A federal judge in Manhattan has struck down the Trump administration's cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants, ruling that the decision violated the Constitution and exceeded the authority of the Department of Government Efficiency.
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon issued a permanent bar on Thursday preventing the administration from terminating the grants after hearing claims from The Authors Guild, scholarly associations, and individual recipients who challenged the cuts. The decision represents a significant legal setback for the administration's aggressive defunding campaign launched earlier this year.
The administration had canceled more than 1,400 grants of congressionally approved funds starting in April, arguing the moves were necessary to eliminate initiatives tied to diversity, equity and inclusion programs and to reduce discretionary spending. The Department of Justice defended the cancellations as a lawful implementation of presidential directives.
McMahon's ruling found that the government violated both the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection protections. She went further, characterizing the DEI-based classifications as "a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination." The judge emphasized that while administrations may pursue different funding priorities, "it has no license to suppress disfavored ideas."
A particularly striking element of McMahon's decision focused on the government's use of artificial intelligence to identify which grants to cut. Officials employed ChatGPT to flag projects as DEI-related, including an anthology of short fiction by Jewish writers from the Soviet Union titled "In the Shadow of the Holocaust." The judge rejected the government's attempt to distance itself from the AI's classifications, writing that using ChatGPT as "the Government's chosen instrument" does not excuse unconstitutional conduct or shield officials from legal accountability.
"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," McMahon wrote.
Scholars and advocacy groups that brought the lawsuit welcomed the decision. The American Historical Association, American Council of Learned Societies, and Modern Language Association issued a joint statement calling the ruling "an important achievement" in efforts to restore the National Endowment for the Humanities' ability to fulfill its congressional mandate of fostering "a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry."
Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for the Authors Guild, framed the victory as a defense of democratic principles. "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. "It also reaffirms that Congress's 60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive."
The cancellations began in earnest after Trump issued an executive order in January titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing." A subsequent February order put flesh on those bones, implementing what DOGE called its "cost efficiency initiative." Acting NEH Chairman Michael McDonald notified grant recipients of terminations in April, stating the agency was "repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President's agenda."
Nearly all of the canceled grants had been awarded during the Biden administration. McMahon noted in her decision that only about 40 grants from that period escaped the cuts, underscoring the selective nature of the terminations.
The White House and Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment on the ruling. It remains unclear whether the administration plans to appeal the decision.
McMahon's conclusion struck at the heart of the administration's approach, stating that "the public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution."
Author Sarah Mitchell: "This decision is a meaningful check on executive overreach, but the real test comes if the administration actually complies rather than fighting through appeals."
Comments