Judge Rules DOGE's Use of ChatGPT to Cancel $100 Million in Grants Was Unconstitutional

Judge rules DOGE used ChatGPT in a way that was both dumb and illegal

The Department of Government Efficiency's cancellation of over $100 million in grants was unconstitutional, according to a ruling on Thursday. In the 143-page decision, US District Judge Colleen McMahon cites DOGE's process for eliminating grants, which involved using ChatGPT to determine if something is related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The ruling, which stems from a 2025 lawsuit filed by humanities groups, says "it could not be more obvious that DOGE used the mere presence of particular, protected characteristics to disqualify grants from continued funding" from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Judge McMahon cites several instances in which DOGE appeared to use ChatGPT to scan and eliminate grants using their relation to characteristics like race, national origin, religion, and sexuality. The filing mentions testimony from Justin Fox, a DOGE staffer who worked with his colleague Nate Cavanaugh to eliminate 97 percent of grants under the NEH, in part by relying on ChatGPT's understanding of DEI: Fox testified that he used ChatGPT "[t]o highlight why [a] grant may relate to DEI" and "to pull out anything related to DEI." To do so, he submitted each cursory grant description from the NEH spreadsheet to ChatGPT using a standardized prompt: "Does the following relate at all to DEI? Respond factually in less than 120 characters. Begin with 'Yes.' or 'No.' followed by a brief explanation." Fox testified that he did not define "DEI" for ChatGPT and that he did not have the slightest idea how ChatGPT understood the term. In addition to asking ChatGPT for signs that something is related to DEI, Fox also asked the AI chatbot to scan NEH grants for what he called "Detection Codes" related to "protected characteristics," according to the filing: After being deployed from DOGE to NEH, Justin Fox used search terms, which he labeled as "Detection Codes," to identify grants that he dubbed the "Craziest Grants" and "Other Bad Grants." The search terms included, among other terms, "BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color)," "Minorities," "Native," "Tribal," "Indigenous," "Immigrant," "LGBTQ," "Homosexual," and "Gay." When Fox was asked whether he "r[a]n this list of words through every grant description" he received from NEH, he confirmed, "yes." In this way, Fox constructed and applied explicit classifications based on protected characteristics and used them as the operative criteria for revoking federal grants. Judge McMahon writes that DOGE deemed hundreds of grants "wasteful because they related to Blacks, women, Jews, Asian Americans, and Indigenous people," adding that "the very subjects DOGE treated as markers of waste, lack of merit, or ideological contamination are the subjects that Congress made expressly germane to NEH's mission." Some of the grants lumped into the "wasteful" category related to projects about the Holocaust, civil rights, and an educational experience that would allow participants to "explor[e] indigenous knowledge, culture, and climate." McMahon also pushes back on the government's argument that "there is no real constitutional problem here because any viewpoint-based classification was ChatGPT's doing, rather than the Government's:" There is no distinction to be drawn here between the Government and ChatGPT. ChatGPT was the Government's chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE's use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it. ...There is not a scintilla of evidence that Fox or Cavanaugh, having obtained a "DEI" rationale from ChatGPT, undertook any meaningful review of whether that rationale made sense. In her decision, Judge McMahon ultimately found that DOGE's elimination of over 1,400 NEH grants was unlawful and unconstitutional, citing violations of the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's equal protection law, and DOGE's lack of authority. McMahon issued an order to reverse their cancellation.

Judge rules Trump administration's cancellation of humanities grants was unconstitutional

The Trump administration's cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants to scholars, writers, research groups and other organizations was unconstitutional, and the Department of Government Efficiency had no authority to end the funding, a federal judge in New York ruled on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan sided with The Authors Guild, several other groups and several people who had their grants canceled and sued DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities. McMahon permanently barred the administration from terminating the grants and criticized DOGE's use of artificial intelligence in nixing the funding. Government lawyers had argued that the cuts of more than 1,400 grants of congressionally approved funds were legal moves to implement President Donald Trump's directives, eliminate grants associated with diversion, equity and inclusion and reduce discretionary spending under the administration's priorities. The White House and Department of Justice, which defended against the lawsuit, did not immediately return emails seeking comment Thursday evening. It was not immediately clear if an appeal was planned. McMahon said the government violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection right, and DOGE did not have the lawful authority to cancel the grants. She wrote, for example, that it was "a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination" when officials canceled the grants based on DEI. "The public interest favors permanent relief," McMahon wrote in her ruling. "The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution." Several groups that sued the government, including the American Council of Learned Societies, American Historical Association and Modern Language Association, hailed the decision in a joint statement. "This ruling in an important achievement in our effort to restore the NEH's ability to fulfill the vital mission with which Congress charged it: helping to create and sustain 'a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry' through the humanities," said Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association. Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for the Authors Guild, called the grant cancellations "a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection." "We're pleased with the Court's decision, which vindicates our clients: the brilliant academics, writers, and institutions doing work that is deeply important to our democracy," Onayemi said in a statement. "It also reaffirms that Congress's 60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive." The judge scrutinized how government officials classified grant projects as DEI and used ChatGPT to target them for funding cuts. In one case, she said officials, using the AI platform, labeled as DEI an anthology titled "In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union." She also listed numerous other examples. McMahon also rejected the government's argument that there was no constitutional problem because any viewpoint classification was ChatGPT's doing, and not the government's. "ChatGPT was the Government's chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE's use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it," she wrote. The grant cancellations were announced in April 2025, three months after Trump issued an executive order titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing." In February 2025, Trump issued another executive order implementing DOGE's "cost efficiency initiative." Michael McDonald, then the acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, sent letters to grant recipients informing them that their grants were canceled. In a letter to one organization on April 1, 2025, he wrote, "The NEH has reasonable cause to terminate your grant in light of the fact that the NEH is repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President's agenda." Many of the canceled grants were awarded during the Biden administration, and only about 40 grants awarded by that administration were spared from the cuts, the judge wrote. McMahon wrote that while a new administration may pursue lawful funding priorities, "it has no license to suppress disfavored ideas." In a temporary block of the grant cancellations issued last year that raised First Amendment and other issues, the judge said the "defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas."

Judge rules Trump administration's cancellation of humanities grants was unconstitutional

The Trump administration's cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants to scholars, writers, research groups and other organizations was unconstitutional, and the Department of Government Efficiency had no authority to end the funding, a federal judge in New York ruled on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan sided with The Authors Guild, several other groups and several people who had their grants canceled and sued DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities. McMahon permanently barred the administration from terminating the grants and criticized DOGE's use of artificial intelligence in nixing the funding. Government lawyers had argued that the cuts of more than 1,400 grants of congressionally approved funds were legal moves to implement President Donald Trump's directives, eliminate grants associated with diversion, equity and inclusion and reduce discretionary spending under the administration's priorities. The White House and Department of Justice, which defended against the lawsuit, did not immediately return emails seeking comment Thursday evening. It was not immediately clear if an appeal was planned. McMahon said the government violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection right, and DOGE did not have the lawful authority to cancel the grants. She wrote, for example, that it was "a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination" when officials canceled the grants based on DEI. "The public interest favors permanent relief," McMahon wrote in her ruling. "The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution." Several groups that sued the government, including the American Council of Learned Societies, American Historical Association and Modern Language Association, hailed the decision in a joint statement. "This ruling in an important achievement in our effort to restore the NEH's ability to fulfill the vital mission with which Congress charged it: helping to create and sustain 'a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry' through the humanities," said Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association. Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for the Authors Guild, called the grant cancellations "a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection." "We're pleased with the Court's decision, which vindicates our clients: the brilliant academics, writers, and institutions doing work that is deeply important to our democracy," Onayemi said in a statement. "It also reaffirms that Congress's 60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive." The judge scrutinized how government officials classified grant projects as DEI and used ChatGPT to target them for funding cuts. In one case, she said officials, using the AI platform, labeled as DEI an anthology titled "In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union." She also listed numerous other examples. McMahon also rejected the government's argument that there was no constitutional problem because any viewpoint classification was ChatGPT's doing, and not the government's. "ChatGPT was the Government's chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE's use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it," she wrote. The grant cancellations were announced in April 2025, three months after Trump issued an executive order titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing." In February 2025, Trump issued another executive order implementing DOGE's "cost efficiency initiative." Michael McDonald, then the acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, sent letters to grant recipients informing them that their grants were canceled. In a letter to one organization on April 1, 2025, he wrote, "The NEH has reasonable cause to terminate your grant in light of the fact that the NEH is repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President's agenda." Many of the canceled grants were awarded during the Biden administration, and only about 40 grants awarded by that administration were spared from the cuts, the judge wrote. McMahon wrote that while a new administration may pursue lawful funding priorities, "it has no license to suppress disfavored ideas." In a temporary block of the grant cancellations issued last year that raised First Amendment and other issues, the judge said the "defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas."

