AP News53%
Judge rules Trump administration’s cancellation of humanities grants was unconstitutional 45%
By DAVE COLLINS53%
5/8/2026, 12:26:47 AM
Topics: Humanities Funding, Trump Administration, Unconstitutional Actions, Grant Cancellations, AI In Government, Viewpoint Discrimination, First Amendment, Fifth Amendment
Keywords: Donald Trump, Colleen Mcmahon, Department Of Government Efficiency, United States Government, Artificial Intelligence, National Endowment For The Humanities, Lawsuits, United States, New York City, Dc Wire, District Of Columbia, New York, Government Budgets, Diversity Equity And Inclusion, Subsidies, Politics, Manhattan, Censorship, Education, Civil Rights, Human Rights, Sarah Weicksel, Michael Mcdonald, U S Department Of Justice, Race And Ethnicity
BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 61.6% saturation with 181 hits. Analysis detected 900 faulty-reasoning hits from 294 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.1% and a BS Rank of 45% (10,115 of 18,323 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.20% of the article peer group.
A federal judge in New York has ruled that the Trump administration’s cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants was unconstitutional, and the Department of Government Efficiency had no authority to end the funding, a federal judge in Manhattan sided with The Authors Guild, several other groups and several people who had their grants canceled and sued DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
McMahon permanently barred the administration from terminating the grants and criticized DOGE’s use of artificial intelligence in nixing the funding.
Government lawyers had argued that the cuts of more than 1,400 grants of congressionally approved funds were legal moves to implement President Donald Trump’s directives, eliminate grants associated with diversion, equity and inclusion and reduce discretionary spending under the administration’s priorities.
The White House and Department of Justice, which defended against the lawsuit, did not immediately return emails seeking comment Thursday evening.
It was not immediately clear if an appeal was planned.
“The public interest favors permanent relief,” McMahon wrote in her ruling.
“The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution.”
Many of the canceled grants were awarded during the Biden administration, and only about 40 grants awarded by that administration were spared from the cuts, the judge wrote.
McMahon wrote that while a new administration may pursue lawful funding priorities, “it has no license to suppress disfavored ideas.”
In a temporary block of the grant cancellations issued last year that raised First Amendment and other issues, the judge said the “defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients’ perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas.”
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.