A federal judge in New York has reportedly ruled that the Trump administration’s decision to cancel more than $100 million in humanities grants was unconstitutional, delivering a sharp rebuke to the use of executive power and raising broader questions about how far any administration can go in reshaping federal priorities.
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon sided with a coalition of plaintiffs that included the Authors Guild and several academic groups, issuing a permanent order blocking the termination of more than 1,400 grants previously approved by Congress. The lawsuit challenged actions taken by the Department of Government Efficiency, as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities.
In her ruling, McMahon concluded that the government violated both the First Amendment and the equal protection guarantees of the Fifth Amendment. She also found that the Department of Government Efficiency lacked the legal authority to cancel the funding in the first place.
Government lawyers had argued that the cuts were part of a broader effort to carry out directives from President Donald Trump, including reducing discretionary spending and eliminating grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. But the court rejected that reasoning, calling the actions a “textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.”
“The public interest favors permanent relief,” McMahon wrote, emphasizing that federal officials must operate within the limits set by Congress and the Constitution, regardless of shifting political priorities.
The ruling also took aim at the methods used to identify which grants would be cut. According to the decision, government officials relied in part on artificial intelligence tools to classify projects as related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. McMahon cited examples where that classification appeared questionable, including the labeling of an anthology focused on Jewish writers as DEI-related.
The judge dismissed the government’s argument that any issues with classification were the result of the AI system itself rather than government intent. She wrote that using such tools does not shield officials from constitutional responsibility, noting that the technology was chosen and deployed by the government.
The grants at the center of the dispute were canceled in April 2025, following executive orders aimed at eliminating what the administration described as “radical and wasteful” DEI programs and implementing a broader cost-efficiency initiative. Letters sent to recipients at the time indicated that funding was being redirected to align with the president’s agenda.
Many of the affected grants had been awarded during the previous administration, and only a small number were spared. The court’s decision makes clear that while a new administration can set policy direction, it cannot suppress ideas it disfavors.
Several academic and professional organizations welcomed the ruling, saying it restores the National Endowment for the Humanities’ ability to carry out its mission of supporting scholarship and inquiry. Attorneys for the plaintiffs described the cancellations as an attack on free speech and praised the court for reaffirming constitutional protections.
The decision underscores a deeper tension that extends beyond this case. While efforts to rein in government spending and reshape priorities are a central part of political leadership, the ruling serves as a reminder that such efforts must still operate within constitutional boundaries. In an era where policy battles increasingly resemble broader ideological conflicts, the court’s message is clear: even sweeping reforms must respect the limits of law and the principles of open debate.
[READ MORE: GOP Lawmaker Raises Intelligence Concerns in Podcast Discussion on Threats Against Trump]