Judge rules Trump administration's cancellation of humanities grants was unconstitutional

The Trump administration's cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants to scholars, writers, research groups and other organizations was unconstitutional, and the Department of Government Efficiency had no authority to end the funding, a federal judge in New York ruled on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan sided with The Authors Guild, several other groups and several people who had their grants canceled and sued DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities. McMahon permanently barred the administration from terminating the grants and criticized DOGE's use of artificial intelligence in nixing the funding. Government lawyers had argued that the cuts of more than 1,400 grants of congressionally approved funds were legal moves to implement President Donald Trump's directives, eliminate grants associated with diversion, equity and inclusion and reduce discretionary spending under the administration's priorities. The White House and Department of Justice, which defended against the lawsuit, did not immediately return emails seeking comment Thursday evening. It was not immediately clear if an appeal was planned. McMahon said the government violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection right, and DOGE did not have the lawful authority to cancel the grants. She wrote, for example, that it was "a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination" when officials canceled the grants based on DEI. "The public interest favors permanent relief," McMahon wrote in her ruling. "The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution." Several groups that sued the government, including the American Council of Learned Societies, American Historical Association and Modern Language Association, hailed the decision in a joint statement. "This ruling in an important achievement in our effort to restore the NEH's ability to fulfill the vital mission with which Congress charged it: helping to create and sustain 'a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry' through the humanities," said Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association. Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for the Authors Guild, called the grant cancellations "a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection." "We're pleased with the Court's decision, which vindicates our clients: the brilliant academics, writers, and institutions doing work that is deeply important to our democracy," Onayemi said in a statement. "It also reaffirms that Congress's 60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive." The judge scrutinized how government officials classified grant projects as DEI and used ChatGPT to target them for funding cuts. In one case, she said officials, using the AI platform, labeled as DEI an anthology titled "In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union." She also listed numerous other examples. McMahon also rejected the government's argument that there was no constitutional problem because any viewpoint classification was ChatGPT's doing, and not the government's. "ChatGPT was the Government's chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE's use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it," she wrote. The grant cancellations were announced in April 2025, three months after Trump issued an executive order titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing." In February 2025, Trump issued another executive order implementing DOGE's "cost efficiency initiative." Michael McDonald, then the acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, sent letters to grant recipients informing them that their grants were canceled. In a letter to one organization on April 1, 2025, he wrote, "The NEH has reasonable cause to terminate your grant in light of the fact that the NEH is repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President's agenda." Many of the canceled grants were awarded during the Biden administration, and only about 40 grants awarded by that administration were spared from the cuts, the judge wrote. McMahon wrote that while a new administration may pursue lawful funding priorities, "it has no license to suppress disfavored ideas." In a temporary block of the grant cancellations issued last year that raised First Amendment and other issues, the judge said the "defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas."

Judge rules Trump administration's cancellation of humanities grants was unconstitutional

The Trump administration's cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants to scholars, writers, research groups and other organizations was unconstitutional, and the Department of Government Efficiency had no authority to end the funding, a federal judge in New York ruled on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan sided with The Authors Guild, several other groups and several people who had their grants canceled and sued DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities. McMahon permanently barred the administration from terminating the grants and criticized DOGE's use of artificial intelligence in nixing the funding. Government lawyers had argued that the cuts of more than 1,400 grants of congressionally approved funds were legal moves to implement President Donald Trump's directives, eliminate grants associated with diversion, equity and inclusion and reduce discretionary spending under the administration's priorities. The White House and Department of Justice, which defended against the lawsuit, did not immediately return emails seeking comment Thursday evening. It was not immediately clear if an appeal was planned. McMahon said the government violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection right, and DOGE did not have the lawful authority to cancel the grants. She wrote, for example, that it was "a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination" when officials canceled the grants based on DEI. "The public interest favors permanent relief," McMahon wrote in her ruling. "The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution." Several groups that sued the government, including the American Council of Learned Societies, American Historical Association and Modern Language Association, hailed the decision in a joint statement. "This ruling in an important achievement in our effort to restore the NEH's ability to fulfill the vital mission with which Congress charged it: helping to create and sustain 'a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry' through the humanities," said Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association. Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for the Authors Guild, called the grant cancellations "a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection." "We're pleased with the Court's decision, which vindicates our clients: the brilliant academics, writers, and institutions doing work that is deeply important to our democracy," Onayemi said in a statement. "It also reaffirms that Congress's 60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive." The judge scrutinized how government officials classified grant projects as DEI and used ChatGPT to target them for funding cuts. In one case, she said officials, using the AI platform, labeled as DEI an anthology titled "In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union." She also listed numerous other examples. McMahon also rejected the government's argument that there was no constitutional problem because any viewpoint classification was ChatGPT's doing, and not the government's. "ChatGPT was the Government's chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE's use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it," she wrote. The grant cancellations were announced in April 2025, three months after Trump issued an executive order titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing." In February 2025, Trump issued another executive order implementing DOGE's "cost efficiency initiative." Michael McDonald, then the acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, sent letters to grant recipients informing them that their grants were canceled. In a letter to one organization on April 1, 2025, he wrote, "The NEH has reasonable cause to terminate your grant in light of the fact that the NEH is repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President's agenda." Many of the canceled grants were awarded during the Biden administration, and only about 40 grants awarded by that administration were spared from the cuts, the judge wrote. McMahon wrote that while a new administration may pursue lawful funding priorities, "it has no license to suppress disfavored ideas." In a temporary block of the grant cancellations issued last year that raised First Amendment and other issues, the judge said the "defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas."

