A federal judge in New York issued a temporary injunction late Friday night to block the Trump administration’s mass cancellation of humanities grants, citing serious constitutional violations involving the First Amendment. The ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing battle over academic freedom, federal funding for the arts, and politically motivated censorship.

The case stems from a decision by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to terminate dozens of active grants previously awarded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)—many of them supporting research related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or U.S. historical scholarship.

In her ruling, Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stated that the Trump administration's actions appeared to be rooted in viewpoint discrimination, in violation of the Constitution.

She highlighted internal government documents, including termination notices citing executive orders aimed at ending ‘Radical Indoctrination,’ opposing DEI programs, and promoting ‘Biological Truth’—phrases that appear to echo partisan rhetoric rather than objective policy criteria.

Among the grants halted was funding for a professor’s book exploring the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan during the 1970s and 1980s. Federal records labeled this project as DEI-related, a classification that appeared to trigger its cancellation.

Other terminated projects included history-focused research on racial justice, marginalized communities, and civil rights, all of which were flagged in a government spreadsheet titled “Copy of NEH Active Grants.” Judge McMahon concluded that the administration targeted these projects because of their content and perceived ideological bent.

In a powerful rebuke, McMahon acknowledged the administration's right to shift agency priorities, especially as the U.S. prepares to celebrate its 250th anniversary in 2026. However, she made clear that ideological interference crosses a constitutional line:

The judge also noted that some grant terminations appeared to be based solely on the fact that they had been awarded during the Biden administration, suggesting partisan retaliation rather than objective oversight.

The Authors Guild, representing thousands of writers and researchers, filed a class action lawsuit in May against both the NEH and DOGE. The Guild argued that the sudden cancellations halted core work vital to America’s intellectual and cultural infrastructure.

The injunction preserves the status quo, preventing the government from reallocating the grant funds while the broader lawsuit continues. However, not all plaintiffs were successful—the judge denied a similar request from the American Council of Learned Societies, which had filed its own claims alongside the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association.

The ruling doesn’t reinstate the grants yet—but it does freeze any further action until a full trial determines whether the cancellations were unlawful. With lawsuits multiplying from humanities groups, universities, and nonprofit associations, this case may become a landmark legal battle over political interference in federally funded research.

As the 2026 Semiquincentennial approaches and debates intensify over how America tells its history, the outcome of this case could have lasting implications for the freedom of academic inquiry, the role of the federal government in cultural funding, and the limits of executive power.