The Trump administration’s decision to cancel over $100 million in humanities grants was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, who criticized the government’s use of artificial intelligence in the funding cuts.
In a pivotal ruling on May 7, 2026, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon determined that the Trump administration’s termination of more than $100 million in grants awarded to various scholars and organizations was unconstitutional. The judge’s decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by The Authors Guild, along with several academic and cultural organizations, against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
Judge McMahon’s ruling permanently prohibits the administration from terminating the grants and sharply criticized DOGE’s reliance on artificial intelligence in executing the funding cuts. This case has drawn attention not only for its implications for the humanities but also for broader questions of constitutional rights and governmental authority.
Background of the Grant Cancellations
The grants in question, which numbered over 1,400, were initially funded by congressional approval before being canceled under directives from President Donald Trump. The Trump administration argued that the cancellations were part of a legal effort to streamline government spending, focusing on eliminating what they termed “diversion, equity, and inclusion” programs. However, the abrupt cancellation raised alarms regarding potential violations of constitutional rights.
Judge McMahon highlighted that the government’s actions amounted to “textbook examples of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination,” particularly criticizing the cancellations based on criteria related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The ruling underscored the administration’s failure to operate within the bounds set by Congress.
Legal Arguments and Judicial Findings
In her ruling, McMahon emphasized that the government had violated both the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause. She noted that the public interest strongly favors preventing the government from acting beyond its legal authority. “The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution,” she asserted.
Several organizations involved in the lawsuit, including the American Council of Learned Societies and the American Historical Association, celebrated the decision as a significant victory for the humanities. Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, described the ruling as a crucial step toward restoring the NEH’s mission of fostering a climate conducive to free thought and inquiry.
Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney representing The Authors Guild, characterized the grant cancellations as a direct affront to constitutional free speech and equal protection rights. Onayemi expressed satisfaction with the ruling, stating, “It also reaffirms that Congress’s 60-year-old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive.”
Critique of AI Utilization in Funding Decisions
A central aspect of the case involved the government’s use of artificial intelligence tools, such as ChatGPT, to classify grant projects and identify those eligible for cuts. Judge McMahon scrutinized this methodology, noting an instance where an anthology titled “In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union” was improperly categorized as DEI-related. This raised serious questions about the reliability and accountability of AI-driven decision-making in governmental processes.
In her ruling, McMahon firmly rejected the argument that any constitutional issues stemmed from the AI’s classification rather than government action. “ChatGPT was the Government’s chosen instrument for purposes of this project,” she wrote, emphasizing that the use of AI does not absolve the government from accountability for unconstitutional conduct.
Implications of the Ruling
The ruling comes in the wake of an executive order issued by Trump in April 2025, which aimed to eliminate DEI programs across federal agencies. The decision to cancel grants was communicated to recipients through letters from Michael McDonald, then acting chairman of the NEH, who indicated that the NEH was “repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President’s agenda.”
Notably, many of the canceled grants had been awarded during the Biden administration, with only about 40 grants from that period remaining intact. Judge McMahon pointed out that while a new administration may pursue its funding priorities, it cannot suppress ideas or viewpoints that it disfavored.
As the ruling raises significant questions regarding the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, it remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will appeal the decision. The White House and Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment immediately following the ruling, leaving the possibility of further legal developments open.
