Federal Judge Rules Against Trump Administration’s Grant Cancellations
A recent federal court decision has declared the Trump administration’s termination of over $100 million in humanities grants as unconstitutional. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was found to have lacked the authority to halt these funds, as ruled by U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in New York.
Judge McMahon sided with The Authors Guild and other groups who challenged the grant cancellations. Her ruling permanently prevents the Trump administration from ending the grants and criticizes DOGE’s use of artificial intelligence in making these funding decisions.
The government defended its actions, claiming the cuts to over 1,400 congressionally approved grants were legal, aligning with President Donald Trump’s directives to reduce discretionary spending and eliminate grants related to diversion, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Despite this defense, McMahon noted that the cancellations infringed upon First and Fifth Amendment rights, labeling it as “unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.”
The White House and Department of Justice have yet to comment on the ruling, and it’s uncertain if they will appeal.
Judge McMahon emphasized the importance of federal compliance with constitutional boundaries, writing, “The public interest favors permanent relief.” She underscored that federal officials must act within the limits established by Congress and the Constitution.
Groups involved in the lawsuit, such as the American Council of Learned Societies and the American Historical Association, celebrated the decision. Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, remarked, “This ruling is an important achievement in our effort to restore the NEH’s ability to fulfill the vital mission with which Congress charged it.”
Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, representing the Authors Guild, described the grant cancellations as “a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection.” He expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, affirming it as a victory for academics and institutions vital to democracy.
The ruling also scrutinized the government’s use of AI, specifically ChatGPT, to classify and target DEI-related projects for funding cuts. McMahon pointed out instances where the AI identified projects like “In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union” as DEI, arguing that such classification was inappropriate.
McMahon dismissed the government’s rationale that any viewpoint classification was the AI’s responsibility, stating, “ChatGPT was the Government’s chosen instrument for purposes of this project.” She emphasized that using AI does not justify unconstitutional actions.
The grants were initially canceled following Trump’s executive orders in early 2025, aimed at ending what he called “Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs.” Michael McDonald, then acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, informed recipients of the cancellations, citing the redirection of funding to align with the President’s agenda.
Most of the affected grants had been awarded during the Biden administration, with only a few spared from cuts. Judge McMahon clarified that while administrations may lawfully set funding priorities, they cannot suppress ideas they disfavor.
In a previous temporary block on the grant cancellations, the judge had already raised concerns about the administration’s attempts to eliminate certain viewpoints from public discourse.
