A federal judge in New York has ruled that the Trump administration’s cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants was unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon determined that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) lacked the lawful authority to end the funding provided to scholars, writers, and research organizations.
Court Cites Viewpoint Discrimination
Judge McMahon permanently barred the administration from terminating the grants, ruling that the government violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection right. The judge described the cancellation of grants based on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as a “textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.”
In her decision, the judge noted that while new administrations can pursue lawful funding priorities, they have “no license to suppress disfavored ideas.” The ruling emphasized the public interest in ensuring federal officials operate within the bounds set by the Constitution and Congress.
The Role of Artificial Intelligence
The court heavily scrutinized the government’s use of ChatGPT to identify and target grants for termination. The judge rejected the administration’s argument that the AI was responsible for the viewpoint classification, stating that ChatGPT was the government’s “chosen instrument” and its use did not excuse unconstitutional conduct.
As an example of this process, the judge highlighted an anthology titled “In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union,” which officials labeled as DEI using the AI platform. The court found that the government attempted to drive certain views out of the “marketplace of ideas” based on perceived viewpoints.
Background and Administrative Actions
The grant cancellations were announced in April 2025, following two executive orders. One, issued in February 2025, implemented DOGE’s “cost efficiency initiative,” while another focused on “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.”
Michael McDonald, the then-acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), informed recipients of the cuts via letters. In one April 1, 2025, letter, McDonald stated the NEH was “repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President’s agenda.”
Reactions from Scholarly Groups
The decision was hailed by several plaintiffs, including the American Council of Learned Societies, the Modern Language Association, and the American Historical Association. Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, called the ruling an “important achievement” in restoring the NEH’s mission to sustain a climate of “freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry.”
Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for The Authors Guild, described the cancellations as a “direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection.” Onayemi added that the ruling reaffirms that a “60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive.”
Potential Next Steps
The White House and the Department of Justice did not immediately return emails for comment following the ruling. While the judge has permanently barred the terminations, the administration may choose to challenge the decision, though This proves not immediately clear if an appeal is planned.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the government cancel the humanities grants?
Government lawyers argued the cuts were legal moves to implement President Trump’s directives, reduce discretionary spending, and eliminate grants associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
How were the grants selected for termination?
Government officials used ChatGPT to identify and classify grant projects as DEI-related to target them for funding cuts.
What legal grounds did the judge use to overturn the cancellations?
Judge McMahon ruled that the actions violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection right, stating that DOGE lacked the statutory authority to cancel the congressionally approved funds.
How should the government balance cost-efficiency initiatives with the protection of constitutional free speech?
