. You are not alone. Stress, burnout, depression, anxiety, and other distressing experiences happen to many.

The Employee Assistance Program offers SDSU employees confidential, free support for a variety of concerns including emotional, relationship, health, legal and workplace issues. You can call Empathia directly at 1-800-367-7474 or learn more on the Employee Assistance Sharepoint page (SDSU login required). Resources are also included on the Faculty Advancement site.
a woman smiling against a chair
If you are concerned about how a recent federal order or policy change may impact a (non-research related) program that you participate in or organize, or students who you may support, you can share your questions by emailing [email protected].

In general, if you have not received direct communication from the university regarding a change or action you need to take, then do not attempt to interpret and apply changing federal guidance to your work, and do not make any immediate changes to any existing programs. SDSU will communicate any impacts directly. 

As with all communications, please be advised that any email sent to [email protected] may be discoverable under the California Public Records Act. We encourage all faculty, staff, and students to exercise caution when sharing potentially sensitive or confidential information via email.

Know Your Rights

Understanding Your Rights and Responsibilities on and Beyond Campus

At San Diego State University, we are committed to protecting the rights of every member of our campus community. Whether you are a student, faculty or staff member, it is important to understand your rights – especially when it comes to immigration and visa laws, privacy, free expression and interactions with law enforcement. 

SDSU does not partner with or voluntarily share information with ICE for immigration enforcement purposes. In accordance with FERPA and California law, the university protects student records and the personal information of students, faculty and staff. University employees are not required to – and should not – assist federal immigration enforcement efforts and should, instead, immediately report the presence of immigration officers to university designees (contact information below). 

Encounters with Federal Immigration Officers

Make sure you and others know what to do if approached by immigration officers.

  • You have the right to remain silent. Say, “I choose to remain silent.”
  • You have the right to demand a warrant before letting anyone into your home. Ask to see a warrant signed by a judge.
  • You have the right to speak to a lawyer and the right to make a phone call.
  • You have the right to refuse to sign anything before you talk to a lawyer. Ask to speak to a lawyer before signing any documents or answering any questions.
  • Keep a copy of the ACLU’s “Know Your Rights” card or the Immigrant Legal Resource Center’s “Red Card” (multiple languages offered) to understand your rights and responsibilities and to prepare for encounters with immigration officers 

If any SDSU employee receives or learns of an inquiry from immigration officials, to include administrative warrants, subpoenas, judicial orders, or other requests for information or access, the employee should take the following actions:

Employees are not allowed to give voluntary consent or provide assistance to any searches, per state law. Immigration officers are allowed to enter any public space on campus but are not allowed in sensitive locations like classrooms, residence halls, resource centers and offices without a judicial warrant.

If approached by an immigration officer, employees are required to contact the campus designee immediately. The campus designee will engage with the immigration official: 

  • SDSU primary contact: Senior Associate Vice President, Administration Jessica Rentto at 619-594-8640 or 619-594-6017
  • SDSU secondary contact: Associate Vice President of Public Safety and Community Empowerment Josh Mays at 619-594-6017
  • SDSU Imperial Valley contact: Dean Gina Nunez-Michiri at 760-768-5520

Guidance for H-1B and J-1 Visa Holders

SDSU remains committed to the free exchange of ideas, which has been strengthened by the contributions of scholars, researchers and educators from around the world. Recent federal immigration enforcement activities have raised concerns within our faculty community, which includes U.S. citizens, permanent residents and colleagues on H-1B and J-1 visas, among others. Immigration policies, practices, travel bans and health and safety risks are shifting daily and often cannot be fully assessed or projected in advance.

 Faculty, staff and students with H-1B or J-1 Visas are urged to carefully consider and assess the necessity of international travel, as well as potential impacts to travel plans, personal safety while abroad, and the ability to reenter the United States.

