Judge SLAMS Trump Admin’s $100M Grant Cut

Front view of the Supreme Court building with large columns and steps under a blue sky

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s mass termination of over $100 million in humanities grants, finding that unelected bureaucrats used artificial intelligence to eliminate funding without legal authority—raising urgent questions about whether government efficiency efforts bypass both Congress and constitutional protections.

Quick Take

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency violated the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment equal protection rights, and lacked statutory authority to terminate 1,400+ congressionally appropriated National Endowment for the Humanities grants in April 2025.
DOGE staff in their 20s admitted using ChatGPT to flag grants without reviewing applications, targeting keywords like “history,” “culture,” and “identity” as diversity-related markers for elimination.
The court found DOGE “blatantly used” protected characteristics including race, ethnicity, religion, and sex as criteria for termination, citing the elimination of a grant supporting Jewish women Holocaust survivors as particularly troubling.
McMahon ordered the National Endowment for the Humanities to reinstate all terminated grants, though the White House has signaled plans to appeal the decision.

Inexperienced Staff, AI Shortcuts, and No Legal Authority

Court documents revealed that Department of Government Efficiency personnel tasked with reviewing humanities grants were in their 20s and “did not have much experience in anything at all—certainly not in anything remotely related to the humanities” [2]. Rather than examine individual grant applications or materials, DOGE staff deployed ChatGPT to flag projects, using diversity-related keywords as proxies for elimination. Judge McMahon noted that this process “did not conform to, or even resemble, the National Endowment for the Humanities’ ordinary grant-review process” [1].

Protected Characteristics Used as Termination Criteria

The judge found that DOGE systematically targeted grants based on protected characteristics prohibited under civil rights law. McMahon wrote that DOGE “swept in race and ethnicity… as well as national origin and immigration status; religion and religious identity… sex; and sexual orientation, as criteria for grant termination” [1]. Grants addressing Black civil rights history, Jewish Holocaust testimony, Asian American experiences, Native American history, and women’s voices were disproportionately eliminated. The court concluded this constituted illegal “viewpoint discrimination” under the First Amendment.

The most striking example involved a grant supporting research on Jewish women survivors of Nazi persecution. Judge McMahon emphasized: “Put simply, the Government terminated the grant because the grant sought to empower and amplify the voices of Jewish women who were victims of Nazi persecution” [2]. She added that “at a time when the specter of antisemitism has reemerged from the shadows, for our Government to deem a project about Jewish women disfavored because it centered on Jewish cultures and female voices is deeply troubling” [1].

Congressional Authority vs. Executive Power

The court’s core finding centered on statutory authority. McMahon ruled that DOGE lacked constitutional and legal power to terminate grants that Congress had already appropriated and the National Endowment for the Humanities had approved [3]. The executive branch cannot unilaterally block congressionally authorized spending based on policy preferences alone. This echoes decades of constitutional tension over impoundment—the presidential practice of withholding or reprogramming funds Congress has explicitly allocated.

JUST IN: A federal judge appointed by Clinton rules DOGE's terminations of humanities grants unlawful.

— Gokhshtein (@gokhshtein) May 8, 2026

The ruling declared the terminations “in violation of the First Amendment, in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, and without statutory authority” [3]. McMahon ordered the National Endowment for the Humanities to reinstate all terminated grants totaling over $100 million, marking the largest mass restoration of federal humanities funding in history [2].

Broader Questions About Government Accountability

This case crystallizes a frustration shared across the political spectrum: unelected officials making sweeping decisions that affect millions without transparent review, public input, or adherence to established procedures. Whether one supported DOGE’s efficiency mandate or opposed it, the court’s findings raise uncomfortable questions about how government operates when accountability mechanisms are sidestepped. The White House has signaled plans to appeal, suggesting this constitutional conflict will persist [1].