Key facts
- A federal judge ruled the Trump administration cannot cancel grants based on presidential priorities.
- The administration cannot use a White House budget office regulation to terminate grants.
- U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted summary judgment preventing the administration from using a specific clause to make grant cuts.
- The clause in question allows termination if a grant "no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities."
- In a separate ruling, over $100 million in humanities grants were deemed unconstitutionally canceled.
- The cancellation of humanities grants was criticized for using artificial intelligence and violating the First and Fifth Amendments.
A federal judge in Boston has ruled that the Trump administration cannot use an obscure clause to make billions of dollars in funding cuts, granting summary judgment to 23 states that had sued over the practice. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani found that the administration could not rely on a White House budget office regulation to terminate grants based on agency priorities.
The lawsuit argued that the Office of Management and Budget's clause, introduced in 2020 and revised in 2024, was being used to justify a "nationwide slash-and-burn campaign" against federal funding. The states were concerned that the clause would be used to cancel current and future grants, impacting areas from crime prevention to scientific research.
In a separate ruling, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in New York found the Trump administration's cancellation of over $100 million in humanities grants to scholars, writers, and research groups to be unconstitutional. McMahon permanently barred the administration from terminating these grants, criticizing the Department of Government Efficiency's (DOGE) use of artificial intelligence in nixing the funding. Government lawyers had argued that the cuts were legal measures to implement President Donald Trump's directives and reduce discretionary spending.
McMahon stated that the government violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection right, asserting that DOGE lacked the lawful authority to cancel the grants. She described the cancellations based on diversity, equity, and inclusion as "a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination."