In a significant legal intervention on Friday, a federal judge in New York granted a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's widespread cancellation of National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants. The court found substantial grounds suggesting that the cancellations were based on unlawful viewpoint discrimination, potentially violating the First Amendment.

The legal challenge was initiated by the Authors Guild alongside several scholars who were directly impacted by the administration's April 2025 decision to terminate at least 1,400 NEH grants. These grants had largely been allocated during the Biden administration and were focused on various themes including environmental justice, gender ideology, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon criticized the administration's rationale for the cancellations, linking them to executive orders aimed at countering what were termed as ‘Radical Indoctrination’ and ‘Radical … DEI Programs,’ and promoting ‘Biological Truth.’ Among the cancelled projects was a scholarly book examining the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the late 20th century, which was flagged due to its connections to DEI themes.

Judge McMahon’s order underlined that while the administration could legally redirect funding priorities, it could not do so in a manner that infringed upon constitutional rights. “Agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does it give the Government the right to edit history,” McMahon stated.

The injunction prevents the NEH from pulling back funding or reallocating the existing grants while the lawsuit continues. This decision aims to avoid irreparable damage to ongoing academic and scholarly projects that could result from sudden funding withdrawals.

Mary Rasenberger, CEO of The Authors Guild, welcomed the judge's decision, viewing it as a critical defense against government overreach and a protection of fundamental liberties. She highlighted the court's role in upholding rights when they are under threat.

The ruling has placed a hold on any further reallocation of funds related to the plaintiffs’ grants until a full trial can be conducted to examine the merits of the case. This court decision not only preserves the financial support for numerous academic endeavors but also reinforces the judiciary's watchdog role over constitutional rights.