Judge rules Trump administration's cancellation of $100M+ humanities grants unconstitutional

Judge rules Trump administration's cancellation of humanities grants was unconstitutional

The Trump administration's cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants to scholars, writers, research groups and other organizations was unconstitutional, and the Department of Government Efficiency had no authority to end the funding, a federal judge in New York ruled on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan sided with The Authors Guild, several other groups and several people who had their grants canceled and sued DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities. McMahon permanently barred the administration from terminating the grants and criticized DOGE's use of artificial intelligence in nixing the funding. Government lawyers had argued that the cuts of more than 1,400 grants of congressionally approved funds were legal moves to implement President Donald Trump's directives, eliminate grants associated with diversion, equity and inclusion and reduce discretionary spending under the administration's priorities. The White House and Department of Justice, which defended against the lawsuit, did not immediately return emails seeking comment Thursday evening. It was not immediately clear if an appeal was planned. McMahon said the government violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection right, and DOGE did not have the lawful authority to cancel the grants. She wrote, for example, that it was "a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination" when officials canceled the grants based on DEI. "The public interest favors permanent relief," McMahon wrote in her ruling. "The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution." Several groups that sued the government, including the American Council of Learned Societies, American Historical Association and Modern Language Association, hailed the decision in a joint statement. "This ruling in an important achievement in our effort to restore the NEH's ability to fulfill the vital mission with which Congress charged it: helping to create and sustain 'a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry' through the humanities," said Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association. Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for the Authors Guild, called the grant cancellations "a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection." "We're pleased with the Court's decision, which vindicates our clients: the brilliant academics, writers, and institutions doing work that is deeply important to our democracy," Onayemi said in a statement. "It also reaffirms that Congress's 60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive." The judge scrutinized how government officials classified grant projects as DEI and used ChatGPT to target them for funding cuts. In one case, she said officials, using the AI platform, labeled as DEI an anthology titled "In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union." She also listed numerous other examples. McMahon also rejected the government's argument that there was no constitutional problem because any viewpoint classification was ChatGPT's doing, and not the government's. "ChatGPT was the Government's chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE's use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it," she wrote. The grant cancellations were announced in April 2025, three months after Trump issued an executive order titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing." In February 2025, Trump issued another executive order implementing DOGE's "cost efficiency initiative." Michael McDonald, then the acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, sent letters to grant recipients informing them that their grants were canceled. In a letter to one organization on April 1, 2025, he wrote, "The NEH has reasonable cause to terminate your grant in light of the fact that the NEH is repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President's agenda." Many of the canceled grants were awarded during the Biden administration, and only about 40 grants awarded by that administration were spared from the cuts, the judge wrote. McMahon wrote that while a new administration may pursue lawful funding priorities, "it has no license to suppress disfavored ideas." In a temporary block of the grant cancellations issued last year that raised First Amendment and other issues, the judge said the "defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas."

Judge rules Trump administration's cancellation of humanities grants was unconstitutional

