In a landmark decision for free speech and the arts, a federal judge in Rhode Island has struck down a controversial policy from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) that disfavored grant applications perceived as promoting "gender ideology." The ruling, delivered on September 19, 2025, by U.S. Senior District Court Judge William Smith, marks a significant victory for First Amendment rights and underscores the ongoing national debate over government involvement in artistic expression.
The case stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump upon his return to office on January 20, 2025. The order directed federal agencies to recognize only two sexes—male and female—and barred federal funding for projects that, in the administration’s view, promoted "gender ideology." In response, the NEA began requiring grant applicants to certify that their projects would not advance such ideas, sparking immediate concern among arts organizations and civil liberties advocates.
According to Reuters, the NEA’s new policy was challenged in March 2025 by a coalition of four arts organizations: Rhode Island Latino Arts, National Queer Theater, The Theater Offensive, and Theatre Communications Group. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Rhode Island, these groups argued that the NEA’s requirements would force them to self-censor, potentially altering the scope of artistic projects involving transgender characters or LGBTQ actors in order to remain eligible for crucial funding.
Judge Smith’s ruling was unequivocal. He found that the NEA’s policy “violates the First Amendment because it is a viewpoint-based restriction on private speech,” as quoted in an ACLU of Rhode Island press release. The judge elaborated that the NEA “intends to disfavor applications that promote gender ideology precisely because they promote gender ideology. The Final Notice, therefore, promises to penalize artists based on their speech.” Such a stance, Smith concluded, is fundamentally at odds with constitutional protections for free expression.
The court also determined that the NEA’s policy ran afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), labeling it “arbitrary and capricious.” Judge Smith criticized the agency for providing “zero explanation of what it means for a project to ‘promote gender ideology,’ let alone how that concept relates to artistic merit, artistic excellence, general standards of decency, or respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.” This lack of clarity, the court found, rendered the policy legally indefensible.
Following the initial lawsuit, the NEA attempted to revise its approach. The agency rescinded the blanket certification requirement and, on April 30, 2025, adopted a new policy under which grant applications would be evaluated “for artistic excellence and merit, including whether the proposed project promotes gender ideology,” on a case-by-case basis. However, as Reuters reported, Judge Smith found that even this revised approach amounted to “an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction on private speech.” He further concluded that the NEA lacked statutory authority to categorically disfavor applications based on the views they expressed.
The plaintiffs and their advocates celebrated the ruling as a vital affirmation of artistic freedom. Marta V. Martínez, Executive Director of Rhode Island Latino Arts, stated, “This decision affirms what we have always believed: the freedom to create, to express one’s truth, and to tell our stories is a right protected by the First Amendment. As an organization deeply rooted in storytelling, theater, and the preservation of cultural history, we are relieved and grateful that the courts have recognized the importance of protecting artistic expression for all people, including those in LGBTQ+ communities.”
Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, echoed this sentiment, describing the outcome as “an important victory for freedom of speech and artistic freedom.” She added, “At a time when the government is using its full weight to try to impose ideological conformity, this order is an important reminder that the First Amendment protects us from exactly that. Even when the government funds private speech, it does not get to support only those messages that parrot its views.”
Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, emphasized the broader implications: “The First Amendment doesn’t allow the federal government to restrict speech based on what the current administration may or may not like. Congress specifically set up the National Endowment for the Arts to insulate it from this type of political meddling in funding the arts. This ruling is a win for our plaintiffs, and for free speech.”
The controversy surrounding the NEA’s policy illustrates the tension between government funding and the independence of artistic expression. While the government has a legitimate role in setting standards for the allocation of public resources, the court’s decision makes clear that this power cannot extend to penalizing artists for expressing viewpoints that diverge from those of the administration in power. As Judge Smith noted, the NEA’s process “assigns negative weight to the expression of certain ideas on the issue of gender identity,” and such discrimination is incompatible with the fundamental tenets of a free society.
The ruling also highlights the practical challenges faced by artists and organizations navigating a shifting legal and political landscape. The plaintiffs argued that the NEA’s requirements would have forced them to alter or dilute their creative work, undermining the very purpose of public arts funding. For many in the arts community, the decision provides reassurance that their voices and stories—especially those from marginalized communities—will not be silenced by government fiat.
Notably, the NEA and the White House did not respond to requests for comment following the decision, according to Reuters. The lack of response leaves open questions about whether the administration will attempt further revisions to its grant-making process or pursue an appeal. For now, the injunction halts the implementation of the executive order as it pertains to NEA grants, restoring a measure of certainty for artists seeking federal support.
The outcome of this case may have ripple effects beyond the arts sector. Legal experts and advocates are watching closely to see whether the principles affirmed in this ruling will influence other areas where government funding intersects with contentious social issues. The court’s insistence on viewpoint neutrality and clear, fair standards could serve as a model for other agencies grappling with similar questions.
As the dust settles from this high-profile legal battle, the arts organizations at the center of the case are returning to their core mission: telling stories, fostering dialogue, and enriching the cultural life of their communities. Their victory in court is more than a legal triumph—it is a reaffirmation of the enduring value of free expression in American society, even (and especially) when that expression challenges prevailing norms or political preferences.
For artists, advocates, and audiences alike, the message from Rhode Island is clear: the right to create and to be heard remains a fundamental pillar of democracy, safeguarded by the courts against the shifting winds of political change.