In American Council of Learned Societies v. National Endowment for the Humanities, a federal trial court invalidated what it described as the largest mass termination of grants in the history of the National Endowment for the Humanities (“NEH”). The case arose after the Trump Administration terminated more than 1,400 previously awarded grants, representing over $100 million in congressionally appropriated funds, issued to scholars, writers, universities, museums, and humanities organizations.
The challenged terminations followed a series of executive orders directing federal agencies to identify and eliminate programs associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), environmental justice, and what the Administration characterized as “gender ideology.” NEH staff initially reviewed grants awarded during the Biden Administration and categorized them based on their perceived relationship to those topics. The review process then shifted to personnel from the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”), who independently reviewed grants and developed lists of projects they believed should be terminated.
The Court devoted significant attention to the methods used during the review process. According to the opinion, DOGE personnel created spreadsheets identifying grants as “DEI” or “non-DEI” and used keyword searches for terms such as “BIPOC,” “native,” “indigenous,” “tribal,” “gay,” “melting pot,” “social justice,” and “immigrant.” The Court found that DOGE personnel also used ChatGPT to generate short explanations, referred to in the opinion as “DEI Rationales,” for why particular grants allegedly related to DEI. These AI-generated rationales were incorporated into the spreadsheets used to identify grants for termination.
The opinion describes numerous examples of grants identified for cancellation, including projects involving Holocaust history, Indigenous history, African American history, Asian American experiences, women’s history, and preservation of cultural archives. The Court noted that many grants were classified as “DEI” simply because they involved minority communities, women, or historically underrepresented groups. The Court also found evidence that grants awarded during the Biden Administration were treated as presumptively subject to review and potential termination.
The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and held that the mass termination violated the First Amendment, the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the governing federal statute establishing the NEH. First, the Court concluded that the grant cancellations constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination because grants were terminated based on perceived support for disfavored ideas and subject matter. The Court reasoned that NEH grants fund private expression rather than government speech, and that the government may not withdraw previously awarded grants because it disagrees with the viewpoints reflected in the funded work.
Second, the Court found that the process violated equal protection principles because the review system expressly relied on classifications involving race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and national origin. The Court concluded that the government could not justify terminating grants based on those characteristics, even under the Administration’s stated goals of promoting merit or reducing wasteful spending.
Third, the Court held that DOGE acted ultra vires (i.e., beyond its legal authority). The Court explained that Congress vested grantmaking authority in the NEH Chairperson and established a detailed statutory process for awarding and administering grants. The Court found that DOGE personnel effectively controlled the grant termination decisions, overrode recommendations from NEH leadership, and exercised authority that Congress had never delegated to them. According to the Court, neither the governing statute nor the relevant executive orders authorized DOGE to decide which NEH grants would be terminated.
The Court certified a class of affected grantees, permanently enjoined the government from enforcing the mass terminations, ordered the government to rescind the termination notices, and declared the terminations unlawful, unconstitutional, and without legal effect.
Am. Council of Learned Socies. v. NEH (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2026) 2026 WL 1256545.
Note: This case is a significant judicial decision addressing the Trump Administration’s efforts to eliminate programs perceived as connected to DEI. The opinion underscores that governmental decisions affecting funding, programs, or opportunities may still be subject to constitutional scrutiny when they are based on viewpoint, protected characteristics, or criteria that exceed the authority granted by statute.