WASHINGTON, May 7 - A federal judge on Thursday found that the Trump administration’s mass cancellation of humanities grants last year was both unconstitutional and discriminatory, ruling that the agency behind the cuts exceeded its authority and engaged in viewpoint-based decision making.
The court reviewed the April termination of over 1,400 grants - amounts that together accounted for more than $100 million in congressionally appropriated funding - which had been awarded to scholars, writers, research institutions and other organizations in the humanities. The cuts were made by the Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, during a cost-cutting effort led by billionaire Elon Musk at the agency.
In a forceful rebuke, the judge wrote that "The Government engaged in blatant viewpoint discrimination." The ruling found that DOGE’s actions ran afoul of the First Amendment’s protections for free expression and the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection component, and that the agency lacked the legal authority to carry out the sweeping terminations.
"What mattered to DOGE was not whether a grant lacked scholarly merit, failed to comply with its terms, or fell outside NEH’s (National Endowment for the Humanities) statutory purposes. What mattered was that the grant concerned a 'minority group'"
The court said DOGE targeted grants that related to race and ethnicity - including work concerning Black, Asian, Latino, and Indigenous communities - as well as national origin and immigration status; religion and religious identity, including Jewish, Christian and Muslim subjects; sex; and sexual orientation. Those categories, the judge concluded, served as criteria for deciding which projects to terminate.
The opinion also addressed the role of agency staff in producing rationales for the terminations. According to the ruling, DOGE personnel used the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT to generate justifications for ending certain grants. The judge dismissed that as a way to cast off responsibility, writing that "The government cannot escape liability for DOGE’s work by scapegoating ChatGPT."
Advocacy groups and rights organizations have raised alarms about what they view as a broader campaign of attacks on educational and cultural institutions, diversity programs and historical sites. Those concerns include potential reversals of long-standing initiatives and a weakening of public recognition for significant chapters of American history.
The ruling noted that the administration has criticized many cultural and educational entities as centers of liberal influence and "anti-American" viewpoints, and has threatened to reduce their federal funding over issues ranging from pro-Palestinian protests to transgender policies, climate initiatives and diversity programs. Targets cited by critics include elite universities, the Smithsonian Institution, the Kennedy Center and public broadcasters such as National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.
The court’s decision underscores limits on agency authority to cancel congressionally awarded grants and affirms constitutional protections against viewpoint discrimination. It places DOGE’s actions squarely under judicial scrutiny and preserves legal recourse for affected scholars and institutions.