In a significant blow to restrictions on artistic expression, a federal judge in Rhode Island has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s order denying grant funding to arts organizations deemed to promote “gender ideology” violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling, handed down by U.S. District Judge William Smith—a Republican appointee—clearly states that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) policy, which enforced Trump’s directive, unlawfully restricted free speech by targeting organizations based on their viewpoint.
Judge Smith emphasized that the government cannot assign “negative weight” to artistic works or ideas simply because they express a particular perspective on gender identity. “This policy crossed a constitutional line,” he wrote, reaffirming that freedom of expression must remain protected, even—or especially—when it involves controversial or marginalized voices.
The lawsuit, brought forward in March by four arts and theatre groups and represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), challenged the NEA’s requirement for applicants to certify they would not promote “gender ideology.” This followed Trump’s executive order signed at the start of his second term on January 20, which instructed federal agencies to recognize only male and female as valid sexes and to ensure public funding did not support other gender identities.
Vera Eidelman of the ACLU called the decision “an important victory for freedom of speech and artistic freedom.” The NEA and the White House declined to comment.
Initially, the NEA backed off the policy after the legal challenge but later reinstated it with a slight modification—stating that grant proposals promoting gender ideology could still be considered, though such factors could negatively influence the final decision. Judge Smith rejected this adjusted policy as well, ruling it was still an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction.
Moreover, the court found that the NEA overstepped its authority. Its charter does not permit the agency to disfavor funding applications based on the ideas they promote, regardless of political climate or presidential preferences.
Why This Matters
This ruling is more than a legal win—it’s a reaffirmation that art must remain a sanctuary for free expression, untainted by politics. Artists, particularly those representing LGBTQ+ communities, have long faced marginalization. When the government attempts to police creativity based on ideology, it risks silencing the voices we most need to hear—those that challenge, reflect, and expand our understanding of humanity.
This decision not only protects current and future artists, but also sends a clear message: freedom of expression is not negotiable. The stage, the canvas, and the page are places for truth, identity, and imagination—not censorship.
