Elon Musk’s DOGE department used ChatGPT illegally and recklessly

The court ruled that the cancellation of more than $100 million in grants was unconstitutional

An American federal court issued a ruling stating that canceling over $100 million in grants by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) violates the Constitution. In a 143‑page opinion, Judge Colleen McMahon noted that DOGE employees used ChatGPT to assess whether a project fell under the concepts of “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI).

Context
The ruling was issued in the context of a lawsuit filed by several humanitarian organizations in 2025. The judge emphasized that DOGE clearly used the presence of protected characteristics as a basis for denying further funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Examples were given where employees likely employed the AI bot ChatGPT to check and subsequently cancel grants based on race, nationality, religion, and sexual orientation.

Key facts from the court document
The incident involved DOGE employee Justin Fox. He worked with colleague Nate Cavano on canceling 97 % of NEH grants, relying on ChatGPT’s interpretation of DEI.
Methodology for querying ChatGPT: Sent brief grant descriptions from the NEH table and asked standard questions: “Is this related to DEI? Answer objectively using fewer than 120 characters. Start with ‘yes’ or ‘no’, then give a short description.”
Lack of a definition of DEI: Fox did not provide ChatGPT with an official definition of the term nor clarify how the bot understood DEI.
Coding “discovery”: Used ChatGPT to identify so‑called “discovery codes” in grant descriptions, including concepts such as sexual minorities, immigrants, etc., to classify grants as “most insane” or “bad.”
DOGE criteria: Considered hundreds of grants wasteful due to connections with African Americans, women, Jews, Asian Americans, and Indigenous peoples. These criteria matched those previously deemed acceptable by Congress for funding under NEH.

Court findings
1. Illegality of DOGE’s decision

The decision to terminate funding for more than 1,400 NEH grants is illegal and unconstitutional because it violates existing law.

2. Denial of legal protection for using ChatGPT

The court rejected the government’s argument that “there is no real constitutional issue because the classification was built by ChatGPT, not the government.” The government chose ChatGPT as a tool, and its use does not absolve DOGE of responsibility.

3. Obligation to reverse the decision

The ruling orders the cancellation of the funding denial for these grants and restores their status.

Conclusion
The court determined that using the AI bot ChatGPT to determine a project’s link to DEI and subsequently withdrawing more than $100 million in grants violates recipients’ constitutional rights. DOGE must rescind its funding denials and return the grants to their lawful owners.