A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from penalizing arts organizations for allegedly promoting “gender ideology” when awarding grants through the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
U.S. District Judge William Smith of Providence, Rhode Island, ruled that the NEA’s policy, implemented to enforce an executive order by President Trump, was unlawful and violated First Amendment free speech protections.
Smith, appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, said the policy improperly restricted artistic expression by “assigning negative weight to the expression of certain ideas on the issue of gender identity.”
Vera Eidelman, an ACLU lawyer representing four arts and theater groups that challenged the policy, called the ruling “an important victory for freedom of speech and artistic freedom.”
The NEA and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.
The lawsuit, filed in March, arose after the NEA required grant applicants to certify that they would not promote “gender ideology,” in line with an executive order Trump signed upon his second inauguration on January 20. That order recognized only two sexes—male and female—and directed agencies to prevent grant funds from supporting what the president labeled “gender ideology.”
Plaintiffs argued that the NEA policy would force them to self-censor and limit artistic projects involving transgender characters or LGBTQ actors.
After the lawsuit, the NEA withdrew its initial policy and on April 30 issued a revised approach. Under the new system, the NEA chair would evaluate grants “for artistic excellence and merit,” including whether a project promoted “gender ideology,” on a case-by-case basis. While such a designation alone would not automatically deny funding, it could influence the final approval decision, according to the administration.
Smith had previously indicated the original policy was likely unconstitutional. In Friday’s ruling, he found the revised policy also constituted an unconstitutional, viewpoint-based restriction on private speech. He added that the NEA lacked the authority to adopt such a policy, as its governing statute does not allow the chair to disfavor applications based on particular viewpoints.
