Renewed Examination of Humanities Grant Cuts Under Trump Administration
Overview of Grant Termination Controversy
The recent scrutiny surrounding the termination of over 1,400 humanities grants during Donald Trump's second term has intensified. This follows deposition videos from staff members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Justin Fox and Nathan Cavanaugh, which revealed that the review process utilized artificial intelligence and keyword searches to pinpoint projects associated with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). This testimony is part of a lawsuit initiated by several academic organizations, including the Modern Language Association, which contend that the administration unlawfully canceled grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) that focused on race, gender, and LGBTQ+ issues. The cuts were part of a broader initiative led by Elon Musk during the early months of Trump's second term.
According to court documents, more than 1,400 active NEH grants, valued at over $100 million, were terminated, resulting in a staggering 97 percent reduction of the agency's active grants. Testimonies indicated that staff members sometimes utilized ChatGPT to analyze project descriptions and assess their relevance to DEI.
Insights from Justin Fox's Testimony
Justin Fox Deposition
Justin Fox, a senior adviser at the General Services Administration with prior experience at Nexus Capital Management, shared insights during his deposition. He and his colleagues were tasked with reviewing spreadsheets of grants awarded during Joe Biden's presidency to identify those that might conflict with executive orders aimed at DEI initiatives. Fox admitted to searching federal grant databases for terms such as “gay,” “BIPOC,” “indigenous,” and “equality,” and he frequently queried ChatGPT to determine if specific grants were related to DEI.
Fox acknowledged that he did not provide a clear definition of DEI to the AI and was uncertain how it interpreted the term. When pressed for his own definition, he struggled to articulate a clear explanation. He referenced Trump’s executive order titled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing” but could not recall specific details.
Fox elaborated on how certain projects were flagged, citing a documentary about female Holocaust survivors as DEI-related due to its focus on gender and Jewish culture. He also mentioned that a documentary on Black civil rights was categorized as DEI because it centered on a specific racial group. He noted that grants related to LGBTQ topics were particularly noticeable during their reviews.
Nathan Cavanaugh's Perspective
Nathan Cavanaugh Deposition
Nathan Cavanaugh, a political appointee in his late 20s who worked with the DOGE team, also provided testimony regarding the review process. Despite lacking a background in humanities or academia, he and Fox reviewed grants primarily by scanning summaries for DEI-related language. One grant that proposed a series on LGBTQ military service was flagged simply because it explicitly mentioned LGBTQ.
Another grant that discussed HIV and AIDS activism raised concerns due to its references to feminist and queer insights. Cavanaugh admitted that neither he nor Fox consulted with scholars or the NEH’s peer review system before deciding on potential grant terminations, relying instead on their personal judgment. When questioned about the literature that informed their decisions, Cavanaugh conceded that he had not consulted any books.
Additionally, court filings suggest that Fox used an unofficial Microsoft email address to send termination notices, employing nearly identical language without providing individualized explanations.