Full Breakdown
Controversy Surrounds DOGE's Use of AI in Grant Cancellations
3/15/2026, 7:48:11 AM
Background on DOGE's Grant Cuts
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initiated by Elon Musk, has faced scrutiny for its abrupt cancellation of over 1,400 grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). This initiative aimed to eliminate what were deemed "radical and wasteful" diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, following an executive order issued by President Donald Trump. The cuts, totaling millions of dollars, were implemented within a month and have sparked significant backlash from various scholarly organizations, including the Modern Language Association (MLA), American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), and American Historical Association (AHA).
Core Event: Viral Deposition Videos
Recently, deposition videos of DOGE staffers Justin Fox and Nathan Cavanaugh were ordered removed from public view by a Manhattan judge after they went viral. The videos, initially posted by the plaintiffs in ongoing lawsuits, revealed troubling insights into the decision-making processes behind the grant cancellations. In these depositions, both Fox and Cavanaugh admitted to using ChatGPT to flag grants for termination based on their perceived alignment with DEI principles. The court's intervention highlights the tension between public interest and legal confidentiality.
Key Findings from the Depositions
The depositions revealed that DOGE staffers, lacking experience in grant administration, relied heavily on AI tools to evaluate funding proposals. For instance, Fox struggled to define DEI and admitted that his understanding was based solely on the executive order. Cavanaugh, also inexperienced in the humanities, defended the appropriateness of young staff making significant funding decisions, stating, “I think a person can have enough judgment from reading books and being well-informed outside of traditional experience.”
Several projects, including those documenting Colorado's musical history and American Indian boarding school experiences, were flagged for promoting DEI. Notably, Dr. Xóchitl C. Chávez, whose project was affected, emphasized that it was not intended as a DEI initiative but rather a historical archive.
Criticism & Opposition
Critics argue that DOGE's methods were flawed and discriminatory. The MLA and other organizations contend that the agency's actions undermined access to vital public programming and research. Paula M. Krebs, executive director of the MLA, described the actions of DOGE as “haphazard and unlawful,” emphasizing the need for qualified judgment in grant evaluations.
Official Statements & Responses
The Justice Department filed an emergency motion arguing that the deposition videos were improperly posted and that at least one witness faced harassment, including death threats. Following this, the judge ordered the videos removed while the court deliberates on the matter.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
There is a discrepancy regarding the effectiveness of DOGE's cuts in reducing government spending. While the agency aimed to lower the deficit, reports indicate that federal spending did not decrease under DOGE's oversight. Critics highlight that the cuts did not achieve their intended fiscal goals, raising questions about the overall impact of the initiative.
What's Next
The upcoming court hearing will determine whether the deposition videos will remain offline or be restored to public access. This decision will likely influence ongoing discussions about transparency in government operations and the role of AI in decision-making processes.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Sorry for those impacted, but there is a bigger problem, and that’s ultimately — the more important piece is reducing the government spend,” — Justin Fox, DOGE Staffer
- “ She said relying on automated systems to evaluate cultural work could lead to important stories and histories being lost.” — Dr. Xóchitl C. Chávez, Project Leader