 In addition to the Federal Updates page, rely on the following for information, guidance and general FAQs for faculty, staff and students:

Immigration Guidance and Steps for those with F-1 Visas

The university encourages students with F-1 visits to stay informed and to be proactive, and if students inquire about what they can do or go for support, please share the following:

  • No matter your immigration status, the U.S. Constitution guarantees you certain rights.
  • Check your visa status regularly: Use your SEVIS (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) account or consult with the International Students Center to confirm that your visa remains active and in good standing.
  • Maintain full-time enrollment: This is a core requirement for staying in F-1 status.
  • Keep your documents up to date: Ensure your I-20, passport, and visa are current and reflect your correct academic program and address.
  • Carry supporting documentation: I-20, passport, visa, proof of enrollment and a letter of good standing from your academic department can help demonstrate your status.
  • Stay calm if you come into contact with an immigration officer or other law enforcement officer. Additional information about your rights and what you can do is available online via the Red Card. 
  • Contact SDSU teams, including the International Student Center or Student Affairs and Campus Diversity, if students have questions or need support. Other support teams are also available to help as needed.

Engaging in Free Expression 

You have the right to:

  • Express your views verbally, in writing or through peaceful actions. 
  • Assemble peacefully and participate in protests, demonstrations and rallies in accordance with the university’s Buildings and Ground policy. 
  • Distribute flyers and post on social media.

On campus:

  • Time, place, and manner rules may apply. Review the university’s Buildings and Ground policy and Free Speech site for information. 
  • You may not disrupt classes, university classes, events, activities or other operations or block building access.

Get Support, Report Concerns

Information and Updates

In this section, the university will provide updates, guidance, and resources in response to changes and announcements from the federal government, as they may relate to SDSU and higher education.

Most Recent Updates

This site provides a comprehensive amount of information about federal orders and policy changes that may impact higher education. The site will be regularly updated. This is not an exhaustive list of updates.

On April 25, during a court hearing in Washington, the Trump administration suddenly reversed its decision to cancel over 1,500 visas held by international students, revealing a significant policy change by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The announcement came after a series of individual lawsuits from students who said they were suddenly told they could no longer legally study in the U.S., often without a clear explanation.

In earlier updates:

Due to uncertainty and evolving federal policies, the California State University system strongly encourages all faculty, staff and students to carefully assess the necessity of international travel at this time. The decision to travel outside the United States is personal, but the CSU advises all members of its community to proceed with extreme caution. Immigration policies, practices, travel bans, and health and safety risks are shifting daily and often cannot be fully assessed or
projected in advance.

Before undertaking international travel for any work, study, personal or leisure purpose, including to conduct research, attend conferences, teach abroad, participate in learning programs or community service projects, employees and students are urged to carefully consider and assess the variables outlined below, all of which may impact travel plans, personal safety while abroad, and the ability to reenter the United States.

At SDSU, and through a partnership with Jewish Family Services (JFS), SDSU students, staff and faculty can access personalized immigration legal services from highly qualified legal practitioners. JFS immigration attorneys and Department of Justice representatives are available at SDSU to provide culturally competent, trauma-informed, and reliable expertise to the campus community (for more information, contact the SDSU Undocumented Resource Center at [email protected]).

The California State University system also provides pro bono (free of charge) legal immigration services through a contract with Immigrant Legal Defense (ILD) and also maintains an Immigration Enforcement Concerns Resources for Faculty and Staff site with information, guidance and FAQs. 

See additional information in both the Immigration and the Travel and Advisories sections.

Related to lawsuits: 

On April 1, attorneys general and governors in 23 states and Washington, DC, filed a lawsuit in a U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island against the Department of Health and Human Services seeking a temporary restraining order against the administration’s funding cuts of more than $11 billion in funding previously allocated.

On April 2, the American Public Health Association (APHA)  filed a lawsuit in a U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. The complaint, on behalf of the APHA and the United Auto Workers union, representing higher-education workers who rely on NIH funding, requested an injunction against the administration’s cancellation of at least $1.1 billion in grant funding.

On April 4, California Attorney General Rob Bonta co-led 16 attorneys general in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Trump Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Institutes of Health for unlawfully terminating existing grants and requested a temporary restraining order to immediately restore grant funding to the states and bar the Administration from unlawfully terminating grants.

On June 16, in the two cases that were heard together, the District judge in Massachusetts ruled that the administration’s grant terminations were "void and illegal," indicating he would reinstate grants and that he could issue a more sweeping decision as the case proceeds.

On Aug. 21, the Supreme Court partially granted the government’s request for a stay of the district court’s order. Finding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the grant terminations, the Supreme Court granted a stay of the district court’s order regarding the grant terminations, thus allowing the grant terminations to proceed. Because the request for stay was denied as to the agency’s DEI guidance, the NIH cannot currently enforce its DEI guidance.

