Federal judge rules DOGE unconstitutional for using ChatGPT to cancel DEI grants
Judge Colleen McMahon determined that an AI tool acted as the government's instrument, violating the First and Fifth Amendments in a ruling that reverses the cancellation of more than 1,400 grants.
A United States District Judge has ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) unconstitutionally cancelled more than 1,400 grants awarded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). In a comprehensive 143-page decision, Judge Colleen McMahon found that the cancellations violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause. The court ordered the immediate restoration of the funding, which totals over $100 million, overturning the agency's attempt to purge what it deemed wasteful spending.
The ruling centres on the methodology employed by DOGE staffers to identify and eliminate the grants. Testimony from DOGE staffer Justin Fox revealed that he utilised ChatGPT to scan grant descriptions for terms associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and protected characteristics such as race, religion, and sexuality. Fox admitted to using a standardised prompt to ask the AI whether a grant related to DEI, without defining the term for the tool. He also ran a list of specific demographic keywords, which he labelled "Detection Codes," through every grant description to classify them as "Craziest Grants" or "Other Bad Grants."
Judge McMahon rejected the government's argument that the involvement of an artificial intelligence absolved the state of its constitutional responsibilities. The court explicitly stated there is no distinction to be drawn between the Government and ChatGPT in this context. The judge noted that ChatGPT was the Government's chosen instrument for the project, and its use to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor grants the agency carte blanche to engage in such practices.
The decision highlights a stark contradiction between DOGE's actions and the statutory purpose of the NEH. The court observed that DOGE deemed hundreds of grants wasteful because they related to subjects including Blacks, women, Jews, Asian Americans, and Indigenous people. These are precisely the subjects that Congress deemed germane to the NEH's mission, which includes projects concerning the Holocaust, civil rights, and indigenous knowledge. By cancelling grants based on these demographics, the agency acted contrary to the law.
The legal challenge originated in 2025 when humanities groups filed a lawsuit contesting the termination of grants by DOGE. The agency had deployed to the NEH with the mandate to eliminate funding, a process that resulted in the termination of 97 percent of the grants under review. The judge's order mandates the reversal of these cancellations, ensuring that the funding previously shut down for alleged DEI prejudice is restored to the humanities groups.
This landmark ruling underscores the legal implications of using automated systems for government decision-making regarding protected classes. It establishes that when public officials rely on AI to identify and penalise specific viewpoints or demographics, the state remains fully responsible for the resulting constitutional violations. The restoration of the funds serves as a significant rebuke to the notion that algorithmic bias can be shielded from judicial scrutiny.
