Federal Judge Torpedoes DOGE Grant Purge

Budget and efficiency related words on torn paper strips

A federal judge just told Trump’s cost-cutting agency it can’t erase Congress-approved grants—raising a bigger question about who really controls federal spending.

Quick Take

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled DOGE’s termination of more than 1,400 National Endowment for the Humanities grants was unlawful and unconstitutional.
The court said the April 2025 cancellations involved First Amendment violations, Fifth Amendment equal-protection concerns, and illegal “viewpoint discrimination.”
The decision reinforces Congress’s “power of the purse,” limiting executive agencies’ ability to zero out funds without legislative action.
More than $100 million in previously approved funding is implicated, but timing for actual restoration remains uncertain as appeals are possible.

Judge McMahon’s ruling blocks DOGE’s mass cancellations

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon of the Southern District of New York, a Clinton appointee, ruled May 8, 2026 that the Department of Government and Efficiency’s (DOGE) mass termination of National Endowment for the Humanities grants was “unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires, and without legal effect.” The ruling stems from DOGE’s April 2025 move to terminate more than 1,400 already-approved grants, a sweeping action that plaintiffs argued crossed constitutional and statutory lines.

The lawsuit was brought by major scholarly groups that said the government cannot retroactively pull obligated funding based on ideology or shifting political priorities. The plaintiffs included the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Historical Association, and the Modern Language Association. For many conservatives who want leaner government, this case also underscores a hard truth: even popular cost-cutting goals can collapse in court if agencies try to shortcut the legal process Congress designed.

Why “power of the purse” fights keep returning

Congress appropriates NEH funding, and the normal expectation is that once grants are awarded and funds obligated, the executive branch cannot rescind them unilaterally without statutory authority or a lawful rescission process. Judge McMahon’s opinion centered on that separation-of-powers principle—an area where conservatives often argue the Constitution is clearest. If an administration can simply cancel appropriated spending by executive review, then elections and congressional votes become less meaningful, regardless of which party is in charge.

DOGE was created in 2025 to identify and eliminate wasteful spending, a priority that resonated with voters after years of inflation pressure and frustration about Washington’s inability to control budgets. DOGE’s supporters argue that federal programs can drift into ideological activism or inefficiency. The court did not rule that government efficiency is illegitimate; it ruled that the mechanism used here—mass cancellations of previously approved grants—ran into constitutional protections and limits on agency power.

The constitutional findings: speech, equal protection, and viewpoint discrimination

The ruling found multiple constitutional problems with the terminations. Judge McMahon concluded the mass cancellations violated the First Amendment and implicated the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment, while also identifying unconstitutional “viewpoint discrimination.” Those findings matter beyond the humanities: when judges label a funding decision “viewpoint discrimination,” they are saying the government punished or favored speech based on ideology. That is a high bar for the government to defend, and it can chill future efforts to steer grants using political litmus tests.

The “viewpoint discrimination” issue also lands in the middle of the country’s broader cultural fight over DEI and “woke” priorities. DOGE’s review reportedly targeted grants with perceived DEI connections, but the judge’s framework treats ideology-based cancellations as constitutionally suspect. Conservatives may see this as courts shielding entrenched institutions; liberals may see it as a necessary check on government power. Either way, the ruling warns both sides that using federal funding as a weapon can trigger First Amendment scrutiny.

What happens next for taxpayers, agencies, and grant recipients

In practical terms, the decision opens the door to restoring more than $100 million tied to terminated grants. The court’s judgment says the terminations have no legal effect, but the timeline for actual payments can still be slowed by administrative steps and potential appeals. The research available so far does not provide a detailed disbursement schedule or a final answer on how DOGE will change internal procedures, only that enforcement of the terminations must stop.

Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge Rules DOGE's Terminations Of Humanities Grants Unlawful https://t.co/YEunP7lf1m

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 8, 2026

Politically, the fight highlights a shared frustration across left and right: massive federal programs often persist, not because voters broadly support every line item, but because the system makes it hard to unwind spending cleanly. Conservatives who want spending cuts may push Congress to legislate more explicitly rather than rely on agency action. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs’ victory signals that institutions can use courts to protect funding streams, reinforcing perceptions that Washington’s machinery often serves insiders first.