The Supreme Court ruled that challenges to grant terminations belong in the Court of Federal Claims, not the U.S. district courts. This means challenges to grant terminations and agency guidance must now proceed in different courts.

Earlier Updates Related to other Executive Orders

The National Science Foundation (NSF) continues to update a page with information regarding recent executive orders and their impact on the NSF community. New FAQs were added regarding proposal revisions and REU sites. Researchers with NSF funding are encouraged to review these and other FAQs on the site. If you need to revise a proposal, contact your development specialist immediately. 

Also on March 20, the White House issued an executive order to close the U.S. Department of Education, but to also maintain an "uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits." The department is a cabinet-level agency and cannot be abolished without congressional approval. On March 24, two lawsuits, led by teachers’ unions and the NAACP, were filed in federal courts in Massachusetts and Maryland against the administration’s plan to close the department. These lawsuits follow a March 13 lawsuit, led by a coalition of 20 attorneys general, against the administration's previous move to eliminate approximately half of the department's workforce.

To SDSU researchers: If you receive a stop work order or project-specific notice, immediately forward it to [email protected] and copy your grant specialist.  If you anticipate that you may receive a stop work order or termination notice for specific funding, use the online form to prepare for a possible appeal in defense of your project.  

At SDSU, we strongly affirm our commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility, which remains fully compliant with federal and state laws, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX, and California’s Proposition 209. For almost 30 years, Proposition 209 (California Constitution, Article I, Section 31) has prohibited preferential treatment based on race or gender in public education but allows outreach and support programs that do not create racial preferences, but do support our diverse community. Faculty and staff should continue fostering an inclusive learning environment in compliance with university policies and the law.

Executive Orders and Court Actions

As federal agencies issue official guidance and updates, links will be added below (the following is not an exhaustive list):

Since January 20, 2025, President Trump has implemented several executive orders and policy changes significantly impacting U.S. immigration. They include the “Protecting the American People Against Invasion” Executive Order, which declared the situation at the southern border an “invasion” under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution. It suspended the entry of individuals who are not documented and revoked several prior executive orders that had set civil immigration enforcement priorities and established frameworks for migration management. The administration has focused on restricting federal funding to jurisdictions, known as sanctuary cities, that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. This approach has led to legal challenges from these jurisdictions, citing constitutional violations and public safety concerns.

Faculty, staff and students are urged to carefully evaluate the necessity of international travel due to evolving federal policies and unpredictable risks. While travel decisions are personal, extreme caution is advised as immigration policies, travel bans and health and safety concerns change rapidly and may be difficult to predict.

Before traveling for work, study, research, conferences, teaching or personal reasons, carefully assess potential challenges. Visa eligibility, border control measures, and country-specific restrictions can shift suddenly, affecting re-entry into the United States. Additionally, legal, geopolitical, security, and cybersecurity risks may impact travelers, particularly those conducting research or visiting high-risk regions.

For International Students 

International students who decide to travel either internationally or within the U.S. should consider carrying:

  • Valid passport
  • Valid F or J visa (Required)
  • Valid travel signatures on your Form I-20/DS-2019 (Required)
  • (For F-1 students) I-20 travel signature on page two that is less than 1 year old
  • (For J -1 students) DS-2019 travel signature on page 1, bottom right corner, that is less than 6 months old
  • Proof of connection to a CSU University (course registrations and transcript copies would be helpful)
  • Evidence of funding

Concerns and Explanations 

The California State University system outlines a number of concerns and explanations related to travel:

