AT A GLANCE
- Two former Trump administration staffers in their 20s admitted under oath to using AI and personal judgment to cut federal DEI-related grants
- The cuts disproportionately targeted programs tied to communities of color and LGBTQ+ groups
- Nearly 97 percent of National Endowment for the Humanities grants were reportedly canceled in just 22 days
- Civil rights leaders and advocates say the process exposes inexperience, bias, and potential constitutional violations
Depositions Expose How AI and Guesswork Drove Federal Cuts
A newly surfaced set of legal depositions is drawing national attention after revealing that two young Trump administration staffers relied on artificial intelligence tools and personal judgment to determine which federal grants would be eliminated under anti-DEI policies.
The staffers, Justin Fox and Nate Cavanaugh, were political appointees working within the now-disbanded Department of Government Efficiency, a controversial office tasked with identifying government “waste and fraud.” The initiative operated under the direction of billionaire Elon Musk, who served as a senior advisor to President Donald Trump during the administration.
Their work became central to executing Trump’s executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives across federal agencies. In practice, that meant combing through federal grant descriptions and flagging programs that appeared to align with DEI principles.
According to their sworn testimony, Fox and Cavanaugh used AI tools, including ChatGPT, alongside keyword scanning to identify which grants should be cut. Terms such as “BIPOC,” “Tribal,” “LGBTQ,” and “homosexual” were used as triggers for elimination. Notably, deposition records indicate that similar language referencing “white” populations was not flagged for removal.
A Lack of Understanding at the Center of Decision-Making
The depositions raise deeper concerns about who was making these high-stakes decisions and what qualifications they held.
When asked to define DEI during questioning, Fox was unable to provide a clear explanation, despite being directly responsible for determining which programs met the criteria for termination.
“I don’t remember it off the top of my head,” Fox said. “My understanding was exactly what was written in the executive order.”
That admission has become a focal point for critics who argue that the process lacked both expertise and accountability.
Cavanaugh similarly acknowledged that there was no formal review structure guiding their decisions. Instead, the pair relied on what he described as “personal judgment calls” to determine compliance with the administration’s directives.
When questioned about whether he had any background in grant-making, policy analysis, or scholarly review, Cavanaugh said he did not. He also defended the approach, suggesting that formal expertise was unnecessary.
“I think a person can have enough judgment from reading books and being well informed outside of traditional experience to make judgment calls,” he said.
However, when pressed further on what materials informed his decision-making, Cavanaugh admitted he had not read any specific literature on evaluating grants. Instead, he relied solely on reading the grant descriptions themselves.
Rapid Cuts With Wide-Ranging Impact
The consequences of those decisions were swift and far-reaching.
According to details referenced in the case, nearly 97 percent of grants issued through the National Endowment for the Humanities were canceled within a 22-day window.
As the New York Times reports, the depositions come from a federal case actively being litigated in which groups impacted by the indiscriminate cuts accuse the Trump administration of violating their First Amendment and equal protection rights, and the publication of those depositions has fueled widespread public backlash.
Many of those grants supported educational programming, historical preservation efforts, cultural initiatives, and nonprofit organizations serving marginalized communities.
For organizations on the receiving end, the cuts were not just administrative changes but immediate disruptions to ongoing work, staffing, and community services. Programs focused on local history, arts education, and public humanities initiatives were among those affected.
The speed and scale of the cancellations have become central to a federal lawsuit now challenging the administration’s actions. Plaintiffs argue that the cuts were not only indiscriminate but also unconstitutional, violating both First Amendment protections and equal protection rights by targeting programs based on content and community focus.
Legal Battle Intensifies as Evidence Mounts
The ongoing federal case has brought increased scrutiny to the inner workings of the Department of Government Efficiency and the broader strategy behind the administration’s anti-DEI push.
Attorneys representing impacted organizations argue that the depositions provide direct evidence that decisions were made without consistent standards, subject matter expertise, or constitutional consideration.
The release of the testimony has also intensified public reaction, with many pointing to the use of AI as a substitute for informed policy evaluation.
While artificial intelligence tools are increasingly used across industries, experts have long warned against relying on them without human oversight, particularly in high-stakes government decisions. In this case, critics argue, AI was used not as a support tool but as a primary filter for determining which communities and programs would lose federal support.
Civil Rights Leaders Call Out “Incompetence and Bigotry”
Civil rights advocates have responded sharply, framing the revelations as both a governance failure and a broader reflection of systemic bias.
Attorney Ben Crump publicly questioned the logic behind assigning individuals with no relevant expertise to oversee funding decisions affecting education and cultural institutions.
“A DOGE staffer tasked with flagging grants for ‘DEI’ struggled to define the term during a deposition,” Crump wrote. “This is incredibly disturbing.”
Janai Nelson, director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, delivered one of the most pointed critiques, arguing that the situation undermines claims that the administration’s policies were rooted in merit.
“DOGE was a welfare program,” Nelson said. “Recent depositions reveal how deeply unqualified these taxpayer-funded employees were who wreaked havoc for people in true need of federal funding assistance.”
She added, “Don’t ever let them tell you it’s about ‘merit’ when this type of rank incompetence and bigotry is rewarded with a paycheck funded by yours.”
Debate Over Power, Policy, and Accountability
Beyond the immediate legal implications, the controversy has reignited a broader national conversation about how policy decisions are made and who is entrusted to make them.
At its core, the case raises questions about the intersection of politics, technology, and governance. It highlights the risks of delegating complex, high-impact decisions to individuals without subject matter expertise and relying on automated tools to interpret nuanced social and cultural issues.
It also underscores the growing influence of political appointees and unelected advisors in shaping federal policy, particularly in areas that directly affect marginalized communities.
As the lawsuit moves forward, the depositions are likely to remain a central piece of evidence, offering a rare inside look at how decisions were made behind closed doors and the extent to which those decisions were guided by experience, or the lack of it.
