District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan has overturned an attempt by the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cancel more than $100 million in...
In a ruling that sided with The Authors Guild, Judge McMahon determined that the government engaged in viewpoint discrimination by targeting specific institutions.
As a result of the decision, the administration is permanently prohibited from terminating the grants in question.
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan has overturned an attempt by the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cancel more than $100 million in humanities grants.
In a ruling that sided with The Authors Guild, Judge McMahon determined that the government engaged in viewpoint discrimination by targeting specific institutions. The court found that the administration behaved illegally by targeting arts and humanities programs on the grounds that they promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
As a result of the decision, the administration is permanently prohibited from terminating the grants in question.
Judge McMahon specifically criticized the Department of Government Efficiency for its use of artificial intelligence to determine which programs should be defunded.
DOGE is managed by Tesla CEO Elon Musk, a supporter of President Trump. The judge ruled that the agency lacked the legal authority to cancel the grants.
Government lawyers had defended the move, arguing that the cancellation of more than 1,400 grants consisting of congressionally approved funds were legal actions. They stated the cuts were intended to implement the directives of President Trump, eliminate grants associated with DEI, and reduce discretionary spending according to administration priorities.
However, Judge McMahon concluded that these actions violated the First and Fifth Amendment rights of the targeted groups, specifically regarding free speech and equal protection.
The public interest favors permanent relief. The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution.
Judge Colleen McMahon
Analysis of Anti-Intellectual Trends
While President Trump and Elon Musk have described the funding cuts as necessary to remove ideologies they characterize as insidious, some critics argue the moves are part of a broader ideological shift among the administration’s backers.
Court Overturns Trump President
Digital media strategist Elizabeth Spiers wrote in The Nation that a group of Silicon Valley figures supporting Trump—including Musk, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Palantir chairman Peter Thiel, former Netscape CEO Marc Andreessen, and former Zenefits CEO David Sacks—harbor a deliberate anti-intellectual agenda.
As the historian Richard Hofstadter noted, a fierce anti-intellectual spirit has long animated American culture, but it has typically targeted the knowledge elite from below. What’s striking about today’s brand of anti-intellectualism is that it infuses the American knowledge elite; it stems from the bedrock conviction among tech oligarchs that they have mastered everything and have nothing left to learn.
Court Overturns Trump Humanities Grants
Elizabeth Spiers
Spiers argued that these figures view deep intellectual work, such as the composition of complex music, as having little to no inherent value. This perspective, she suggested, has fueled attacks on the humanities, higher education, and learning for its own sake, viewing such pursuits as having no purpose outside of digitization and monetization.
Spiers further highlighted other initiatives aligned with this worldview, such as Peter Thiel’s program that subsidizes high school students who choose to forgo college attendance. She also cited a statement from Palantir CEO Alex Karp suggesting that artificial intelligence will most negatively impact educated women.
Spiers concluded that these individuals believe they have monopolized critical thinking, viewing others as drones meant to serve future tech regimes rather than individuals who need to engage in the rigors of learning.
The ruling by Judge McMahon ensures that the targeted humanities grants remain intact, barring the administration from further attempts to terminate them based on the stated policy preferences.