  • Rapidly Changing Immigration Policies: Constant policy changes by the federal government (such as executive orders or Department of Homeland Security memos) could affect visa eligibility or re-entry requirements mid-trip, leaving travelers vulnerable to unexpected barriers.
  • Citizenship Status and Border Control: Recently, there has been greater emphasis on stricter border control, which could lead to longer screening processes, device searches, or interviews, especially for travelers with certain nationalities or research interests. 
  • Visas: Individuals holding visas (H-1B, F-1, J-1, O-1, etc.) may face increased scrutiny or delays when re-entering the U.S., particularly if they traveled to or transited through countries under heightened security or diplomatic strain with the U.S. Travelers seeking visa renewals may also experience longer processing times, resulting in delays in reentering the U.S. It is also important to note that visas are frequently tied to specific institutions or programs of study. Thus, any disruption in travel, employment or study can inadvertently impact legal status. 
  • Country-Specific Bans and Restrictions: Travelers from certain countries could be affected by current or proposed travel bans or enhanced screening procedures, depending on national origin or prior travel history. A proposed 3-tier travel ban would suspend visas to 10 countries, including Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Cuba and North Korea. Partial suspensions of student and tourist visas to Eritrea, Haiti, Laos, Myanmar and South Sudan are also being considered. Finally, 26 additional countries, including Belarus, Pakistan and Turkmenistan, are being considered for a partial suspension of U.S. visa issuance. 
  • Legal and Diplomatic Issues: Foreign laws often differ significantly from those in the United States, particularly regarding freedom of speech and expression, religious or political dissent, and data privacy. Violation(s) of these laws, intentional or not, may impact the ability to re-enter the United States.
  • Geopolitics Tensions: Tensions and conflicts in some areas of the world, such as the Middle East, Eastern Europe and parts of Asia or Africa, may increase risks of conflict, detainment, or restricted movement by foreign nationals, especially from Western countries.
  • Security Risks: Some destinations may have increased threats of terrorism, civil unrest, or targeted violence, which can pose direct dangers to travelers.
  • Cybersecurity Concerns: Traveling with research data or devices may make students and faculty vulnerable to surveillance or cyber espionage, especially in countries with aggressive data policies.
  • Research Scrutiny: Faculty and students involved in sensitive research areas such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology or defense-related fields may face additional questions at the border.

To assess these risks, consult with the following:

U.S. Department of State – Travel Advisories: Provides country-specific travel advisories (Levels 1–4), alerts, and safety information. Includes details on entry/exit requirements, health risks, crime, and civil unrest. Check the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP) to receive real-time alerts and embassy assistance.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – Travelers’ Health: Offers country-specific health notices, required vaccinations, and COVID-19 guidance. Great for understanding current outbreaks or public health precautions abroad.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Guidance for travelers with immigration or visa concerns (especially re-entry policies) as well as digital privacy and what CBP can inspect (e.g., electronic devices).

U.S. Embassy or Consulate Website for the Destination Country: Visit the embassy or consulate site for the country you will be visiting. Provides contact information and security updates for a specific country. Helpful in case of emergency or a lost passport. Often includes information on local law or customs that might affect travelers.

Airline and Destination Country’s Official Immigration Website: For entry/exit requirements, visa status checks, COVID-19 restrictions and transit rules, check the individual sites for your airline and destination country. Some countries require health declarations or online registration in advance.

In January 2025, the Trump administration imposed a freeze on federal grants and loans, potentially affecting trillions of dollars in funding. This abrupt action led to widespread confusion and legal challenges, prompting a federal judge to temporarily block the freeze.

Subsequently, the Office of Management and Budget rescinded the funding freeze order, though the executive orders targeting DEIA programs remained in effect.

The elimination of DEIA programs has faced opposition with several civil and human rights organizations, including the Legal Defense Fund and Lambda Legal, filing a lawsuit against the administration, arguing that the executive orders violate free speech and due process rights.

As of February 19, 2025, while the funding freeze has been lifted, the executive orders dismantling DEIA programs remain active, with ongoing legal challenges and widespread debate surrounding their implications.

See the following for more information:

On Feb. 14, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a "Dear Colleague" letter mandating that educational institutions eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs within 14 days of the letter to maintain federal funding. This directive interprets the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard as prohibiting race-based considerations in all aspects of academic programming, extending beyond admissions to areas such as student support services and faculty hiring practices.

For decades, state and federal courts have consistently recognized that lawfully crafted DEIA policies and programs do not amount to impermissible discrimination. Recent federal executive orders (which are not law) conflate valid and legal programs and practices supporting DEIA with unlawful preferences and discrimination. The California State University system, of which San Diego State University is part, is in one of the best positions among K-12 and higher education institutions nationally given existing compliance with Proposition 209. Proposition 209 was a California ballot measure passed in 1996 that amended the state constitution to prohibit public institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity in public employment, education, and contracting. It effectively banned affirmative action policies in public universities, government hiring, and state-funded programs. SDSU and our programs have been in compliance with this state law since it was enacted.

