Court to DOGE: Asking ChatGPT 'Is This DEI?' Is Not Proper Legal Process
techdirt.com
May 8, 2026
16 min read
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
48/100
Summary
A court ruled that asking ChatGPT whether something is considered Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) does not constitute a proper legal process and violates the First Amendment. The case involved DOGE bros Justin Fox and Nate Cavanaugh, who were tasked with eliminating perceived "woke" elements despite lacking relevant experience.
Key Takeaways
- A court ruled that using ChatGPT to determine whether grant proposals relate to DEI is an arbitrary and capricious process, making the cuts unlawful.
- The judge criticized the lack of relevant experience of the officials involved, who relied on ChatGPT's output without understanding the term "DEI."
- Several legitimate projects were misclassified as DEI-related by ChatGPT due to their general references to history, culture, or identity.
- The ruling emphasized that the officials did not consider the purpose or scholarly substance of the projects when making their decisions.
Community Sentiment
Positives
- The conclusion of the DOGE situation reflects the resilience of US institutions, indicating a potential for accountability and correction in AI-related governance.
Concerns
- The reliance on inexperienced individuals in critical positions raises concerns about the competence and understanding necessary for AI applications in legal contexts.
- The assertion that AI could save trillions without a solid foundation in reality reflects a dangerous level of optimism that could mislead stakeholders.
