Judge rules Trump administration humanities grant cancellation unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the Trump administration's cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants was unconstitutional and DOGE had no authority to end the funding.

Objective Facts

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan ruled that the Trump administration's cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants to scholars, writers, research groups and other organizations was unconstitutional, and DOGE had no authority to end the funding. McMahon sided with The Authors Guild, several other groups and several people who had their grants canceled and permanently barred the administration from terminating the grants while criticizing DOGE's use of artificial intelligence. The grant cancellations were announced in April 2025, three months after Trump issued an executive order titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing," and NEH's acting chairman Michael McDonald wrote that the NEH was "repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President's agenda". McMahon found the government violated both the First Amendment and equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment by targeting projects viewed as supporting DEI initiatives through unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. McMahon stated that Congress had conferred no authority on DOGE to cut funding it appropriated, and it was President Donald Trump's "duty to execute the laws Congress has enacted".

Left-Leaning Perspective

Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for the Authors Guild, called the grant cancellations "a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection". MS NOW's opinion blog noted that Judge McMahon "rebuked the administration for instituting the cuts on a discriminatory basis" and highlighted a DOGE staffer's attempt to justify cutting grants for Jewish women survivors of Nazi persecution by classifying them as DEI because they "explore Jewish writers" and "highlight themes of witnessing, memory, and resilience". Left outlets characterized DOGE's effort as part of the Trump administration's "war on diversity" and noted that deposition videos that went viral earlier in 2026 showed DOGE employees unable to articulate why grants were flagged for removal under the guise of ending DEI. The American Council of Learned Societies stated "The humanities are not a luxury. They are how a democracy understands itself. Today's decision is a step toward honoring the will of Congress and our mission as a nation - to seek the truth, know ourselves, and build a better future on that knowledge". Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, called the ruling "an important achievement in our effort to restore the NEH's ability to fulfill the vital mission with which Congress charged it". According to PBS, Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi said "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," while also noting that the ruling "reaffirms that Congress's 60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive". Left-leaning coverage emphasizes the constitutional dimensions of the case—viewpoint discrimination, First Amendment violations, and congressional appropriations power—rather than the merit of any individual humanities projects. Coverage does not substantially address arguments that some federal spending could genuinely be considered wasteful or inefficient.

Right-Leaning Perspective

The White House, represented by spokesperson Davis Ingle, responded to the ruling by telling The Washington Post that "The district court's ruling is egregiously wrong" and that "It conflicts with clear Supreme Court precedent, and provides yet another example of liberal judges trying to reinstate wasteful federal spending at the expense of the American taxpayer". Right-leaning outlets noted that Trump empowered Elon Musk to "slash federal spending" as part of DOGE, and in depositions DOGE employees Justin Fox and Nate Cavanaugh defended the effort to cut "useless agencies" as part of DOGE's attempt to reduce the federal deficit. DOGE's stated position going forward is that "NEH grants will be merit-based and awarded to non-DEI, pro-America causes". Townhall magazine published commentary stating "We're getting tired of activist judges undermining the Trump administration and its work to control wasteful spending, end fraud, and right America's fiscal ship," and argued that "Countless judges have ruled against the Trump administration not because the administration is wrong, but because they don't like the President and his policy choices, and another judge did that with a ruling against Elon Musk's DOGE". Right-wing coverage frames the judiciary decision as ideologically motivated rather than legally sound, emphasizing that the administration's priorities are fiscal discipline and elimination of wasteful or ideologically-driven spending. Right-leaning coverage notably does not dispute the factual finding that DOGE officials specifically targeted projects based on perceived DEI content, nor does it contest the evidence about ChatGPT's role in grant selection. Instead, it contests the constitutional framework the judge applied and suggests the ruling protects unnecessary federal expenditures.

Deep Dive

This ruling reflects a fundamental collision between two competing constitutional doctrines: the Executive's spending discretion and Congress's appropriations power. The case centers on whether an incoming administration can decline to spend congressionally appropriated funds based on ideological objections to the original grants, or whether doing so requires congressional action. Judge McMahon found that the Trump administration not only lacked statutory authority but violated the First Amendment by selecting grants for termination based on their perceived viewpoints regarding diversity. The DOGE defense—that it was implementing legitimate cost-cutting and removing grants deemed inconsistent with agency priorities—raises real questions about executive flexibility in a changing policy environment. However, McMahon's ruling emphasizes that the selective targeting of grants based on protected characteristics and viewpoint, rather than neutral budgetary criteria, crossed a constitutional line. What the left correctly identifies is the problematic deployment of AI without clear definitions: DOGE staffers asked ChatGPT to identify DEI grants without telling the AI how they defined DEI, creating an opaque process where subjective judgments drove millions in cuts. McMahon's Flip Wilson analogy—"the devil made me do it"—effectively rejects the government's attempt to deflect accountability to the algorithm. What the right leaves underdeveloped is an explanation for how selections based on race, gender, and minority status could avoid viewpoint discrimination doctrine if applied transparently. The administration has signaled it will appeal, and precedent from NIH litigation suggests the Supreme Court may ultimately allow some grant terminations if the administration follows lawful procedures and the precedent showed that in August 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the NIH to move forward with terminating hundreds of grants, reversing lower court orders requiring reinstatement. The next battleground will likely be whether DOGE can devise a facially neutral process that achieves similar outcomes—a narrower path the judge left open by stating that "a new administration may pursue lawful funding priorities." Until then, the ruling freezes more than $100 million in congressionally appropriated humanities funding and exposes tensions between administrative efficiency and constitutional constraints on selective divestiture of government benefits based on viewpoint.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisPolicy GuideAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Judge rules Trump administration humanities grant cancellation unconstitutional

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the Trump administration's cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants was unconstitutional and DOGE had no authority to end the funding.

May 7, 2026· Updated May 9, 2026
What's Going On

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan ruled that the Trump administration's cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants to scholars, writers, research groups and other organizations was unconstitutional, and DOGE had no authority to end the funding. McMahon sided with The Authors Guild, several other groups and several people who had their grants canceled and permanently barred the administration from terminating the grants while criticizing DOGE's use of artificial intelligence. The grant cancellations were announced in April 2025, three months after Trump issued an executive order titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing," and NEH's acting chairman Michael McDonald wrote that the NEH was "repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President's agenda". McMahon found the government violated both the First Amendment and equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment by targeting projects viewed as supporting DEI initiatives through unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. McMahon stated that Congress had conferred no authority on DOGE to cut funding it appropriated, and it was President Donald Trump's "duty to execute the laws Congress has enacted".

Left says: Plaintiffs called the ruling a "direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection" and said it "reaffirms that Congress's 60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive".
Right says: White House spokesperson Davis Ingle called the ruling "egregiously wrong" and "another example of liberal judges trying to reinstate wasteful federal spending at the expense of the American taxpayer".
✓ Common Ground
Both left and right acknowledge that DOGE used AI and DEI keywords in some form to select grants for termination, though they disagree on whether this process was appropriate.
Both sides agree the case involves significant constitutional questions about executive authority, though they reach opposite conclusions about where constitutional boundaries lie.
Both acknowledge that Judge McMahon "declared the terminations unlawful, concluded that the DOGE staffers lacked the authority to make those decisions", though the right views this conclusion as legally mistaken.
Both recognize this ruling is part of a broader pattern of litigation between the Trump administration and the judiciary over federal spending and agency authority.
Objective Deep Dive

This ruling reflects a fundamental collision between two competing constitutional doctrines: the Executive's spending discretion and Congress's appropriations power. The case centers on whether an incoming administration can decline to spend congressionally appropriated funds based on ideological objections to the original grants, or whether doing so requires congressional action. Judge McMahon found that the Trump administration not only lacked statutory authority but violated the First Amendment by selecting grants for termination based on their perceived viewpoints regarding diversity. The DOGE defense—that it was implementing legitimate cost-cutting and removing grants deemed inconsistent with agency priorities—raises real questions about executive flexibility in a changing policy environment. However, McMahon's ruling emphasizes that the selective targeting of grants based on protected characteristics and viewpoint, rather than neutral budgetary criteria, crossed a constitutional line.

What the left correctly identifies is the problematic deployment of AI without clear definitions: DOGE staffers asked ChatGPT to identify DEI grants without telling the AI how they defined DEI, creating an opaque process where subjective judgments drove millions in cuts. McMahon's Flip Wilson analogy—"the devil made me do it"—effectively rejects the government's attempt to deflect accountability to the algorithm. What the right leaves underdeveloped is an explanation for how selections based on race, gender, and minority status could avoid viewpoint discrimination doctrine if applied transparently. The administration has signaled it will appeal, and precedent from NIH litigation suggests the Supreme Court may ultimately allow some grant terminations if the administration follows lawful procedures and the precedent showed that in August 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the NIH to move forward with terminating hundreds of grants, reversing lower court orders requiring reinstatement.

The next battleground will likely be whether DOGE can devise a facially neutral process that achieves similar outcomes—a narrower path the judge left open by stating that "a new administration may pursue lawful funding priorities." Until then, the ruling freezes more than $100 million in congressionally appropriated humanities funding and exposes tensions between administrative efficiency and constitutional constraints on selective divestiture of government benefits based on viewpoint.

◈ Tone Comparison

The White House's description of the ruling as "egregiously wrong" and protecting "wasteful federal spending" uses language of fundamental disagreement with both the judge's legal reasoning and values. By contrast, the Authors Guild's characterization of the cuts as "a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection" frames the case as a defense of fundamental rights. The left emphasizes constitutional principles and democratic values, while the right emphasizes fiscal responsibility and charges of judicial activism.