RACE-BASED Cuts BLOCKED by Federal Judge

A federal judge says Trump-era “efficiency” cuts crossed a constitutional line—because the process allegedly relied on race and sex to decide which federally funded humanities projects lived or died.

Quick Take

A U.S. district judge blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from enforcing mass terminations of National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants.
The court found the terminations unlawful and unconstitutional, citing First and Fifth Amendment problems and appropriations-law limits on executive power.
Depositions described junior DOGE staff using DEI-related keyword lists and ChatGPT-generated rationales instead of NEH’s normal peer-review process.
The ruling highlights a recurring Washington problem: big reforms sold as “accountability” can collapse when agencies skip legal guardrails and basic due process.

Judge McMahon Blocks DOGE’s Mass NEH Grant Terminations

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York issued a sweeping ruling stopping DOGE from enforcing its 2025 termination of thousands of congressionally approved NEH grants. The plaintiffs included major scholarly organizations such as the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Historical Association, and the Modern Language Association. The judge’s opinion described the terminations as unlawful and unconstitutional, putting the dispute squarely in the long-running fight over who controls federal spending: Congress or the executive branch.

The lawsuit grew out of DOGE’s April 2025 action to cancel awards that had already been approved through NEH’s established grant process. The scholarly groups sued in May 2025, arguing the administration could not unilaterally wipe out appropriated funding. The decision matters beyond academia because it tests how far any “efficiency” office can go when it tries to cut programs quickly, especially when Congress has already signed off on the money and the agency has rules for distributing it.

How the Court Says DOGE Made the Decisions

Judge McMahon’s opinion sharply criticized DOGE’s internal methods, which the record described as heavily automated and lightly reviewed. Depositions from former DOGE staffers indicated the team relied on keyword searches tied to DEI concepts—terms such as “DEI,” “Equity,” and “LGBTQ”—to flag grants for termination. The judge also cited testimony that staff used ChatGPT to generate explanations for why grants were being cut, rather than conducting substantive, expert evaluation of the projects.

Those details are politically combustible because they cut in two directions at once. Many conservatives agree that DEI-driven grantmaking can become ideologically skewed and wasteful. At the same time, the ruling underscores that the remedy can’t be a slapdash purge that substitutes a keyword list and AI-generated text for lawful review. If government can terminate grants based on protected traits—or the appearance of them—then any future administration could weaponize that approach against disfavored groups, viewpoints, or regions.

First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and the Appropriations Fight

The decision framed the problem as more than bureaucratic sloppiness: the judge concluded the terminations violated constitutional protections and the structure of federal spending authority. The opinion pointed to First Amendment concerns—especially when grant cancellations appear tied to topics, viewpoints, or identity-linked subject matter—and to Fifth Amendment issues involving equal protection and due process principles. The court also emphasized that Congress created NEH and funds it through appropriations, limiting the executive’s ability to nullify those choices without lawful steps.

That separation-of-powers point is where many “drain the swamp” voters should focus. Conservatives often want a smaller, more disciplined federal government, but reforms that bypass statutory limits can backfire—handing judges an opening to halt cuts entirely and leaving taxpayers stuck with the status quo. If DOGE or any future cost-cutting effort is going to succeed, the record in this case suggests it will need clear legal authority, documented decision standards, and audit-grade explanations that can survive scrutiny in court.

Political Fallout: A Warning for Both Parties’ “Reform” Promises

The ruling lands in the middle of a broader trust crisis: many Americans across the spectrum believe federal institutions protect insiders and punish outsiders. Conservatives see entrenched bureaucracies and elite cultural priorities; liberals see politicized cuts and discrimination. This case gave both sides fresh ammunition, but it also offers a practical lesson. When the executive branch uses improvised tools—especially AI—to make mass funding decisions, it risks creating the kind of opaque, unaccountable government process that voters say they hate.

Judge Rules DOGE ‘Blatantly Used’ Race and Sex in Mass Termination of Federal Grants to the NEHhttps://t.co/HNDRPhx69W pic.twitter.com/Y9qOpXZWz5

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) May 10, 2026

Key facts remain unclear in public reporting, including the exact total dollar amount and the full scope of grants affected, and the sources reviewed did not describe any immediate appeal outcome. For now, the order blocks enforcement and potentially opens the door for affected grants to be restored through lawful procedures. The larger question for 2026 is whether Congress and the administration can build a legally durable model for cutting genuine waste—without letting culture-war shortcuts and procedural corner-cutting hand courts the power to stop reform cold.