A federal judge in New York has issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration’s cancellation of National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants, citing potential First Amendment violations. Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York determined that the administration likely engaged in viewpoint discrimination by rescinding these grants.
The lawsuit, initiated by the Authors Guild and several affected scholars, challenges the administration’s April 2025 termination of at least 1,400 NEH grants. The plaintiffs argue that the cancellations disproportionately targeted projects focusing on equity and historical injustice, many of which were awarded during the Biden administration and addressed themes such as environmental justice, gender ideology, and diversity, equity, and inclusion.
In her ruling, Judge McMahon stated that the administration’s actions aimed to suppress certain viewpoints, as evidenced by references in the termination notices to executive orders combating “Radical Indoctrination” and “Radical … DEI Programs,” and promoting “Biological Truth.” She emphasized that while the administration has the authority to shift funding priorities, it does not have the discretion to violate the First Amendment or to “edit history.” ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/43e25c97dcd665f0cbfb285a6d517888?utm_source=openai))
The injunction prevents the NEH from withdrawing funding or reallocating the affected grants while litigation continues, preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm to ongoing scholarly work. Mary Rasenberger, CEO of the Authors Guild, praised the decision as a reminder that courts will intervene to protect fundamental rights when they are threatened. ([apnews.com](https://apnews.com/article/43e25c97dcd665f0cbfb285a6d517888?utm_source=openai))
This case is part of a broader pattern of legal challenges against the Trump administration’s efforts to cut funding for programs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. For instance, the administration has sought to reduce National Institutes of Health grants linked to these themes, leading to lawsuits from researchers and public health advocates. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/trump-administration-asks-us-supreme-court-allow-nih-diversity-related-cuts-2025-07-24/?utm_source=openai))
Additionally, the administration has faced legal opposition from state attorneys general over policies requiring immigration status checks for access to federally funded programs like Head Start. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/democratic-ags-sue-bar-immigration-requirements-head-start-other-federal-2025-07-21/?utm_source=openai))
These legal battles underscore the ongoing tension between the administration’s policy objectives and the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional protections, particularly concerning free speech and academic freedom.