Federal Judge Slams Trump Administration for Unconstitutional Cancellation of $100M Humanities Grants

In a decisive rebuke of Trump-era authoritarian overreach, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon of Manhattan declared the Trump administration’s cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants unconstitutional. The ruling, handed down Thursday, permanently bars the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from terminating grants awarded to scholars, writers, and research organizations.

The grants, totaling over 1,400 and approved by Congress, were abruptly canceled in April 2025 under directives from Trump’s executive orders aimed at “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing” and implementing DOGE’s “cost efficiency initiative.” Government lawyers defended the cuts as lawful budget reallocations aligned with the administration’s priorities. But Judge McMahon found otherwise.

“This is a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination,” McMahon wrote, highlighting that many canceled grants were targeted solely because they involved diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) themes. The judge also condemned DOGE’s reliance on artificial intelligence—specifically ChatGPT—to classify projects as DEI and decide which grants to cut. In one glaring example, an anthology titled “In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union” was flagged and defunded by the AI.

The court rejected the government’s attempt to blame AI for the unconstitutional actions, noting that ChatGPT was the administration’s chosen tool and did not absolve them of responsibility. The ruling emphasized that the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause were violated by suppressing certain viewpoints through funding cuts.

The lawsuit was brought by The Authors Guild, the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Historical Association, the Modern Language Association, and individual grant recipients. They argued that the administration’s actions were a direct assault on free speech and equal protection, undermining Congress’s 60-year commitment to supporting the humanities.

Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, hailed the ruling as a critical victory for the humanities and democratic inquiry. Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, attorney for the Authors Guild, called the grant cancellations “a direct assault on constitutional free speech” and praised the court for reaffirming that an overreaching executive cannot dismantle Congress’s funding commitments.

Judge McMahon underscored that while a new administration can set lawful funding priorities, it cannot “suppress disfavored ideas.” The ruling stands as a stark warning against executive overreach that weaponizes budget cuts to silence dissenting or marginalized voices.

This case exposes a troubling pattern of the Trump administration bypassing Congress and constitutional limits to impose ideological censorship under the guise of cost-cutting. It also highlights the dangers of outsourcing critical government decisions to unaccountable AI systems.

The White House and Department of Justice have not yet responded to requests for comment, and it remains unclear if they will appeal the ruling. Meanwhile, this decision marks a significant win for transparency, accountability, and the preservation of free expression in publicly funded scholarship.