The Trump administration’s cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants to scholars, writers, research groups and other organizations was unconstitutional, and the Department of Government Efficiency had no authority to end the funding, a federal judge in New York ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan sided with The Authors Guild, several other groups and several people who had their grants canceled and sued DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities. McMahon permanently barred the administration from terminating the grants and criticized DOGE’s use of artificial intelligence in nixing the funding.

Government lawyers had argued that the cuts of more than 1,400 grants of congressionally approved funds were legal moves to implement President Donald Trump’s directives, eliminate grants associated with diversion, equity and inclusion and reduce discretionary spending under the administration’s priorities.

The White House and Department of Justice, which defended against the lawsuit, did not immediately return emails seeking comment Thursday evening. It was not immediately clear if an appeal was planned.

McMahon said the government violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection right, and DOGE did not have the lawful authority to cancel the grants. She wrote, for example, that it was “a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination” when officials canceled the grants based on DEI.

“The public interest favors permanent relief,” McMahon wrote in her ruling. “The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution.”

Several groups that sued the government, including the American Council of Learned Societies, American Historical Association and Modern Language Association, hailed the decision in a joint statement.

“This ruling in an important achievement in our effort to restore the NEH’s ability to fulfill the vital mission with which Congress charged it: helping to create and sustain ‘a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry’ through the humanities,” said Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association.

Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for the Authors Guild, called the grant cancellations “a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection.”

“We’re pleased with the Court’s decision, which vindicates our clients: the brilliant academics, writers, and institutions doing work that is deeply important to our democracy,” Onayemi said in a statement. “It also reaffirms that Congress’s 60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive.”

The judge scrutinized how government officials classified grant projects as DEI and used ChatGPT to target them for funding cuts. In one case, she said officials, using the AI platform, labeled as DEI an anthology titled “In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union.” She also listed numerous other examples.

McMahon also rejected the government’s argument that there was no constitutional problem because any viewpoint classification was ChatGPT’s doing, and not the government’s.

“ChatGPT was the Government’s chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE’s use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it,” she wrote.

The grant cancellations were announced in April 2025, three months after Trump issued an executive order titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” In February 2025, Trump issued another executive order implementing DOGE’s “cost efficiency initiative.”

Michael McDonald, then the acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, sent letters to grant recipients informing them that their grants were canceled.

In a letter to one organization on April 1, 2025, he wrote, “The NEH has reasonable cause to terminate your grant in light of the fact that the NEH is repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President’s agenda.”

Many of the canceled grants were awarded during the Biden administration, and only about 40 grants awarded by that administration were spared from the cuts, the judge wrote.

McMahon wrote that while a new administration may pursue lawful funding priorities, “it has no license to suppress disfavored ideas.”

In a temporary block of the grant cancellations issued last year that raised First Amendment and other issues, the judge said the “defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients’ perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal court ruled Thursday against the new global tariffs that President Donald Trump imposed after a stinging loss at the Supreme Court.

A split three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade in New York found the 10% global tariffs were illegal after small businesses sued.

The court ruled 2-1 that Trump overstepped the tariff power that Congress had allowed the president under the law. The tariffs are “invalid″ and “unauthorized by law,” the majority wrote.

The third judge on the panel found the law allows the president more leeway on tariffs.

If the administration appeals Thursday’s decision, as expected, it would first turn to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, based in Washington, and then, potentially, the Supreme Court.

At issue are temporary 10% worldwide tariffs the Trump administration imposed after the Supreme Court in February struck down even broader double-digit tariffs the president had imposed last year on almost every country on Earth. The new tariffs, invoked under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, were set to expire July 24.

The court’s decision directly blocked the collection of tariffs from three plaintiffs — the state of Washington and two businesses, spice company Burlap & Barrel and toy company Basic Fun! “It’s not clear’’ whether other businesses would have to continue to pay the tariffs, said Jeffrey Schwab, director of litigation at the libertarian Liberty Justice Center, which represented the two companies.

“We fought back today and we won, and we’re extremely excited,” Jay Foreman, CEO of Basic Fun!, told reporters Thursday.

The ruling marked another legal setback for the Trump administration, which has attempted to shield the U.S. economy behind a wall of import taxes. Last year, Trump invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare the nation’s longstanding trade deficit a national emergency, justifying sweeping global tariffs.

The Supreme Court ruled Feb. 28 that IEEPA did not authorize the tariffs. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to establish taxes, including tariffs, though lawmakers can delegate tariff power to the president.

Dave Townsend, a trade lawyer at Dorsey & Whitney, said the ruling will open the door for more companies to request that the tariffs be thrown out and that any payments they’ve made be refunded.

“Other importers likely will now ask for a broader remedy that applies to more companies,” Townsend said, though he cautioned the case could also reach the Supreme Court.

Trump is already taking steps to replace the tariffs that were struck down by the Supreme Court in January. The administration is conducting two investigations that could end in more tariffs.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is looking into whether 16 U.S. trading partners — including China, the European Union and Japan — are overproducing goods, driving down prices and putting U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage. It is also investigating whether 60 economies — from Nigeria to Norway and accounting for 99% of U.S. imports — do enough to prohibit the trade in products created by forced labor.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said in a Thursday social media post that goods from the European Union would face higher tariff rates if the 27-member bloc fails to approve last year’s trade framework by July 4.

The announcement appeared to be a deadline extension after the president said last Friday that EU autos would face a higher 25% tariff starting this week. Trump made the updated announcement after what he described as a “great call” with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

Still, the U.S. president was displeased that the European Parliament had yet to finalize the trade arrangement reached last year, which was further complicated in February by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Trump lacked the legal authority to declare an economic emergency to impose the initial tariffs used to pressure the EU into talks.

“A promise was made that the EU would deliver their side of the Deal and, as per Agreement, cut their Tariffs to ZERO!” Trump posted. “I agreed to give her until our Country’s 250th Birthday or, unfortunately, their Tariffs would immediately jump to much higher levels.”

It was unclear from the post whether Trump was implying that the tariff rates would jump on all EU goods or the increase would only apply to autos.

His latest statement indicates he might be backing away from his earlier threat on EU autos by giving the European Parliament several more weeks to approve the agreement.

Under the original terms of the framework, the U.S. would charge a 15% tax on most goods imported from the EU.

But since the Supreme Court ruling, the administration has levied a 10% tariff while investigating trade imbalances and national security issues, aiming to put in new tariffs to make up for lost revenues.