A Federal Judge Just Exposed the Discriminatory Truth Behind DOGE’s Grant Cuts

Critics warned President Donald Trump’s controversial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was operating beyond the bounds of the law, slashing federal programs and carrying out sweeping firings across government agencies. Now, a federal judge just handed down a blistering ruling against the department, once run by Tesla CEO Elon Musk… And you’ll want to pay attention to this one.

It’s been over a year since DOGE began mass terminations, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of Americans– disproportionately Black women– without work. It’s now 2026, and the Black unemployment rate is still raising concerns from economists.

In addition to thousands of folks losing their jobs, DOGE was also responsible for the mass cancellation of thousands of Congress-approved grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), which U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon has officially ruled unlawful.

“There can be no serious dispute that the review process implemented by DOGE did not conform to, or even resemble, NEH’s ordinary grant-review process,” Judge McMahon wrote in an opinion Thursday (May 7). The decision marks a major setback for the administration’s cost-cutting campaign, stemming from Trump’s promise to cut federal spending and make the government more efficient.

Instead, however, DOGE unlawfully terminated more than 1,400 humanities grants worth over $100 million, the judge said. The grants previously funded projects involving scholars, museums, writers and cultural organizations across the country, Reuters reported. Now that the grants have been cut, Judge McMahon argued these actions violate both the First Amendment and parts of the Fifth Amendment.

What should be most concerning about the decision to people of color, McMahon also took issue with DOGE’s questionable review process, which she described as “blatant viewpoint discrimination.” We’ve been keeping you up to date with all of Trump’s anti-diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, which have targeted Black and other minorities at the federal level.

While the controversial DOGE review process is now facing judicial pressure, former employees at the government agency already testified to using DEI as keywords to determine which programs and offices get cut.

The Root previously told you about those depositions, which stemmed from a lawsuit brought against DOGE by the Modern Language Association (MLA), American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) and American Historical Association (AHA) in 2025.

During former DOGE staffer Nathan Cavanaugh‘s deposition, he admitted to being in charge of reviewing grants from the Biden administration, despite having no professional or academic experience in the field.

Another DOGE employee, Justin Fox, testified that he used artificial intelligence to determine whether grants related “at all” to diversity initiatives, even though he couldn’t provide a clear definition of DEI. Still, the rest of the DOGE staff took little– if any– responsibility for mass firings and glaring mistakes.

In the judge’s ruling, she rejected arguments that the responsibility rests solely on the AI system rather than government officials. McMahon warned officials could not avoid constitutional scrutiny by leaving it all up to ChatGPT. In the end, she called out Trump and DOGE for using their political pull to disregard the Constitution.

McMahon wrote that while a new administration can pursue lawful funding priorities, “it has no license to suppress disfavored ideas.”