The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), previously fronted by Elon Musk, is facing significant scrutiny following a lawsuit that claims the agency engaged in questionable practices while cutting funding for humanities projects. The legal action, filed on 6 March 2025, alleges that former DOGE employees Justin Fox and Nathan Cavanaugh leveraged artificial intelligence to dismiss over $100 million in grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities, with a particular focus on those related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/elon-musk-012126-11ef997434ac4485afa74fd8c64dfd6f.jpg)
The lawsuit has been brought forth by an alliance of prominent organisations, including the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Historical Association, the Modern Language Association, and the Authors Guild. The plaintiffs accuse Fox and Cavanaugh of violating the First Amendment rights and the equal protection clause of the US Constitution during their review process, which purportedly involved utilising ChatGPT to evaluate the relevance of various grants to DEI objectives.
Amongst the grants terminated was a $349,000 award intended for the High Point Museum in North Carolina, which was earmarked for a new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system. The museum’s mission focuses on sharing the history of greater High Point and providing context for contemporary issues. Its website highlights a commitment to enhancing community engagement and expanding access to its collections.
Documentation included in the lawsuit reveals the methods employed by DOGE to identify which grants to cut. According to reports, Fox and Cavanaugh instructed the AI to respond directly to questions about the relationship of grants to DEI in a precise manner. For instance, the command they allegedly used asked the AI to assess grants in terms of their relevance to DEI and to respond factually within a limited character count.
For the High Point Museum grant, the AI concluded that improving the HVAC system would enrich preservation conditions for collections, and thus aligned with DEI goals by making them more accessible to diverse audiences. As a result of this classification, the grant was subsequently terminated. Edith Brady, the director of High Point Museum, confirmed the discontinuation of the project but noted that the museum managed to recover approximately 70% of the original funding through a termination clause, allowing the project to be completed with alternative funding sources.
Seeking clarity on the situation, PEOPLE reached out to the White House and the National Endowment for the Humanities, but did not receive a response prior to publication. The implications of the lawsuit have sparked widespread discussion regarding the intersection of government funding, DEI initiatives, and the role of technology in decision-making processes.
In a deposition for the ongoing lawsuit, Fox appeared to struggle when asked to define DEI, a concept that has come under fire in recent years, particularly since former President Trump issued an executive order aimed at dismantling what he described as “radical and wasteful government DEI programmes.” Fox’s hesitation to articulate a clear definition raised eyebrows, especially as he acknowledged that grant evaluations were conducted against the backdrop of this executive order.
Elon Musk’s relationship with the previous administration was notably close during the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, resulting in his appointment to DOGE. However, by 2025, tensions surfaced between Musk and Trump, leading the billionaire to express dissatisfaction with the department’s initiatives. In a podcast appearance in December 2025, Musk stated that while the programme had some success in cutting what he described as “entirely wasteful” funding, he had little interest in participating in similar government ventures in the future.
Musk’s tenure as leader of DOGE concluded in May 2025, with the agency shutting down earlier than expected in November of that year, despite plans for it to continue until July 2026. This abrupt ending has added further fuel to the controversy surrounding the agency’s operations and the implications for humanities funding under the previous government.
The allegations against Fox and Cavanaugh, alongside Musk’s reflections on the agency’s success, point to a broader conversation about the future of government funding in the humanities and the role of AI in guiding policy decisions. This legal case has the potential to influence how similar funding programmes are assessed and managed in the future, especially as the discourse surrounding DEI continues to evolve in both public and political spheres.