> McMahon also rejected the government’s argument that there was no constitutional problem because any viewpoint classification was ChatGPT’s doing, and not the government’s.
> “ChatGPT was the Government’s chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE’s use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it,” she wrote.
This is a really bold argument. Could they have gotten away with "we hired contractors to do all the viewpoint tagging and just defunded whatever they said"? I feel like that should still count as the government doing it, given they instructed someone else to make a decision on x and y grounds. But why would a lawyer even think it's a defense?
This implies that the government respects the rules or at the very least pretends to do so. To me it's pretty clear that the US federal government has moved beyond that.
>The second stage of the grant termination process began on March 12, 2025, when Justin
Fox and Nate Cavanaugh – identified in the record as members of DOGE’s “Small Agencies
Team” – met with NEH leadership, including McDonald and Wolfson… Prior to joining the Trump Administration, neither Fox nor Cavanaugh had any
experience in government, public grant administration, private grant administration, or reviewing
humanities projects for scholarly merit… In fact, as both were in their twenties, they did not have much experience
in anything at all – certainly not in anything remotely related to the humanities.
This is wild. Trump administration gave a bunch of young adults access to decide about millions and millions of tax money. No guardrails, no checks, no competence.
> McMahon also rejected the government’s argument that there was no constitutional problem because any viewpoint classification was ChatGPT’s doing, and not the government’s.
> “ChatGPT was the Government’s chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE’s use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it,” she wrote.
This is a really bold argument. Could they have gotten away with "we hired contractors to do all the viewpoint tagging and just defunded whatever they said"? I feel like that should still count as the government doing it, given they instructed someone else to make a decision on x and y grounds. But why would a lawyer even think it's a defense?
This implies that the government respects the rules or at the very least pretends to do so. To me it's pretty clear that the US federal government has moved beyond that.
From the ruling (https://www.historians.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/291-Me...):
>The second stage of the grant termination process began on March 12, 2025, when Justin Fox and Nate Cavanaugh – identified in the record as members of DOGE’s “Small Agencies Team” – met with NEH leadership, including McDonald and Wolfson… Prior to joining the Trump Administration, neither Fox nor Cavanaugh had any experience in government, public grant administration, private grant administration, or reviewing humanities projects for scholarly merit… In fact, as both were in their twenties, they did not have much experience in anything at all – certainly not in anything remotely related to the humanities.
This is wild. Trump administration gave a bunch of young adults access to decide about millions and millions of tax money. No guardrails, no checks, no competence.
What will be the consequences?
I am sure -- the government will appeal and the supreme court will decide it is all fine, because that's how founding fathers intended.
Even if the Supreme Court says they need to fund the USAID, it won't bring back the hundreds of thousands who died. https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hund...
The funding will be restored, assuming the decision survives an appeal.
Administration decides the constitution doesn't spark joy, yeet
[dead]