Since receiving the Feb. 14 letter, San Diego State University has begun a review of its existing programs and web properties to ensure ongoing compliance with Proposition 209 is stated clearly.

All university programs and activities are open and available to all regardless of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Consistent with California law and federal civil rights laws, SDSU provides equal opportunity in education and employment without unlawful discrimination or preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Our commitment to equal opportunity means ensuring that all students and employees have access to the resources and support they need to thrive and succeed in a university environment and in their communities.

A lawsuit seeks to halt the unlawful disclosure of personal and financial information after news broke that Department of Government Efficiency officials accessed sensitive student and borrower data. The Department of Education confirms DOGE has access to all such data, but its use is unclear. The case is overseen by the federal district court in Washington, D.C.

A federal judge had issued an order that blocked the DOGE team from accessing student financial aid data until at least Feb. 17 while the policy was being reviewed. A hearing took place on Feb. 14, and on Feb. 17 the judge denied the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order extending the block on DOGE access, saying an immediate threat did not exist.

Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs, also known as indirect costs, are expenses that universities incur to support the research infrastructure and operational expenses necessary to conduct federally-funded research. These expenses include grants administration, certain equipment and utilities, research facilities and laboratories, and other costs including those needed to comply with federal regulations. Universities pay these expenses as they conduct federally sponsored research, and the government then partially reimburses allowable costs through a cost rate agreement using established, uniform, predetermined rates. Many universities currently negotiate these indirect cost recovery rates at 50% or higher, including SDSU, through regular recalculation and review with federal agencies. 

See the following for more information:

On February 7, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that it would cap indirect cost rates for both new and existing grants at 15%. On February 10, the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, along with several individual research institutions, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts to block the NIH plan to reduce indirect cost rates. On March 4, the District judge ordered a temporary injunction, and then on April 4 extended a permanent injunction, against the 15% rate caps.

On April 11, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced that it would institute a 15% indirect cost rate on new grants. On April 14, a group of universities and academic associations led by the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts to seek an injunction against the cap. On April 16, the District judge issued a temporary restraining order; and on May 15, the judge granted a preliminary injunction enjoining DOE “from implementing, instituting, maintaining, or giving any effect to the Rate Cap Policy in any form with respect to IHEs nationwide until a further order is issued by the Court.”

On May 2, the National Science Foundation (NSF) issued a policy notice that it would implement a standard indirect cost rate of 15% on all new grants. On May 5, the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities filed a joint lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts along with 13 research universities to block the NSF from this action. On May 19, NSF entered into a consent agreement with the court and temporarily paused implementation of the policy notice pending resolution after a June 13 hearing. On June 14, the NSF agreed to continue the pause on implementation until June 20, and on June 20, the District Court vacated NSF’s 15% Indirect Cost Rate policy and ordered it invalid.

On May 14, the Department of Defense (DoD) announced that it will institute a new standard indirect cost rate of 15% on new grants to Institutions of Higher Education. Additionally, DoD plans to renegotiate the terms of existing awards and "where bilateral agreement is not achieved, identify and recommend lawful paths to terminate and reissue the award under revised terms," to be completed within 180 days from the date of the memorandum. On June 16, the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, along with 12 higher education institutions, filed a joint lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking an injunction against the proposed DoD rate cap proposal. On June 17, the judge granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the DoD from implementing the rate cap. The order is in effect until a July 2 hearing when the judge will consider issuing a longer-term preliminary injunction.

See the following for more information:

The Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), along with several other higher education associations, organized a Joint Effort to Develop a New Indirect Costs Model with a “team of individuals with deep knowledge of direct and indirect costs, the current facilities and administrative (F&A) cost structure, university finance, grant administration, regulatory compliance, research project leadership and other related matters with the goal of submitting to the Federal government a new model, developed with full engagement of the research community.” The Joint Associations Group (JAG) on Indirect Costs has presented a new Financial Accountability in Research (FAIR) model as a potential replacement for the current indirect cost rates reimbursement model that has been challenged by federal agencies and released a statement to urge policy makers to embrace and codify the new FAIR model.

In January 2025, President Trump issued executive orders terminating Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) programs within the federal government and prohibiting federal contractors from implementing such initiatives. These orders mandated the suspension and eventual termination of all federal DEIA staff and directed agencies to eliminate DEIA-related programs.

College professors, university diversity officers, nonprofits and local governments filed a lawsuit on Feb. 3 in a Maryland federal court challenging Trump’s executive orders targeting DEIA programs. They argue the orders violate the First and Fifth Amendments, threaten academic freedom, and limit access to higher education. The lawsuit seeks to have the orders declared unlawful and blocked by an injunction.

See the following for more information:

Recent SDSURF Communications

The following are communications shared by SDSU Research Foundation and the Division or Research and Innovation (this is not an exhaustive list):

Guidance for University Researchers

Importantly, if you receive a stop-work order, or official information or guidance from your sponsor agency that isn’t within this page immediately forward to [email protected] and your grant specialist. If you are a university researcher or PI and have questions or need direct support or guidance on other matters, you may also email [email protected].

As federal agencies and sponsors respond to these orders and new policies, SDSU Research Foundation and the Division of Research and Innovation will provide updates, guidance, and resources to help support sponsored research.

Guidance for Proposals

  • We will continue to submit proposals as long as agency submission systems remain operational.
  • If you are in the process of preparing an application, confirm the submission deadline with the lead agency, and confirm that the funding announcement has not been revised or postponed.
  • Proposal deadlines may change, and sponsor review timelines and award decisions may be extended.
  • Subscribe to agency alerts or newsletters for updates about funding priorities, proposal guidelines, or compliance requirements.
  • Carefully review the language being used in proposal titles and abstracts.

New Proposal Instructions Restricting Activities

As federal funding agencies navigate executive orders and new policies, some are introducing new expenditure restrictions that include diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA), gender ideology, and environmental justice components, among others, in notices of funding opportunities.

Please check for funding restrictions when preparing proposals, and again, carefully review the language being used in proposal titles and abstracts.

Guidance for Awards

As federal agencies continue to implement executive orders and face reduced staffing, we anticipate that regular business and award activities will continue to be delayed. Researchers with active awards are advised to submit progress reports and other deliverables early to ensure compliance with contract requirements.

  • Please continue with your work in accordance with the terms and conditions of your award.
  • Review your grant agreement to ensure you understand the terms and requirements.
  • Submit reports and any required deliverables on time.
  • Submit requests for no-cost extension or carryover of funds to your grant specialist as soon as possible, as sponsor approvals may be delayed or denied.
  • Submit grant invoices as soon as possible, including payroll requests and billing of subcontractors.

Non-Competing Renewals

If you have not yet received current-year funding for non-competing renewals, we encourage you to work with your grants specialist to request a no-cost extension and authorization to utilize any available carryover funding from your funding agency program and grants officer. 

Projects with Research Support Funds or other discretionary funds may use those as bridge funds for non-competing renewals. However, without specific sponsor approval, we are not able to authorize spending for projects that have not been awarded renewals or use of carryover. If your budget end date is approaching, we continue to recommend the following:

  • Work with your grant specialist and funding agency to determine if carryover funds may be used until a renewal is awarded. Prior sponsor approval may be required.
  • If you have RSF funds, use those as bridge funds.
  • Consider whether your project may need to slow, delay, or pause work in order to conserve funds until a non-competing renewal is received.
  • If you foresee any staffing changes, please reach out to SDSURF Human Resources and your grant specialist who can assist in developing solutions tailored to your needs.

Termination Notices

If you receive a termination notice, stop work order, or other project-specific notice, immediately forward it to [email protected] and copy your grant specialist. SDSURF will provide guidance regarding how researchers must implement the order. 

If you have already received or if you anticipate that you may receive a termination notice or stop work order for specific funding, use the online form to begin a draft impact statement for a possible appeal.

Funds for Doctoral Students on Terminated Grants

With support from the Prebys Foundation, the Division of Research and Innovation and the College of Graduate Studies have established a one-time pool of funds for doctoral students whose funding has been affected by federal award terminations or delays. Faculty mentors with affected doctoral students are encouraged to review the application instructions and apply online.

Close-Out Funds or Funds for Non-Renewed Grants

SDSU’s Division of Research and Innovation has established a one-time pool of funds to help mitigate the impacts of termination of federal awards, the non-renewal of project years, or significantly delayed notices of award. A competitive process considers requests for one-time funding. Affected PIs may submit a brief proposal of their project and supporting documents in the online application.

Other Support

We encourage researchers who receive termination notices to submit a 1-2 page white paper for use in identifying potential alternative funding from philanthropic sources. For information, contact Natasha Bliss, ​​Director of Strategic Partnerships, at [email protected], or Nadia Campbell, Director of Research Initiatives, at [email protected].

Earlier Updates

On Tuesday, March 11, a U.S. District Court Judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to cancel an estimated $250 million in teacher-training grants across the country, including a significant cut affecting students preparing to staff high-need California schools. Related to teacher training grants, State Attorney General Rob Bonta joined seven other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit on March 6 against the Department of Education over cuts to teacher training grants made under the Trump administration. Specifically, the programs eliminated were the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED).

On Wednesday, March 5, Judge Angel Kelley of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts once again blocked the National Institutes of Health from moving forward with its plans to cap reimbursements for costs indirectly related to research. The plan was first announced Feb. 7. It has been on hold since Feb. 10 after the judge issued and then extended a temporary restraining order, which is an emergency measure put into place until the court could address the matter. NIH officials had proposed capping indirect expenses at 15 percent of the direct research costs.

Kelly’s decision comes after a hearing late last month about the proposal. Kelley ultimately decided that the proposed plan is contrary to law and that the NIH failed to provide any sufficient reasoning, rationale or justification for the change. She also criticized NIH for not considering colleges and other parties’ “reliance interests,” rendering the policy “arbitrary and capricious.” Additionally, the change would cause irreparable harm, she said, citing numerous court filings from university officials.

Related to teacher training grants, State Attorney General Rob Bonta joined seven other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit on March 6 against the Department of Education over cuts to teacher training grants made under the Trump administration. Specifically, the programs eliminated were the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED).

On Friday, Feb. 21, a federal judge further extended the temporary restraining order blocking the federal administration’s plans to reduce NIH indirect cost rates. U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley extended the temporary restraining order placed earlier this month in response to separate lawsuits filed by a group of 22 states plus organizations representing universities, hospitals and research institutions nationwide. During the hearing on Feb. 21, Kelley said she was extending that temporary block in order to allow for more time to develop a more permanent ruling. We are actively monitoring the situation and will share relevant updates as they become available.

On Friday, Feb. 14, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) regarding its position on discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Without any specific details or information, the letter broadly asserts the OCR’s position that any policy aimed at promoting racial diversity, inclusion, equity and accessibility is a violation of federal law. It further suggests that even policies perceived as race-neutral could be deemed unlawful. The OCR warns that institutions that do not adhere to its inaccurate interpretation of the law may risk losing federal funding.

On Friday, February 7, we received notification from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that it would implement a standard indirect cost rate of 15% across new and existing NIH grants. Many universities currently negotiate indirect cost rates with federal agencies at 50% or more, including SDSU.

On Monday, February 10, a coalition of 22 attorneys general, including the Attorney General of California, announced a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts to challenge these actions, and the District Judge approved the emergency motion for a temporary restraining order in the plaintiff states. PIs should continue to submit proposals to funding agencies using the rates detailed in our F&A Cost Rate Agreement (PDF).

On Feb. 10, several graduate and professional school associations sued the Trump administration over a plan to cut billions of dollars in NIH reimbursements to higher education institutions. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, seeks to overturn the proposed cuts, arguing the change violated established federal grant regulations and administrative law. Read the complaint online. This has subsequently led to two other lawsuits challenging the administration.

Also on Feb. 10, Judge Angel Kelley issued a nationwide injunction blocking the policy change, overriding a Feb. 10 temporary restraining order that only applied to the 22 states that had sued.

A hearing to address all three lawsuits related to the NIH rate cut has been set for Feb. 21 to determine if an extension of the restraining order should be granted as well as the next steps in the litigation.

On Friday, January 31, a federal court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) directing federal grant-making agencies to “...not pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel, or terminate... awards and obligations to provide federal financial assistance to the States, and... not impede the States’ access to such awards and obligations, except on the basis of the applicable authorizing statutes, regulations, and terms.”

The TRO is temporary, as litigation in the case is ongoing, so circumstances may change.

For now, PIs may continue all funded activities on awarded grants and contracts in accordance with the terms and conditions of their agreements and may disregard the cease work notices received over the past week from various agencies, unless a project specific work order notification is received.