In a recent legal challenge, staff members from the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have been summoned to provide testimonies regarding their controversial decision to cut funding for numerous grants awarded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The lawsuit, brought forth by prominent academic organisations including the Modern Language Association (MLA), the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), and the American Historical Association (AHA), alleges that DOGE employed discriminatory techniques to justify the elimination of over 1,400 grants.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/deposition-doge-031226-d2fe3e09a90b4d13a852fd728d658f08.jpg)
Key to the case are depositions from former DOGE staffers that surfaced this week, revealing troubling insights into the rationale behind the cuts. One notable clip features staff member Justin Fox, who appeared to struggle with defining the terms “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI). When probed to articulate what DEI entails, Fox resorted to referencing President Trump’s executive order, issued on his first day back in office, which aimed to dismantle government programmes deemed as promoting these values.
The executive order in question—entitled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing”—directed federal agencies to terminate any discriminatory initiatives that fell under the DEI banner. This included various mandates and policies that were described as favouring certain demographics. During his deposition, Fox disclosed, “Any time that we would look at a grant through the lens of complying with an executive order, we would just refer back to the EO [executive order] and assess if this grant had relation to it.”
The methods used by DOGE in its review process have been particularly scrutinised. Reports indicate that staff employed AI technology, specifically ChatGPT, to flag grants containing keywords associated with DEI, including terms such as “BIPOC,” “LGBTQ,” and “tribal.” This reliance on automated assessments has raised concerns about a lack of nuanced understanding regarding the projects under review.
The testimonies also spotlighted specific cases where grants were cut. For instance, Fox stumbled when discussing a documentary depicting female Holocaust survivors. He suggested that its focus on gender rendered it inherently discriminatory, labelling it as a DEI project. When questioned about the implications of such an interpretation, he struggled to clarify his reasoning, attempting to justify the cuts under the banner of adhering to the executive order.
In a separate exchange regarding historical narratives, Fox appeared conflicted when agreeing with an assertion that documentaries detailing significant events in Black civil rights can be classified as DEI. He expressed that these projects do not serve a broader humanitarian purpose but rather focus narrowly on a particular racial group, stating, “It is not for the benefit of humankind; it is focused on a specific group.”
This response prompted further inquiry from the attorney overseeing the deposition, who challenged Fox’s assertion that a documentary addressing anti-Black violence could not be of universal benefit. Fox later attempted to clarify by stating, “That’s not what I’m saying… I’m saying it relates to diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
As the lawsuit unfolds, these depositions have become central to understanding the rationale behind the funding cuts implemented under Trump’s directive. They raise critical questions about the balance between government efficiency and the preservation of diverse academic inquiry, reflecting the contentious political climate surrounding DEI initiatives during the later years of the Trump administration.
Legal experts have noted that the outcomes of this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of government grants in the humanities and social sciences, particularly regarding funding allocations for projects that address historically marginalized groups. The debate continues as the academic community reflects on the consequences of such policies and the definitions of diversity and inclusion in public funding.
The lawsuit not only retraces the steps taken by DOGE but also highlights the broader societal implications of these cuts on cultural and educational narratives in the United States. As more depositions are anticipated, the ensuing discussions will likely influence the ongoing dialogue about race, representation, and access to funding in academia and beyond.