Judge Rules DOGE's Cancellation Of Humanities Grants Was Unconstitutional

The judge sided with The Authors Guild, several other groups and several people who had their grants canceled and sued DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The Trump administration's cancellation of more than $100 million in humanities grants to scholars, writers, research groups and other organizations was unconstitutional, and the Department of Government Efficiency had no authority to end the funding, a federal judge in New York ruled on Thursday. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan sided with The Authors Guild, several other groups and several people who had their grants canceled and sued DOGE and the National Endowment for the Humanities. McMahon permanently barred the administration from terminating the grants and criticized DOGE's use of artificial intelligence in nixing the funding. Government lawyers had argued that the cuts of more than 1,400 grants of congressionally approved funds were legal moves to implement President Donald Trump's directives, eliminate grants associated with diversion, equity and inclusion and reduce discretionary spending under the administration's priorities. The White House and Department of Justice, which defended against the lawsuit, did not immediately return emails seeking comment Thursday evening. It was not immediately clear if an appeal was planned. McMahon said the government violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection right, and DOGE did not have the lawful authority to cancel the grants. She wrote, for example, that it was "a textbook example of unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination" when officials canceled the grants based on DEI. "The public interest favors permanent relief," McMahon wrote in her ruling. "The public has a strong interest in ensuring that federal officials act within the bounds set by Congress and the Constitution." Several groups that sued the government, including the American Council of Learned Societies, American Historical Association and Modern Language Association, hailed the decision in a joint statement. "This ruling in an important achievement in our effort to restore the NEH's ability to fulfill the vital mission with which Congress charged it: helping to create and sustain 'a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry' through the humanities," said Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association. Yinka Ezekiel Onayemi, an attorney for the Authors Guild, called the grant cancellations "a direct assault on constitutional free speech and equal protection." "We're pleased with the Court's decision, which vindicates our clients: the brilliant academics, writers, and institutions doing work that is deeply important to our democracy," Onayemi said in a statement. "It also reaffirms that Congress's 60 year old commitment to the humanities cannot be dismantled by an overreaching executive." The judge scrutinized how government officials classified grant projects as DEI and used ChatGPT to target them for funding cuts. In one case, she said officials, using the AI platform, labeled as DEI an anthology titled "In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union." She also listed numerous other examples. McMahon also rejected the government's argument that there was no constitutional problem because any viewpoint classification was ChatGPT's doing, and not the government's. "ChatGPT was the Government's chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE's use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it," she wrote. The grant cancellations were announced in April 2025, three months after Trump issued an executive order titled "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing." In February 2025, Trump issued another executive order implementing DOGE's "cost efficiency initiative." Michael McDonald, then the acting chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, sent letters to grant recipients informing them that their grants were canceled. In a letter to one organization on April 1, 2025, he wrote, "The NEH has reasonable cause to terminate your grant in light of the fact that the NEH is repurposing its funding allocations in a new direction in furtherance of the President's agenda." Many of the canceled grants were awarded during the Biden administration, and only about 40 grants awarded by that administration were spared from the cuts, the judge wrote. McMahon wrote that while a new administration may pursue lawful funding priorities, "it has no license to suppress disfavored ideas." In a temporary block of the grant cancellations issued last year that raised First Amendment and other issues, the judge said the "defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas."