Judge blocks Trump's $100 million humanities grant cancellation as unconstitutional

A federal judge in Manhattan permanently blocked the Trump administration from cancelling more than $100 million in National Endowment for the Humanities grants, ruling that the cuts represented unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination carried out with the help of ChatGPT.

US District Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York issued the permanent injunction on Thursday, siding with authors, historians and scholarly organisations that sued after the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, ordered the NEH to terminate more than 1,400 congressionally approved grants. The ruling converts a temporary restraining order issued last year into a permanent injunction.

In her ruling, McMahon described the cancellations as “a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.” She found violations of the First Amendment’s free speech protections, the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee and the constitutional separation of powers.

“ChatGPT was the Government’s chosen instrument for purposes of this project,” McMahon wrote. “Neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it.”

The affected grants covered humanities research, public programmes and educational initiatives. Among them was an anthology titled “In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union,” which ChatGPT had classified as a DEI project. Only about 40 grants awarded during the Biden administration were spared from the cuts.

The Authors Guild led the legal challenge, joined by the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association, along with individual grantees whose funding was terminated.

The NEH, established in 1965, awards about 1,000 grants each year for research, education and public programmes in history, literature, philosophy and other humanities disciplines. The terminated grants supported projects at universities, museums and cultural institutions across the country. The projects included museum exhibitions, archival preservation work and educational programmes at more than 200 institutions, according to court filings.

The DOGE directive

The cancellations traced back to a February 2025 executive order by President Donald Trump directing DOGE to identify federal spending that could be eliminated under a cost efficiency initiative. Three months later, in April 2025, NEH acting chairman Michael McDonald sent cancellation letters to more than 1,400 grantees.

Government lawyers argued the cuts were a lawful exercise of executive discretion to implement Trump’s executive orders, eliminate grants tied to “diversion, equity and inclusion” and reduce discretionary spending. They also contended that because ChatGPT performed the classification work, the government could not be held responsible for viewpoint discrimination.

McMahon rejected that defence. She wrote that DOGE lacked lawful authority to cancel the grants and that using an AI tool did not insulate the government from constitutional scrutiny. Internal communications showed DOGE officials used ChatGPT to label grants as DEI-related, then used those labels to justify termination. She also found the government had violated the separation of powers doctrine. She cited specific examples where ChatGPT misclassified projects, including the Holocaust-era Jewish fiction anthology and a project on African American civil rights history.

The legal challenge

The plaintiffs filed suit after receiving their termination notices in April 2025, arguing the cancellations violated federal law and the Constitution. Individual plaintiffs included historians and researchers whose projects were halted mid-course. The plaintiffs also argued the government failed to provide a reasoned explanation for the terminations, as required under the Administrative Procedure Act. A temporary block on the cancellations was issued later that year, preserving affected grants while the case proceeded through discovery and summary judgment.

Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for the Authors Guild, called the cancellations “a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection.” Sarah Weicksel of the American Historical Association said the ruling restores the NEH’s ability to create “a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination and inquiry.”

“The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution,” McMahon concluded.

Broader pattern

The ruling adds to a growing list of court setbacks for Trump administration cost-cutting initiatives. A federal trade court separately ruled this week that the president’s temporary 10 per cent global tariff was illegal. Another judge blocked construction of a White House ballroom project in an opinion that found the administration had overstepped its spending authority. DOGE authority over federal spending allocations is being challenged in multiple courts.

What happens next

The White House and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Justice Department has not indicated whether it will appeal. An appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals remains possible. The NEH also declined to comment.

For grant recipients whose funding was restored, the permanent injunction means their projects can proceed while any appeal works through the courts. The order prevents the government from attempting the same cancellations again without new legal authority from Congress.