The Trump administration's cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants to scholars, writers, research groups and other organizations was unconstitutional, and the Department of Government Efficiency had no authority to end the funding, a federal judge in New York ruled on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan sided with The Authors Guild, several other groups and several people who had their grants canceled and sued DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities. McMahon permanently barred the administration from terminating the grants and criticized DOGE's use of artificial intelligence in nixing the funding. Government lawyers had argued that the cuts of more than 1,400 grants of congressionally approved funds were legal moves to implement President Donald Trump's directives, eliminate grants associated with diversion, equity and inclusion and reduce discretionary spending under the administration's priorities. The White House and Department of Justice, which defended against the lawsuit, did not immediately return emails seeking comment Thursday evening. It was not immediately clear if an appeal was planned. McMahon said the government violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection right, and DOGE did not have the lawful authority to cancel the grants. She wrote, for example, that it was "a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination" when officials canceled the grants based on DEI. "The public interest favors permanent relief," McMahon wrote in her ruling. "The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution." Several groups that sued the government, including the American Council of Learned Societies, American Historical Association and Modern Language Association, hailed the decision in a joint statement. "This ruling in an important achievement in our effort to restore the NEH's ability to fulfill the vital mission with which Congress charged it: helping to create and sustain 'a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry' through the humanities," said Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association. Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for the Authors Guild, called the grant cancellations "a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection." "We're pleased with the Court's decision, which vindicates our clients: the brilliant academics, writers, and institutions doing work that is deeply important to our democracy," Onayemi said in a statement. "It also reaffirms that Congress's 60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive." The judge scrutinized how government officials classified grant projects as DEI and used ChatGPT to target them for funding cuts. In one case, she said officials, using the AI platform, labeled as DEI an anthology titled "In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union." She also listed numerous other examples. McMahon also rejected the government's argument that there was no constitutional problem because any viewpoint classification was ChatGPT's doing, and not the government's. "ChatGPT was the Government's chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE's use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it," she wrote. The grant cancellations were announced in April 2025, three months after Trump issued an executive order titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing." In February 2025, Trump issued another executive order implementing DOGE's "cost efficiency initiative." Michael McDonald, then the acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, sent letters to grant recipients informing them that their grants were canceled. In a letter to one organization on April 1, 2025, he wrote, "The NEH has reasonable cause to terminate your grant in light of the fact that the NEH is repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President's agenda." Many of the canceled grants were awarded during the Biden administration, and only about 40 grants awarded by that administration were spared from the cuts, the judge wrote. McMahon wrote that while a new administration may pursue lawful funding priorities, "it has no license to suppress disfavored ideas." In a temporary block of the grant cancellations issued last year that raised First Amendment and other issues, the judge said the "defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas."

Judge rules Trump administration's cancellation of humanities grants was unconstitutional

The Trump administration's cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants to scholars, writers, research groups and other organizations was unconstitutional, and the Department of Government Efficiency had no authority to end the funding, a federal judge in New York ruled on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan sided with The Authors Guild, several other groups and several people who had their grants canceled and sued DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities. McMahon permanently barred the administration from terminating the grants and criticized DOGE's use of artificial intelligence in nixing the funding. Government lawyers had argued that the cuts of more than 1,400 grants of congressionally approved funds were legal moves to implement President Donald Trump's directives, eliminate grants associated with diversion, equity and inclusion and reduce discretionary spending under the administration's priorities. The White House and Department of Justice, which defended against the lawsuit, did not immediately return emails seeking comment Thursday evening. It was not immediately clear if an appeal was planned. McMahon said the government violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection right, and DOGE did not have the lawful authority to cancel the grants. She wrote, for example, that it was "a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination" when officials canceled the grants based on DEI. "The public interest favors permanent relief," McMahon wrote in her ruling. "The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution." Several groups that sued the government, including the American Council of Learned Societies, American Historical Association and Modern Language Association, hailed the decision in a joint statement. "This ruling in an important achievement in our effort to restore the NEH's ability to fulfill the vital mission with which Congress charged it: helping to create and sustain 'a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry' through the humanities," said Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association. Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for the Authors Guild, called the grant cancellations "a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection." "We're pleased with the Court's decision, which vindicates our clients: the brilliant academics, writers, and institutions doing work that is deeply important to our democracy," Onayemi said in a statement. "It also reaffirms that Congress's 60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive." The judge scrutinized how government officials classified grant projects as DEI and used ChatGPT to target them for funding cuts. In one case, she said officials, using the AI platform, labeled as DEI an anthology titled "In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union." She also listed numerous other examples. McMahon also rejected the government's argument that there was no constitutional problem because any viewpoint classification was ChatGPT's doing, and not the government's. "ChatGPT was the Government's chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE's use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it," she wrote. The grant cancellations were announced in April 2025, three months after Trump issued an executive order titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing." In February 2025, Trump issued another executive order implementing DOGE's "cost efficiency initiative." Michael McDonald, then the acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, sent letters to grant recipients informing them that their grants were canceled. In a letter to one organization on April 1, 2025, he wrote, "The NEH has reasonable cause to terminate your grant in light of the fact that the NEH is repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President's agenda." Many of the canceled grants were awarded during the Biden administration, and only about 40 grants awarded by that administration were spared from the cuts, the judge wrote. McMahon wrote that while a new administration may pursue lawful funding priorities, "it has no license to suppress disfavored ideas." In a temporary block of the grant cancellations issued last year that raised First Amendment and other issues, the judge said the "defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas."