Judge rules DOGE used ChatGPT in a way that was both dumb and illegal

In a 143-page decision tied to a 2025 lawsuit filed by humanities organizations, US District Judge Colleen McMahon ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency's cancellation of National Endowment for the Humanities grants was unconstitutional. The order documents how DOGE relied on OpenAI's ChatGPT to decide which programs counted as related to diversity, equity and inclusion as part of cancellations exceeding $100 million.

McMahon wrote that 'it could not be more obvious that DOGE used the mere presence of particular, protected characteristics to disqualify grants from continued funding.' The judge analyzed the conduct under the First Amendment's prohibition on viewpoint discrimination and the administrative-law standard against 'arbitrary and capricious' action. Whether federal grant recipients can recover canceled awards will be decided in the coming weeks.

The ruling stands as one of the first substantive judicial reviews of federal agencies using large language models inside decision-making workflows. ChatGPT's outputs reportedly flagged museums, historical organizations and university research programs as DEI-aligned because of the presence of specific racial or ethnic references. Legal specialists said the precedent could accelerate litigation targeting other AI-driven processes inside agencies.