When the President tries to save taxpayers money, you’d think that would be a good thing. But these days, activist judges are quick to step in and block him; even when the cuts are legal, necessary, and in the public’s best interest.
The latest example comes from a federal courtroom in Oregon, where U.S. District Judge Michael Simon put a stop to the Trump administration’s plan to cut federal grants to arts and humanities councils.
That includes Nevada Humanities, a group based right here in the Silver State.
The DOGE Cuts That Sparked the Lawsuit
The Department of Government Efficiency – DOGE – has been looking for wasteful or low-priority spending to cut. One of the items flagged was a batch of multi-year grants to 56 humanities councils around the country, including Nevada Humanities.
Nevada Humanities had been getting a five-year general operating grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
That money, funded by taxpayers, is their main source of funding. Without it, Executive Director Chris Barr warned the group would struggle to survive.
“The loss of funding… will severely hinder our work,” Barr told the Reno Gazette Journal. He also argued that cutting the grants would hurt the state’s economy.
The Nevada group wasn’t alone in objecting. The Federation of State Humanities Councils and Oregon Humanities sued DOGE and the NEH, claiming the administration didn’t have the power to cancel money Congress had already approved.
A Judge Steps In
Judge Simon sided with the arts councils, at least for now.
In his ruling, he claimed that the Constitution gives “the power of the purse” to Congress, not the President. He pointed to a 2018 case where a court ruled against Trump over a similar funding dispute.
His decision means the cuts can’t take effect until the lawsuit is resolved.
That’s a big win for groups like Nevada Humanities, which is a member of the national federation; but even with the ruling, they still haven’t received the money and say some programs have already been canceled.
The Bigger Issue — Who Runs the Country?
This isn’t really all about arts funding; it’s about who’s really in charge.
The President is elected by the people to carry out policies and manage the government. That includes setting priorities and cutting waste.
If courts can freeze any decision they don’t like, it shifts power away from the people’s elected leader and toward unelected judges with lifetime appointments.
Supporters of the President argue this is exactly what’s happening here – a judge deciding how tax dollars should be spent instead of the administration the voters chose.
Why Nevada Should Care
For Nevada taxpayers, this case matters for two reasons.
First, it’s our money on the line. Whether it’s funding arts groups in Reno or federal projects in other states, the President has the duty to protect taxpayers from overspending.
Second, Nevada Humanities isn’t the only group that could be affected. If judges can block spending cuts here, they can block cuts anywhere – meaning more federal dollars keep flowing, even to programs most Americans may not support.
What Happens Now?
The lawsuit will keep moving through the courts, and the injunction will likely be appealed. If higher courts reverse Simon’s decision, DOGE’s cuts could go through. If they uphold it, the President’s ability to rein in spending will take another hit.
Either way, the bigger fight isn’t going away: Should unelected judges have the power to overrule the President’s budget decisions that are meant to protect taxpayers?
That’s the question this case really puts on trial. For Nevadans who believe in both fiscal responsibility and keeping government in check, this is one worth watching.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Nevada News & Views. This article was written with the assistance of AI. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
