Fact-check
Fact-Check: Trump's Digital Equity Act 'Victory' Post — What the Court Actually Ruled
A federal judge struck down one race-targeted provision but simultaneously ordered Trump's Commerce Department to reinstate over $1.25 billion in canceled broadband grants; advocates called it their…
By The Crosscheck Desk · 2026-07-18
Fact-Check: Trump's Digital Equity Act 'Victory' Post — What the Court Actually Ruled
A federal judge struck down one race-targeted provision but simultaneously ordered Trump's Commerce Department to reinstate over $1.25 billion in canceled broadband grants; advocates called it their…
The Digital Equity Act was ruled 'A RACIST and UNCONSTITUTIONAL giveaway' exactly as Trump predicted
At Trump's direction, Howard Lutnick fought the Digital Equity Act and the Court AGREED
The ruling was a MASSIVE Victory for Trump and his administration
The Digital Equity Act is a Biden DEI law passed only by Democrats
Sleepy Joe and the Democrats used tax dollars to divide Americans instead of serving all Americans
"BIG WIN in Court for the American People! The so-called "Digital Equity Act," a Biden DEI law, was ruled exactly what I said it was last year — A RACIST and UNCONSTITUTIONAL giveaway that never should have become Law. Sleepy Joe and the Dumocrats used YOUR Tax Dollars to divide Americans, instead of serving ALL Americans. At my direction, Howard Lutnick, my wonderful Secretary of Commerce, fought it, and the Court AGREED. A MASSIVE Victory for Common Sense and our Constitution. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP"
Contents
What Actually Happened in Court
On July 15, 2026, Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling in National Digital Inclusion Alliance v. Trump. The case arose after the Trump administration canceled all three grant programs under the Digital Equity Act in May 2025, and the NDIA, a nonprofit organization that helps nonprofits, community anchor institutions, and local governments access broadband funding, sued to have them reinstated.[1]
The ruling did two things at once:
First: Judge Bates found that one of the eight "covered populations" listed in the statute, specifically "individuals who are members of a racial or ethnic minority group," constitutes an explicit racial classification that fails strict scrutiny under the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. That provision was struck down.[3]
Second: Bates found the unconstitutional race provision was severable, meaning it can be excised from the law without invalidating the rest. The other seven covered populations (low-income households, older adults, incarcerated individuals, veterans, individuals with disabilities, people with limited English proficiency, and rural residents) remain intact. The judge simultaneously denied the Trump administration's motion to dismiss and ordered the Competitive Grant Program reinstated.[1][2]
The program "can be administered — consistent with the language of the Digital Equity Act — exactly as it was before, minus consideration of racial or ethnic status."[1]
"Because the government's only objection to the Digital Equity Act is this singular unconstitutional provision, it has now committed to restoring the Competitive Grant Program upon receiving this judicial determination."[2]
The parties were ordered to file a joint status report by August 1, 2026, proposing a schedule for restarting the program. The government committed on the record to reinstatement.[2]
The National Digital Inclusion Alliance, which had been suing the administration since October 2025, described the outcome as a win. Christopher Mitchell, director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, said: "the court affirmed what should have been obvious all along — the Trump administration had no legitimate basis to hold this program hostage" and called it "on balance, a victory."[5] Public Knowledge said: "a president cannot ignore a law simply because he disagrees with it."[4]
The Right Question
Trump's post frames this as: "the court declared the Digital Equity Act unconstitutional, vindicating my position." The better question is: what did the court order, and who has to do what next?
The court ordered the Trump administration to restart the very grant program it had canceled. The ruling did not end the Digital Equity Act. It removed one provision and required the government to proceed with the rest. The Commerce Department is now legally obligated to reinstate over $1.25 billion in grants it tried to eliminate. Advocacy groups that sued the Trump administration over the cancellation describe the ruling as their win. That is the outcome a reader would need to understand what happened. The post omits it entirely.
Claim-by-Claim Verdicts
There is a true kernel: Judge Bates did find that the statute's racial-classification provision fails strict scrutiny, the same constitutional argument Trump's team made in May 2025 when canceling the program.[1][3] Trump was right about that specific legal point before a court confirmed it.
