A federal judge in New York has ruled that the Trump administration’s cancellation of over $100 million in humanities grants was unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon found that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) did not have the legal authority to terminate the funding, siding with various scholars, writers, and research groups who had their grants canceled.
The Court’s Ruling
The lawsuit was filed by The Authors Guild, American Historical Association, and other groups against the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and DOGE. Judge McMahon permanently blocked the administration from ending the grants, criticizing DOGE’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) to target the funding cuts.
The ruling highlights the unconstitutional nature of viewpoint discrimination and violations of First and Fifth Amendment rights, particularly regarding the cancelation of grants based on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts.
Judge McMahon noted that canceling the grants based on their DEI associations was “a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.” She emphasized the importance of the public interest, stating that the public has a strong interest in ensuring the government operates within the constitutional framework set by Congress.
Government’s Argument and AI Involvement
Government officials argued that the grant cancellations were part of efforts to implement President Donald Trump’s directives to eliminate funding linked to DEI initiatives and reduce discretionary spending. This included an executive order from Trump in 2025, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”
However, Judge McMahon scrutinized how the government classified grants as DEI-related, even using AI platforms like ChatGPT to help identify the grants for cuts.
One example included an anthology titled “In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union,” which was labeled as DEI by the AI tool. McMahon rejected the government’s argument that AI, rather than human officials, made these classifications, stating that the use of AI did not excuse unconstitutional behavior.
Impact on Academic and Research Communities
The ruling was hailed by groups that filed the lawsuit. Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, called the decision an important achievement for restoring the NEH’s ability to support academic freedom and encourage freedom of thought through the humanities.
Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for the Authors Guild, called the cancellations a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection. He emphasized that the ruling reaffirmed Congress’s 60-year commitment to funding the humanities, which cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive branch.
The Canceled Grants
Many of the grants canceled under the Trump administration were awarded during the Biden administration, and the majority of the cuts targeted grants associated with DEI initiatives.
Only about 40 grants awarded by the Biden administration were spared from the cuts. The judge noted that while a new administration may pursue different funding priorities, it cannot suppress ideas it disagrees with by eliminating grants that support them.
Looking Ahead
This decision raises significant questions about the role of government power in regulating funding for academic and research projects, particularly when it comes to initiatives tied to political priorities like DEI.
The judge’s ruling underscores the necessity for the government to respect First Amendment rights and ensure that funding decisions are not based on political or ideological biases.
As the ruling stands, it could have lasting implications for how federal agencies allocate grants in the future and reinforce the idea that funding decisions should be based on merit and policy rather than political or ideological viewpoints.
