When Algorithms Decide: The Unforeseen Impact of AI on Public Funding
The Unveiling of AI's Influence in Grant Evaluation
A recent federal court filing has brought to light an intriguing development: a government program established during the Trump administration purportedly employed the generative AI platform ChatGPT to scrutinize grant applications for potential links to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. This process allegedly led to the retraction of a substantial grant intended for the High Point Museum in North Carolina, which was meant to upgrade its heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.
High Point Museum's HVAC Grant: A Case Study in AI Intervention
Reports indicate that the High Point Museum was initially awarded a $349,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to replace its aging climate control infrastructure, essential for preserving its valuable collections. However, this funding was subsequently withdrawn after personnel from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — a body tasked with reviewing federal expenditures — utilized an AI chatbot to evaluate grant proposals, identifying the museum's request as having DEI implications.
Challenging the AI-Driven Cancellations
The American Council of Learned Societies and the American Historical Association have initiated legal proceedings, contending that these widespread cancellations of humanities grants were illicit and infringed upon First Amendment rights. Their lawsuit aims to challenge the legality and constitutionality of these grant reductions.
The Genesis of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)
The DOGE, established by executive order in January 2025, was mandated to conduct a comprehensive review of federal spending across various government agencies, including the humanities grants managed by the NEH.
ChatGPT's Role in Identifying DEI Connections
In a sworn deposition related to the lawsuit, Justin Fox, a DOGE employee, disclosed that staff leveraged ChatGPT to analyze descriptions of grant proposals. The AI was used to determine whether these proposals were connected to DEI programs, with its responses and rationale meticulously documented in a spreadsheet that ultimately informed decisions regarding grant cancellations.
AI Overrides Human Expertise in Grant Decisions
According to the American Historical Association, this AI-generated spreadsheet effectively superseded a pre-existing list compiled by NEH staff, which had previously guided decisions on grant cuts. This suggests a shift from human expert review to an AI-driven selection process.
The High Point Museum's HVAC Grant: A Closer Look at the DEI Label
The lawsuit details how the High Point Museum's application for HVAC system upgrades was scrutinized. The museum emphasized that enhanced climate control would significantly improve the preservation of its collections and, by extension, broaden access for a more diverse audience over time. ChatGPT, upon reviewing this description, concluded that the project was indeed related to DEI, citing the improved preservation conditions that would foster "greater access to diverse audiences."
Post-Cancellation Realities for the Museum
Edith Brady, the director of the High Point Museum, confirmed that work on the HVAC system had already commenced before the grant's termination. Fortunately, the museum was able to recoup approximately 70 percent of the awarded funds through a termination clause.
Other Grants Affected by AI Scrutiny
Beyond the High Point Museum, other grant proposals were similarly flagged by the AI. For instance, a proposal from North Carolina Central University, a historically Black institution, aimed at developing educational materials using digital archival collections, was also categorized by ChatGPT as a DEI-related project.
Legal Arguments Against AI's Untamed Authority
Attorneys representing the academic organizations assert that this process underscores a profound disregard by the administration for established democratic procedures and for the inherent value of the humanities, which the NEH is statutorily bound to uphold. Paula Krebs, executive director of the Modern Language Association, highlighted that the case's facts reveal the administration's "total disregard for the democratic process and for the value of the humanities that the NEH exists to promote."