The surrounding framing, however, inverts the ruling's overall effect. "Exactly what I said" fails on three counts. First, Trump said in May 2025 that the entire Digital Equity Act was unconstitutional and immediately canceled all its programs; the court found the law substantially valid and ordered it reinstated. Second, the court did not call the program "racist" — that is Trump's political characterization. The legal finding is that one provision constitutes an "explicit racial classification" that "fails strict scrutiny."[1] Courts apply a constitutional standard; they do not adopt campaign rhetoric. Third, calling the act an "unconstitutional giveaway" implies the whole statute is tainted. Judge Bates said the opposite: seven of eight covered populations are unaffected, and the program "can be administered exactly as it was before, minus consideration of racial or ethnic status." The ruling is therefore a partial win on one constitutional point wrapped in a claim of total vindication that the opinion does not support.
This claim inverts the procedural posture of the case. Howard Lutnick and the Commerce Department were not the parties "fighting" the Digital Equity Act in court. They were the defendants. The National Digital Inclusion Alliance filed suit against Trump and Lutnick in October 2025, challenging the cancellation of the grants.[4][5]
The Trump administration's motion to dismiss that lawsuit (its main legal action) was denied.[2] Far from the court "agreeing" with Lutnick, the court ruled that the government had no legitimate basis to cancel the program and ordered it reinstated. The government committed to restarting the program specifically because the court told it to. Describing this sequence as Lutnick "fighting" the Act and the court "agreeing" is directly backwards from what the court record shows.
The ruling's practical consequence is that the Trump Commerce Department must now restart $1.25 billion in broadband grants it spent over a year trying to eliminate.[2][5] The organizations that sued the administration over its cancellation describe the ruling as their win. The administration lost its motion to dismiss, lost its attempt to permanently kill the Competitive Grant Program, and is now required by court order to fund the same programs it argued should be eliminated.
The ruling validates one constitutional argument Trump made. It does not vindicate the broader position — that the entire Digital Equity Act was illegal and should be defunded, which was the stated basis for the original cancellation. Calling the net outcome a "massive victory" requires crediting the constitutional win while ignoring the reinstatement order. A more accurate description: a partial, mixed ruling in which the Trump administration prevailed on one constitutional question and lost on what actually happens to the money.
The Digital Equity Act was enacted as Title III of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, signed by President Biden on November 15, 2021. That law passed the Senate 69-30 with 19 Republican senators voting for it, a bipartisan vote in a deeply polarized era.[7] The framing "Biden DEI law" or "Sleepy Joe and the Dumocrats" (from the same post) omits that nearly a fifth of the Senate Republican caucus voted for the legislation.
The DEA is primarily a broadband access and digital skills law. Its purpose was to expand internet adoption among populations with low broadband use: rural residents, seniors, veterans, low-income households, disabled individuals, incarcerated individuals, those with language barriers, and racial minorities (the provision now struck down).[8] The seven surviving covered populations are not race-based; they are demographic and economic categories. Labeling the whole law a "DEI" program accurately describes one of eight provisions while mischaracterizing the statute's scope and origin.
The court found one racial-classification provision unconstitutional and severed it. No court has found the law's purpose was divisive, and the ruling explicitly held the law constitutional in all other respects. Framing a severability ruling as validation of the claim that the program divided rather than united Americans goes further than any court found.
The "instead of serving ALL Americans" formulation is contradicted directly by the act's design and the court's outcome. Seven of eight covered populations are non-racial: rural residents, veterans, seniors (60+), incarcerated individuals, people with disabilities, English learners, and low-income households — groups spread across every political coalition.[8] The $1.44 billion state capacity program was a formula grant distributed to every state, not a targeted racial set-aside. The court preserved all of those programs and ordered them reinstated. Saying the law was used to "divide Americans instead of serving ALL Americans" mischaracterizes both the statute's scope and what the ruling said the law can continue to do.
Background: What the Digital Equity Act Was
The Digital Equity Act allocated $2.75 billion across three programs administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA): a $60 million State Digital Equity Planning Grant Program to help states develop broadband adoption plans; a $1.44 billion State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program for implementing those plans; and a $1.25 billion Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program for nonprofits, local governments, and community anchor institutions.[8][9]
On May 8, 2025, Trump posted on Truth Social characterizing the program as "a RACIST and ILLEGAL $2.5 BILLION DOLLAR giveaway" (slightly below the law's actual $2.75 billion total) and announced he was ending it.[6] He said he had consulted with Lutnick on the decision. On May 9, 2025, NIST sent formal cancellation notices to grantees. The cancellation terminated grants to hundreds of state agencies, libraries, nonprofits, and community organizations that had been awarded funding.[10]
The NDIA filed suit in federal court in October 2025. The Trump administration moved to dismiss, arguing the programs were unconstitutional and the president had authority to cancel them. Judge Bates denied that motion and, finding the race provision severable, ordered the Competitive Grant Program reinstated.[1][2]
Who Is Affected and How
| Actor | Outcome | What It Means |
|---|---|---|
| Trump / Lutnick / Commerce | Mixed | Racial-provision ruling validates one constitutional claim. Denied motion to dismiss; ordered to reinstate $1.25B in grants, the opposite of the administration's stated objective. |
| NDIA and digital equity advocates | Won | Program reinstated. Race criterion removed (a partial loss on one dimension), but the court affirmed Congress's authority and the administration's obligation to fund the programs. |
| Grant recipients (nonprofits, libraries, cities) | Mixed | Funding restored in principle; reinstatement timeline depends on the August 1 status report and Commerce's compliance. Programs interrupted for 14+ months may have lost organizational capacity. |
| Racial minority communities | Loss (partial) | Racial/ethnic minority status can no longer be a standalone criterion for targeting grants. In practice, racial minorities disproportionately fall under other covered populations (low-income, rural, limited English) so programs will likely still reach them, but not by explicit design. |
| Rural residents, veterans, seniors, disabled Americans | Won | Their covered-population categories survived unchanged. Programs targeting them must be reinstated by court order. |
| Congress (19 GOP senators who backed IIJA) | Won (core) | Court upheld Congress's authority to appropriate and direct these funds. The ruling rejected the administration's argument that the whole statute was invalid and unenforceable. |
The Case for Trump's Reading
Trump's constitutional prediction was correct and made well before any court ruled. In May 2025, he argued explicitly that race-based grant targeting would fail strict scrutiny under post-SFFA precedent. Judge Bates's July 2026 ruling vindicated that specific claim: the racial criterion failed strict scrutiny and was struck. The government's agreement to reinstate the program only came because the court resolved the constitutional question; absent a win on the race issue, the administration might have faced a more complex set of statutory challenges. In the narrowest sense, Trump was right about the constitutional law before a court said so.
Why this does not change the verdict on the "massive victory" claim: winning one constitutional point while being ordered to restart the program you spent 14 months trying to kill is not a victory in any ordinary sense of the word. The practical outcome: over $1 billion flowing to digital equity programs. That is what the administration's opponents sought and what the court ordered. Courts resolve legal disputes; the resolution here required the government to do the thing it refused to do.
What to Watch
- Aug 1, 2026 Joint status report deadline — Commerce and NDIA must propose a reinstatement schedule to Judge Bates. Whether Commerce files in good faith or seeks delays will signal how quickly $1.25B actually reaches grantees.
- Ongoing The $1.44 billion State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program (separate from the Competitive Program at issue in this case) was also canceled in May 2025. The current ruling covers only the Competitive Program. Watch for further litigation or Congressional action on the larger state-level program.
- Ongoing The ruling applies the post-SFFA strict-scrutiny logic to a federal grant program for the first time in this circuit. Other federal programs that include race as a covered or targeted population may face similar challenges. This case is a template, not an endpoint.
- Appeal risk Either side could appeal. The Trump administration might challenge the reinstatement order; advocates might challenge the racial-provision holding. The D.C. Circuit and potentially the Supreme Court are the next stages if either party escalates.
Sources
- Court Rules the Digital Equity Act's Race Provision Is Unconstitutional — But Severable
- Judge Expects Trump Administration to Reinstate Digital Equity Funding
- Court Strikes Down Racial Set-Asides as Illegal in Biden-Era Broadband Access Law
- Judge Rejects Trump Bid to Dismantle Digital Equity Grants; Public Knowledge Calls for Swift Restart
- Update: Digital Equity Act to Move Forward After Court Decision
- Trump Says Digital Equity Funding Under Broadband Law Will Be Ended
- H.R. 3684: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act — Senate Vote #314, Aug. 10, 2021
- FAQ: Cancellation of the Digital Equity Act Grant Programs
- NTIA Seeks Comment on $2.75 Billion Digital Equity Act Programs
- Trump Administration Cancels Digital Equity Grants
- Original Truth Social post (trumpstruth.org mirror)
