NEH Grant Cuts Halted Over Free Speech Concerns

NEH Grant Cuts Halted Over Free Speech Concerns \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge has halted the cancellation of NEH grants awarded to Authors Guild members, citing First Amendment violations. The ruling blocks the reallocation of funds until a full trial is held. The case involves canceled projects linked to diversity and historical research.

Quick Looks

• A federal judge in New York issued a preliminary injunction stopping mass NEH grant cancellations
• Grants were awarded to Authors Guild members for research and writing on historical topics
• Judge Colleen McMahon cited First Amendment violations in the decision
• The government allegedly targeted projects based on perceived DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) content
• One canceled grant involved research on the Ku Klux Klan’s resurgence in the late 20th century
• Executive orders referencing “Radical Indoctrination” and “Biological Truth” were cited in the cancellations
• McMahon criticized the government for viewpoint discrimination and trying to edit historical narratives
• Some grants were canceled solely because they originated under the Biden administration
• The Authors Guild filed a class-action lawsuit in May over the grant terminations
• The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was accused of halting vital humanities work
• Several other humanities organizations also filed lawsuits to block the cuts
• The judge’s ruling preserves the status quo but doesn’t guarantee final relief
• Temporary relief was denied to other groups, including the American Council of Learned Societies

Deep Look

In a pivotal ruling that could have lasting implications for federal funding and free speech protections, a New York district court judge issued a preliminary injunction on Friday night blocking the mass cancellation of National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants awarded to members of the Authors Guild. The decision, made by Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, is being hailed as a crucial defense of First Amendment rights in the face of what plaintiffs describe as ideologically motivated censorship.

The injunction halts the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and NEH from rescinding or redistributing any grant funds already awarded to Authors Guild members, many of whom were in the midst of research or writing projects when their funding was abruptly terminated. Judge McMahon’s ruling prevents these agencies from reallocating those resources or enacting any further changes until a full trial determines whether the government violated constitutional protections in its actions.

At the center of the controversy is a sweeping federal effort to roll back humanities grants deemed politically sensitive or too closely aligned with themes of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Plaintiffs allege the NEH, under pressure from executive directives and DOGE-led restructuring efforts, targeted projects that did not conform to a newly established ideological litmus test favoring “American exceptionalism,” “biological truth,” and the elimination of so-called “radical indoctrination.”

One of the canceled grants had been awarded to a university professor authoring a book on the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s and 1980s. This project was flagged in a federal spreadsheet labeled “Copy of NEH Active Grants” and categorized as DEI-related. According to court documents, this internal classification system was used to selectively identify and terminate grants based on subject matter and perceived political tone, rather than academic merit or fiscal constraints.

Judge McMahon found that the government’s actions likely constituted viewpoint discrimination—a serious First Amendment violation. In her ruling, she wrote, “Defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients’ perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas. This is most evident by the citation in the Termination Notices to executive orders purporting to combat ‘Radical Indoctrination’ and ‘Radical … DEI Programs,’ and to further ‘Biological Truth.’”

She noted that agency discretion—while typically broad when it comes to grantmaking—does not allow for the suppression of constitutionally protected speech. “Far be it from this Court to deny the right of the Administration to focus NEH priorities on American history and exceptionalism as the year of our semiquincentennial approaches,” she added. “Such refocusing is ordinarily a matter of agency discretion. But agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does it give the Government the right to edit history.”

In perhaps one of the ruling’s most consequential observations, Judge McMahon pointed out that some NEH grants were canceled merely because they had been issued under the Biden administration, not based on any substantive review of the work’s quality or relevance. This further reinforced the court’s view that the terminations were politically motivated and ideologically selective.

The Authors Guild responded to the ruling with measured relief, stating that the injunction “safeguards the foundational principle that no government agency can retaliate against individuals or institutions simply for exploring topics deemed controversial or politically inconvenient.” The Guild had filed a class-action lawsuit in May against both NEH and DOGE, seeking immediate relief for its members and a permanent injunction against further politically motivated cancellations.

The suit alleges that DOGE—the federal agency leading government efficiency and budgetary reforms—effectively paralyzed the NEH’s work by abruptly cutting off funding for dozens of already-approved projects. “DOGE brought the core work of the humanities councils to a screeching halt,” the lawsuit claims, characterizing the agency’s actions as not only disruptive but also unconstitutional.

The Authors Guild lawsuit is just one of several recent legal challenges filed by humanities organizations, academic coalitions, and scholarly associations concerned about the rapid erosion of public funding for arts and cultural research. These cases represent a broader resistance to what critics describe as a coordinated federal campaign to reshape public discourse and redefine American identity through ideological control over publicly funded research.

Judge McMahon’s ruling, while significant, is narrow in scope. She emphasized that the injunction is “tailored solely to maintain the status quo” and does not yet represent a final judgment on the constitutional claims. “It does nothing more than ensure that no further harm is done before we can decide whether Plaintiffs are entitled to ultimate relief,” she noted in her decision.

Not all groups seeking judicial protection were successful. A related lawsuit filed by the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), which included the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association as co-plaintiffs, was partially rejected. Judge McMahon denied their request for a temporary injunction and dismissed several of their claims. While the court acknowledged the academic merit of their concerns, it found the legal arguments less compelling under current precedent.

The government, meanwhile, has not yet commented on whether it will appeal the injunction, but legal experts expect a vigorous defense of the policy changes. Supporters of the grant cancellations argue that federal agencies must retain the right to refocus funding priorities, particularly in times of fiscal restraint and cultural reevaluation.

However, constitutional scholars suggest this case could be pivotal in establishing legal boundaries around government discretion in grantmaking. “There’s a difference between setting policy and punishing dissent,” said legal analyst Maya Terrell. “If a court finds that an agency used its funding power to suppress ideas or viewpoints, that’s not just bad policy—it’s unconstitutional.”

As the case moves toward a full trial, the implications extend far beyond the 2024 NEH grant cycle. The outcome could define how federal agencies balance administrative discretion with constitutional protections in an era where public discourse is increasingly politicized. More broadly, the ruling underscores the tension between ideological governance and intellectual freedom—a clash playing out not just in courtrooms, but in classrooms, lecture halls, and libraries nationwide.

For now, grantees who had seen their work suddenly defunded have been granted a reprieve. But the battle over who decides what ideas deserve public support—and which narratives are deemed acceptable in telling America’s story—is far from over.

More on US News

NEH Grant Cuts NEH Grant Cuts NEH Grant Cuts