The DOGE-ing of the Humanities Is Being Reversed

A federal court has ruled that the Trump administration’s cancellation of more than 1,400 National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants was unconstitutional, potentially restoring over $100 million in funding for humanities projects nationwide. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon, found that the agency responsible for the cancellations lacked authority to do so and that the actions violated constitutional protections, marking a significant legal setback for the previous administration’s efforts to influence cultural funding.

The case was brought by scholars, researchers, and humanities organizations, including Elizabeth Kadetsky and the Modern Language Association, after the Trump administration’s NEH officials canceled hundreds of grants last year. The cancellations relied on a chatbot and search terms related to diversity and inclusion, without proper authority or transparent process, according to court documents.

Judge McMahon’s 143-page ruling states that the NEH was established to support independent cultural and scholarly work, not serve as a tool for government expression or ideological enforcement. The court found that the agency’s actions violated the First and Fifth Amendments, which protect free speech and due process rights.

The White House responded minimally, with a spokesperson suggesting that the case involved “wasteful federal spending,” and did not specify any immediate plans to appeal. The NEH has not issued a public comment on the ruling.

Why It Matters

This decision is a legal affirmation of the independence of cultural and scholarly institutions from political interference. It challenges efforts during the Trump administration to reshape the narrative of American history and culture by selectively funding or canceling projects based on ideological criteria. The ruling could lead to the reinstatement of a significant portion of previously canceled grants, impacting hundreds of scholars and institutions, and setting a precedent for judicial oversight over administrative actions in federal funding.

Background

The NEH, founded in 1965, is the only federal agency dedicated solely to funding humanities research, education, and preservation. Under the Trump administration, the agency underwent drastic changes, including the firing of its peer-review board and the cancellation of numerous grants deemed politically inconvenient. In 2024, officials used AI tools and minimal criteria to identify grants for termination, often based on vague references to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

The court case emerged amid broader concerns about ideological overreach and attempts to sanitize American history, particularly regarding slavery and marginalized groups. The legal challenge was led by scholars and organizations who argued that the cancellations were arbitrary and unconstitutional, leading to the recent ruling.

“The NEH was not created as a vehicle for government expression, but rather to support the intellectual and cultural work of private citizens, scholars, teachers, writers, and institutions.”

— Judge Colleen McMahon

“Can you imagine if you win the Pulitzer Prize or the Nobel and they’re like, Oh, I’m sorry, never mind, you don’t have it?”

— Elizabeth Kadetsky

What Remains Unclear

It is not yet clear whether the Trump administration will appeal the ruling or how quickly the canceled grants might be reinstated. The legal process and potential for further litigation remain ongoing.

What’s Next

The administration could file an appeal, which may delay the reinstatement of funds. Meanwhile, affected scholars and institutions await further legal developments and potential restoration of grants. The case could also influence future federal funding policies and oversight mechanisms for cultural agencies.

Key Questions

Will the canceled NEH grants be restored immediately?

Not immediately. The court’s ruling could lead to reinstatement, but the government may appeal, which could delay the process.

What does this ruling mean for future federal funding of the humanities?

The ruling affirms that agencies like the NEH must operate independently and within legal bounds, potentially limiting political interference in future grant decisions.

Could this ruling impact other federal agencies’ funding decisions?

Yes, it could set a legal precedent that restricts arbitrary cancellations and emphasizes adherence to constitutional protections across federal agencies.

What was the basis for the original grant cancellations?

The cancellations were based on AI-driven searches and minimal review, targeting projects related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, with officials citing ideological reasons rather than procedural authority.