this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
185 points (99.5% liked)

Politics

1188 readers
155 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable

Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up

Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)

Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

Video: Macklemore's new song critical of Trump and Musk is facing heavy censorship across major platforms.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] notsure@fedia.io 18 points 2 days ago (2 children)

...who cares? the damage has been done. How do we as human beings keep playing defense to degenewrate fucks like these?

[–] Steve@startrek.website 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It’s like standing around listening to a school shooter kill repeatedly and be like “he shouldn't do that, it’s illegal. I hope he stops doing that.”

Wouldn’t that be absurd?

More like standing around listening to a child rapist rape children repeatedly . . . .

[–] notsure@fedia.io 1 points 2 days ago

I didn't have to put the /s

[–] mycodesucks@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

ALL of these headlines with "Judge" in them mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING because NO non-Supreme Court judge's ruling is binding nationwide anymore (thanks Supreme Court), and the Supreme Court does whatever the hell it wants, so its judgments are the only ones that matter now.

[–] santa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Calvinball Court

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

So they now are going get their money?

[–] Aarrodri@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

No shit Sherlock! Really!?

[–] hOrni@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

So? On many occasions he has proven he doesn't give a fuck about the constitution, the law or basic decency. And no one can do anything about it.

[–] notsure@fedia.io 3 points 2 days ago

I am a bit angry

[–] notsure@fedia.io -3 points 2 days ago

ITT: I Hate people and they prove why.