A U.S. federal judge has ruled that the termination of hundreds of humanities grants was unlawful and discriminatory. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an arm of the Trump administration, ended more than 1,400 grants last year. These grants represented over $100 million in congressionally approved funds. Scholars, writers, and research groups were receiving this money. The ruling came on Thursday from U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon.
The judge found the government engaged in "blatant viewpoint discrimination." This was part of a cost-cutting effort led by billionaire Elon Musk at DOGE. Judge McMahon stated the terminations violated the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment for free speech. They also violated the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause. Furthermore, the judge determined that DOGE lacked the legal power to end these grants. The issue was not whether grants lacked merit. Instead, the judge noted, "What mattered was that the grant concerned a 'minority group'."
This legal decision fits into a larger U.S. discourse about federal funding for arts and education. Previous administrations have allocated significant resources to these sectors. The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), for example, has a long history of supporting diverse academic work. The judge's findings highlight concerns that such funding decisions were based on prohibited criteria. These criteria included race, ethnicity, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. The judge specifically mentioned grants related to Black, Asian, Latino, and Indigenous communities.
"The Government engaged in blatant viewpoint discrimination," U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon stated in her ruling. She added that DOGE did not consider scholarly merit. "What mattered to DOGE was not whether a grant lacked scholarly merit... What mattered was that the grant concerned a 'minority group'," the judge explained. The judge also noted that the use of artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT by DOGE staff would not excuse the government's actions. "The government cannot escape liability for DOGE's work by scapegoating ChatGPT," the judge wrote.
The implications of this ruling are significant for federal grant-making and oversight. It sets a precedent against using discriminatory criteria for funding decisions. Rights advocates worry about past attacks on educational and arts institutions. These attacks could reverse decades of social progress. They could also undermine acknowledgement of important historical events. The ruling may lead to reviews of other grant terminations. Decision-makers will likely scrutinize future funding allocations for potential biases. The legal challenge involved substantial public funds, making the outcome impactful for the arts community and taxpayers.