Judge says DOGE grant terminations are unlawful and ‘troubling’

Judge Says DOGE Grant Terminations Are Unlawful and ‘Troubling’

Judge says DOGE grant terminations are unlawful – On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), under the leadership of Elon Musk, engaged in unlawful actions by terminating the largest batch of federal grants in the National Endowment for the Humanities’ history. The court determined that these cuts were not only legally invalid but also raised concerns about the use of race, gender, and other protected attributes as grounds for decision-making. The judge’s decision blocked the Trump administration from proceeding with the mass terminations, citing a lack of authority and procedural flaws.

Judge’s Ruling on DEI Criteria

“The review process implemented by DOGE did not conform to, or even resemble, NEH’s ordinary grant-review process,” Judge McMahon stated in her ruling. She emphasized that the department’s reliance on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) keywords to justify grant cuts was a significant departure from established norms. The judge’s critique extended to specific examples, such as projects focused on Black civil-rights history or Jewish Holocaust testimonies, which she argued were unfairly targeted.

“Treating Black civil-rights history, Jewish testimony about the Holocaust, the oft-forgotten Asian American experience, the shameful treatment of the children of Native tribes, or the mere mention of a woman as a marker of lack of merit or wastefulness is not lawful,” she added.

The ruling also highlighted the timing of the cuts, noting that the decision to eliminate Holocaust-related funding came amid a resurgence of antisemitism. Judge McMahon described this as particularly troubling, stating that the focus on Jewish women’s experiences as a basis for termination was inconsistent with the values of a democratic society.

“At a time when the specter of antisemitism has reemerged from the shadows, for our Government to deem a project about Jewish women disfavored because it centered on Jewish cultures and female voices is deeply troubling,” the judge wrote.

Background of DOGE’s Actions

DOGE was established in January 2025 when President Donald Trump brought Elon Musk back into the administration as a key advisor. Musk, known for his influence in tech and finance, was tasked with reducing federal spending, leading to swift directives that sent agencies into a state of upheaval. Within days of DOGE’s formation, the directive was issued to place DEI staff on leave and shutter programs linked to diversity initiatives.

Despite the urgency of the cuts, the judge’s findings suggest the process lacked transparency and adherence to the National Endowment for the Humanities’ standards. The decision to terminate grants was based on criteria that prioritized certain keywords, such as “DEI,” “Equity,” and “LGBTQ,” which critics argue were used to disproportionately affect projects with a focus on marginalized communities or gender inclusivity.

Nonprofits Celebrate Judicial Victory

The American Council of Learned Societies, along with the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association, hailed the ruling as a critical win for humanities research. In a statement, the president of the American Council of Learned Societies, Joy Connolly, underscored the importance of the humanities in a democracy. “The humanities are not a luxury. They are how a democracy understands itself. Today’s decision is a step toward honoring the will of Congress and our mission as a nation — to seek the truth, know ourselves, and build a better future on that knowledge,” she said.

The case gained traction after depositions revealed the extent of DOGE’s influence. Two former DOGE employees, Justin Fox and Nate Cavanaugh, testified about their role in implementing the cuts. Their accounts, released in March 2025, highlighted the department’s strategy of leveraging DEI terms to justify budget reductions, even as they faced scrutiny over the fairness of their approach.

Depositions and Defenses

During the depositions, Fox and Cavanaugh defended their actions, asserting that the cuts were aimed at eliminating “useless agencies” to address the federal deficit. When asked about the impact of the grants being canceled, Cavanaugh responded with a sense of conviction. “You don’t regret that people might have lost important income … to support their lives?” the attorney inquired. “No. I think it was more important to reduce the federal deficit from $2 trillion to close to zero,” Cavanaugh answered.

However, the judge’s ruling challenged this justification, pointing out that the final decisions were made without clear legal backing. The depositions also showed a disconnect between the stated goals of reducing spending and the actual outcomes, as the cuts did not significantly lower the deficit. “Did you reduce the federal deficit?” the attorney pressed Cavanaugh. “No, we didn’t,” he admitted, underscoring the ambiguity of DOGE’s financial impact.

Controversy and Broader Implications

The controversy surrounding DOGE’s actions has sparked debates about the role of DEI in federal funding and the potential for ideological bias in grant decisions. Critics argue that the department’s approach not only sidelined valuable research but also created a precedent for using protected characteristics as a tool for budget cuts. This has raised questions about the balance between fiscal responsibility and the preservation of academic diversity.

Musk’s leadership in DOGE has been characterized by a mix of innovation and controversy. His background in tech and finance brought a unique perspective to the department, but it also led to accusations that the cuts were driven more by political ideology than economic necessity. The judge’s ruling serves as a reminder that even in times of fiscal pressure, federal programs must maintain their commitment to inclusivity and equitable evaluation.

Federal Agencies and the Path Forward

With the termination of grants, federal agencies faced a scramble to justify their spending. The depositions provided insight into how DOGE’s rapid decisions disrupted the usual grant-review process, leaving many programs in limbo. The American Council of Learned Societies, among others, has been vocal about the need to protect humanities research from such abrupt changes, emphasizing its role in shaping public understanding and cultural heritage.

As the ruling takes effect, the focus shifts to the implications for future grant decisions. Judge McMahon’s emphasis on the unlawful nature of the terminations could set a legal standard for evaluating similar actions in other agencies. Meanwhile, the debate over DEI’s role in government spending continues, with advocates and critics alike calling for clearer guidelines and accountability in how grants are awarded and revoked.

The case highlights a pivotal moment in the ongoing tension between fiscal conservatism and the preservation of cultural and historical research. As the DOGE’s impact is scrutinized, the judge’s decision stands as a landmark in defending the integrity of the grant process and the diverse perspectives it aims to support. For now, the humanities community celebrates this legal affirmation of their value, even as the broader political landscape remains divided on the merits of the cuts.