Judge rules DOGE’s ChatGPT use was both dumb and illegal

A federal judge has declared that the Department of Government Efficiency’s reliance on ChatGPT to cancel over $100 million in grants was both unconstitutional and legally indefensible. In a sweeping 143-page ruling issued Thursday, US District Judge Colleen McMahon sharply criticized the agency’s process for eliminating funding, specifically highlighting its use of AI to identify programs related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

The decision stems from a 2025 lawsuit filed by humanities organizations. Judge McMahon wrote that the evidence made it “could not be more obvious that DOGE used the mere presence of particular, protected characteristics to disqualify grants from continued funding” from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). The judge found that the department’s method lacked any rational basis, relying instead on a flawed and unconstitutional algorithmic review to determine which grants to cut.

By outsourcing critical funding decisions to a chatbot, DOGE effectively bypassed standard administrative procedures and ignored the legal protections afforded to grant recipients. The ruling underscores a growing judicial skepticism toward the use of artificial intelligence in government decision-making, particularly when it involves sensitive categories like race, gender, and ideology. The court’s decision serves as a major legal setback for the department and a warning to other agencies considering similar AI-driven cost-cutting measures.