I'm pointing out a definitional misunderstanding. It's was a double negative misinterpreted as a single negative.

I see your point, but I think you are missing their point.

They are saying, the action taken by the administration is to cut funding to the department. This can't really be "obstructed" short of the director using their personal funds to pay people's salaries. It would require either people to work for free, or an outside source of money.