Trump claims court struck down Biden’s Digital Equity Act as unconstitutional

Trump the president said Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick fought the law and that judges agreed it was a racist giveaway, in a Truth Social post on July 17, 2026 at 3:32 PM ET.

First Published: July 17, 2026, 11:40 AM ET

WASHINGTON D.C. — Donald Trump claimed a court struck down the Digital Equity Act, a Biden-era broadband program, as unconstitutional.

Here is the full post on truthsocial: “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! Trump”

The president credited Howard Lutnick, his Secretary of Commerce, with leading the legal fight against the measure. He framed the outcome as a victory for the Constitution and taxpayers. Trump described the law as a diversity, equity and inclusion program that divided Americans rather than serving them.

The Digital Equity Act formed part of a larger federal broadband push. The program aimed to close gaps in internet access for populations including rural residents, older Americans, veterans and low-income households. Trump had earlier signaled his opposition to the funding, describing it as racist and unconstitutional.

The stakes reach households that rely on federal support to get online. Grant recipients and state broadband offices stand to lose funding streams they had counted on, while the administration argues the money divided Americans by demographic category. The dispute pits the Commerce Department against advocacy groups that promote digital access for people with disabilities and other underserved communities.

Has this happened before? The phrase “big win in court” has attached itself to competing legal battles across the political spectrum. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer used nearly identical language weeks earlier, hailing a federal judge who blocked a revised voter database he tied to Trump-era election efforts according to benzinga.com. That ruling found the system improperly centralized sensitive personal data and risked wrongful voter roll removals according to benzinga.com.

For the average reader, the outcome could determine whether local libraries, community centers and job-training programs keep grants meant to expand internet access. Families in areas with weak connectivity may see delayed or canceled projects if the funding halts.

The next move rests with the Commerce Department and any appeals court that reviews the case. Trump did not identify the court, the judge or the case number in his post, and a date for further proceedings has not been announced.

Legal fights over federal spending programs have reshaped presidencies before, as happened when courts tested executive authority over the purse. Federal judges blocked several signature initiatives across recent administrations, from immigration orders to environmental rules, forcing the White House to seek workarounds. In many of those cases, the disputes climbed toward the Supreme Court, where the final rulings often outlasted the presidents who started the fights.