DOGE’s Use of ChatGPT to Cut Funds for Holocaust Education and Anti-Black Massacre Documentary Ruled Unconstitutional

A recent ruling from a federal court has exposed the controversial practices of the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk, regarding grant funding for humanities projects. U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon issued a scathing 143-page decision on May 7, 2025, accusing the initiative of unlawfully targeting grants associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, specifically those supporting African American history.

In her ruling, McMahon condemned DOGE’s methods, which involved using the artificial intelligence tool ChatGPT to assess federally funded projects. The judge ruled that this approach led to the removal of over $100 million in grants, marking a significant infringement on constitutional rights. She noted that the elimination of these grants was both “punitive” and discriminatory, disproportionately affecting initiatives based on “race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.”

Among the nearly 1,400 terminated grants, many were aimed at enhancing the understanding and appreciation of African American history. The termination of educational programmes connected to institutions such as Seton Hall University and projects documenting the Colfax Massacre, a tragic event in the history of racial violence, were highlighted as unjustified cuts in McMahon’s ruling.

The judge underscored that the DOGE’s failure to consider issues of discrimination while using AI tools in reviewing grant applications violated established regulations. “DOGE made no effort to ensure that the classifications it adopted would avoid discrimination on the basis of race,” McMahon stated. This lack of due diligence raises serious concerns about the processes employed by a division of the government responsible for ensuring the integrity of federal grant allocations.

The ruling has sparked outrage amongst humanities organisations, with leaders such as Joy Connolly from the American Council of Learned Societies applauding the outcome. They interpret the decision as a reaffirmation of the essential role that the humanities play in a democratic society. Connolly remarked, “Today’s decision is a step toward honouring the will of Congress and our mission as a nation—to seek the truth, know ourselves, and build a better future on that knowledge.”

Details from the court documents reveal that DOGE staffers relied on ChatGPT to generate rationales for cutting grant funding. Specifically, the court cited a disturbing instance where a proposed documentary about the Colfax Massacre, branded as a significant event in the struggle for Black civil rights, was dismissed due to its connections to DEI initiatives. ChatGPT accurately recognised the documentary’s relevance but it appears the initiative disregarded this evaluation in its funding decisions.

Elon Musk, a prominent figure in the tech industry and known for his interaction with controversial politics, was at the helm of DOGE until May 2025. His administration’s approach not only resulted in significant job losses but also included deep cuts to various federal programmes, raising alarms among many in the civil and academic community about the implications of such aggressive policies.

The judge’s ruling also pointed a finger at specific individuals within DOGE, particularly Nate Cavanaugh and Justin Fox, who orchestrated the cuts to the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Federal liability was affirmed by the judge, demonstrating that the administration could not simply blame AI outputs for its decisions. McMahon emphasised that using ChatGPT’s suggestions uncritically amounted to a direct violation of standards that require fairness and accountability in the treatment of grant applications.

In subsequent public statements, questions arose regarding the rationales given for certain cuts, such as a documentary focused on the experiences of women in the Holocaust. Fox, when deposed, struggled to articulate the logic behind prioritising or deprioritising grant proposals, which hinted at the internal conflicts and potentially misguided reasoning behind the programme’s actions.

Following the ruling, the White House and the Justice Department’s silence on whether they plan to appeal represents a pivotal moment in federal relations with the arts and humanities landscape. The ramifications of this decision could potentially lead to a reevaluation of policies affecting grant distribution and the underlying principles guiding government engagement with topics of race and history in America.

This case underscores a wider conversation about the role of technology in governance, the responsibilities of federal programmes, and the need for transparent mechanisms to protect historically significant narratives that contribute to an inclusive national discourse. As the legal and political ramifications unfold, the commitment to preserving the integrity of humanities funding will likely remain under scrutiny.