Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge Rules DOGE's Terminations Of Humanities Grants Unlawful
by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times,
A federal judge ruled on May 7 that the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE’s)
# THE TAKE: The Humanities Ruling Misses the Real Power Grab A Clinton appointee blocking DOGE's grant terminations isn't judicial independence—it's institutional theater masking deeper consolidation. Yes, the judge cited procedural violations. Legitimate grounds. But focusing on *how* DOGE killed humanities funding obscures *why*: defunding produces intellectual precarity. Adjunct-dependent departments can't resist corporate curriculum capture. Universities desperate for funding become training grounds for the next Elon. The real scandal? Both sides protect the *system*. Courts validate process while power gutters long-term thought. Conservatives gut humanities directly; centrist judges perform opposition while the neoliberal university model—already corporate-captured—marches forward unchanged. This ruling restores *some* grants. The structural subordination of critical thinking to market logic? Remains untouched. The court won. The ruling won. American intellectual life lost.
What the Documents Show
Critically, she also ruled that DOGE lacked the legal authority to terminate grants that had been appropriated by Congress. The scope of DOGE's targeting was sweeping. According to McMahon's ruling, the department systematically eliminated grants concerning Black, Asian, Latino, and Indigenous communities; religious subjects including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim studies; and topics related to sex, sexual orientation, national origin, and immigration status. McMahon's language suggests DOGE created informal criteria for elimination based explicitly on demographic and identity considerations—the inverse of what civil rights law requires. "What mattered to DOGE was not whether a grant lacked scholarly merit, failed to comply with its terms, or fell outside NEH's statutory purposes," McMahon wrote.
Follow the Money
"What mattered was that the grant concerned a 'minority group.'" The mainstream narrative around DOGE's cost-cutting has often focused narrowly on fiscal efficiency and reduced government spending, framing the cancellations as mere budget discipline. This ruling, however, reveals a different legal reality: the terminations were allegedly executed without regard to grants' actual performance or compliance, and instead relied on demographic profiling. The fact that DOGE staffers used ChatGPT to generate rationales for some terminations underscores the apparent post-hoc nature of the justifications—suggesting decision-making driven by predetermined outcomes rather than substantive evaluation. The ruling carries implications extending beyond humanities funding. It establishes that even government cost-cutting initiatives cannot bypass constitutional protections against viewpoint discrimination, and that Congress's power of the purse creates enforceable limits on executive termination authority. For ordinary citizens, this sets a legal boundary: efficiency initiatives cannot be weaponized to defund research, education, or discourse on specific populations or viewpoints, regardless of the initiative's stated fiscal goals.
What Else We Know
McMahon's decision suggests that constitutional guardrails, not merely budgetary preferences, ultimately govern how government agencies treat congressionally appropriated funds.
Primary Sources
- Source: ZeroHedge
- Category: Money & Markets
- Cross-reference independently — don't take our word for it.
Disclosure: NewsAnarchist aggregates from public records, API feeds (Federal Register, CourtListener, MuckRock, Hacker News), and independent media. AI-assisted synthesis. Always verify primary sources linked above.
This article is produced by NewsAnarchist's AI reporting system, not a human staff reporter. It's built from the primary source cited above (a declassified document, a FOIA release, an inspector general or congressional report, or a named whistleblower disclosure reported by outlets we cite) and reports what that source states, attributed to it — it reports what the document or disclosure states and does not speculate about what remains classified beyond that. Part of our Government Secrets hub. Found an error? Tell us.