Three Weeks That Shook the Humanities

Depositions reveal how a rapid DOGE review wiped out most NEH grants and sent shockwaves through libraries and nonprofits.

For months, the dismantling of grants at the National Endowment for the Humanities has been discussed mostly through headlines and statistics. Hundreds of projects disappeared, and libraries, museums, scholars, and nonprofits suddenly found their funding terminated. Yet the mechanics of how those decisions were made remained largely opaque.

That began to change in early March when sworn testimony surfaced in a federal lawsuit challenging the grant cancellations. The depositions of two staffers connected to the effort, Justin Fox and Nathan Cavanaugh, provide the clearest public window yet into how the review unfolded and what guided it.

It is as bad as we feared.

The testimony paints a picture of a review process that moved quickly, relied on broad keyword filters and AI triage, and was led by staffers with little experience in either humanities scholarship or grant administration. Fox and Cavanaugh described searching grant descriptions for keywords associated with diversity initiatives, feeding the summaries into an artificial intelligence tool, and proceeding with termination decisions even when internal agency staff expressed reservations.

The testimony does not resolve the legal questions at the heart of the case. Those will be decided by a judge. Yet the depositions illuminate how one of the largest grant purges in the agency’s history unfolded and why critics believe it was flawed from the start.

This Community Is Powered by You
What started as a small circle has grown into something much bigger, and it’s all because of readers like you.
Every time you forward this email, post it on socials, or bring someone new into the fold, you’re helping build one of the most passionate, independent political communities out there.
Want to keep the momentum going?
Share this newsletter with someone who should be part of this conversation.

Thank you for being here. It means everything.

From Cost-Cutting to Grant Cancellations

The story begins with the creation of DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, during the early months of the Trump administration’s second term. The initiative was framed as an effort to reduce waste and streamline federal programs, and teams associated with it were assigned to review agencies and identify spending that could be eliminated or restructured.

The National Endowment for the Humanities soon became one of the agencies under scrutiny. Founded in 1965, NEH supports research, education, preservation, and public humanities programming across the United States. Much of its funding flows not only to universities but also to libraries, museums, community organizations, and state humanities councils.

According to court filings in the ongoing lawsuit, DOGE personnel began reviewing active NEH grants early in 2025. The review reportedly covered several years of awards and moved at remarkable speed. Within roughly three weeks, the process resulted in the termination of the overwhelming majority of active grants.

The cancellations reverberated widely because NEH funding reaches deep into local communities. Many grants support projects that interpret historical events, digitize archival materials, develop educational programs, or bring public humanities programming to local audiences.

For the institutions involved, the sudden termination of funding raised immediate questions about how the decisions had been made and whether the process complied with federal law.

The Lawsuit That Brought the Details to Light

The depositions emerged through a lawsuit filed by several prominent humanities organizations. Among the plaintiffs are the American Historical Association, the Modern Language Association, and the American Council of Learned Societies.

The organizations argue that the mass cancellation of grants violated both statutory procedures and constitutional protections. Their legal claims rely in part on the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA governs how federal agencies make decisions and allows courts to invalidate actions that are “arbitrary and capricious,” a legal phrase meaning the agency failed to use a reasoned and consistent decision-making process.

During discovery in the case, lawyers for the plaintiffs questioned several individuals connected to the grant review. The depositions of Justin Fox and Nathan Cavanaugh soon drew particular attention due to their direct involvement in the review process and their surprising answers.

Portions of that testimony circulated publicly before a judge temporarily ordered the videos removed from public view while the court considers questions about access to the materials. Even without the videos, the written record offers a detailed account of how the review unfolded.

Who Are Justin Fox and Nathan Cavanaugh?

Understanding the controversy requires understanding who was tasked with evaluating the grants.

Justin Fox came to the government from the financial sector. Court filings indicate that he previously worked in finance and investment management. During his deposition, Fox acknowledged that he had no prior experience in government service, grant administration, or the evaluation of humanities scholarship before joining the DOGE initiative.

Nathan Cavanaugh followed a different path. His background was primarily in technology startups. Like Fox, he testified that he had not previously worked in government before joining the administration.

Within the DOGE structure, Cavanaugh reportedly led a team assigned to examine smaller federal agencies. Fox worked under that umbrella and became closely involved in the review of NEH grants.

In short, a tech guy and a finance guy evaluated grants in fields they have no knowledge of. Those fields include academic scholarship, archival work, library science, museum curation, and nonprofit grant administration. Critics of the process argue that the absence of such expertise contributed to the problems that later surfaced in the depositions.

Inside the Grant Review

A Vague Definition of DEI

A central issue in the testimony concerns the concept that guided the review: diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).

Fox acknowledged during questioning that the review process sought to identify grants connected to DEI themes, yet his testimony also suggested that the term was not clearly defined. At several points, he described DEI in broad terms, including projects focused on particular racial, cultural, or gender groups.

That breadth is notable because much humanities scholarship naturally engages with questions of identity, culture, religion, and community. A project about Jewish literature, Native American history, or women’s experiences in the past could easily appear in a search for those themes, even if it was not part of an administrative diversity program.

Keyword Searches and AI Triage

Fox also testified that the review relied on keyword searches of grant descriptions. According to the court filings, search terms included words such as “BIPOC,” “indigenous,” “tribal,” “gay,” and “equality.”

In addition to those searches, Fox described using an artificial intelligence system to help categorize grant descriptions. He reportedly entered project summaries into the tool and asked whether the text related to DEI.

Artificial intelligence systems generate responses based on patterns learned from large datasets. Their answers can vary widely depending on how questions are phrased and what context is provided. Fox testified that the prompt asked whether a grant “relates at all to DEI” and limited the response to 250 characters.

That phrasing sets an extremely low threshold. A historical study of a minority community, a digitization project preserving underrepresented voices, or a library program serving diverse audiences could easily trigger the same classification.

In other words, the review process appears to have treated the presence of people, identity, or community in a project description as evidence of ideological programming. For a humanities agency, that approach functions less as a narrow filter than as a dragnet.

Speed Over Scrutiny

The depositions also revealed how quickly the review moved.

Court filings indicate that the review process unfolded over approximately 22 days. During that time, hundreds of grants were examined and ultimately terminated.

Cavanaugh testified that members of the team felt pressure to move rapidly. At one point, he described what he called a time pressure tactic used in conversations with agency officials.

Rapid reviews are not inherently improper, yet the pace described in the testimony raised questions among observers familiar with the typical evaluation process for humanities grants, which usually involves peer panels, subject specialists, and detailed deliberation about the merits of a project.

Disregarding Agency Expertise

Another theme that emerged in the depositions involved the role of career NEH staff.

Court filings indicate that agency officials sometimes marked grants as unrelated to DEI concerns. Fox testified that those assessments did not always stop the termination process.

One NEH official reportedly urged caution in certain cases and described some grants as harmless. According to the filings, the DOGE team proceeded with the cancellations despite those concerns.

That dynamic lies at the center of the lawsuit’s claims that the review process bypassed the expertise of the agency’s own staff.

When the Filter Hits the Humanities

The testimony raises a broader question about the compatibility of the review methods with the nature of humanities work.

The humanities encompass fields such as history, literature, philosophy, religion, and cultural studies. Scholars and public humanities practitioners in these fields routinely explore how communities form identities, how cultural traditions evolve, and how historical experiences shape the present.

Because of that focus, humanities projects frequently address subjects connected to race, ethnicity, gender, migration, language, and religion. Those themes are not peripheral to the humanities. They are often central to the discipline.

The mission of the National Endowment for the Humanities reflects that reality. The agency describes its purpose as supporting projects that explore the diversity of human cultures, ideas, practices, and experiences.

When reviewers search grant descriptions for words related to identity or community without context, the results can easily include projects that simply reflect the field's normal vocabulary.

One example from the court filings illustrates the problem. A grant aimed at digitizing historical anatomical “flap books” was reportedly classified as related to DEI because the project description mentioned expanding access and inclusivity in digital collections. An NEH official later testified that he did not believe the project was related to DEI initiatives in any way.

The example highlights how easily the categories can blur when the review process relies on broad search terms rather than subject expertise.

The Ripple Effects for Local Institutions

The consequences of the grant cancellations extend well beyond the national debate over federal policy.

Many NEH grants support institutions that operate with limited budgets and small staffs. Local museums, community archives, and public libraries often rely on those grants to fund specific projects.

The financial impact of a canceled grant can also extend beyond the federal dollars themselves. Many humanities grants operate on a reimbursement basis, meaning organizations spend money first and are reimbursed later. They also frequently require matching funds or cost-share commitments. In practice, that means nonprofits raise additional funds or dedicate staff time to unlock the federal award.

When a grant disappears midstream, organizations can be left holding expenses they have already incurred while the matching funds and project commitments remain in place. Often, those matching funds are directly restricted to a project and cannot be reallocated.

A significant portion of NEH funding also flows through state humanities councils. These organizations distribute smaller grants and operate statewide programs that bring humanities programming into local communities.

For smaller nonprofits, the state council system often provides the most accessible pathway to federal humanities support. Direct NEH grants can involve complex applications and large project budgets that exceed the capacity of many local institutions.

When federal funding is disrupted, the impact cascades through that network. Programs administered by state councils may shrink or disappear, and the community organizations that rely on them lose both funding and program infrastructure.

A Story Still Unfolding

The depositions of Justin Fox and Nathan Cavanaugh do not resolve the legal dispute over the NEH grant cancellations. The federal court hearing the case will ultimately determine whether the actions complied with the law.

Yet the testimony provides something that had been missing from the public conversation. It offers a detailed look at how the review process functioned and what assumptions guided it.

The picture that emerges is not simply one of a policy shift. It is a story about how a broad campaign against DEI intersected with a field whose work routinely examines culture, identity, and historical experience.

When the vocabulary of community, identity, and cultural history becomes grounds for suspicion, the subjects the humanities exist to study inevitably fall within the blast radius. Perhaps that was the intent.

Stories like this rarely stop at the headline. If you appreciate careful reporting and clear-eyed commentary on the forces shaping public life, subscribe and follow along.

Sources:

• ACLS, AHA, and MLA File Motion for Summary Judgment to Restore Previous NEH Function and Funding, ACLS, March 7, 2026.

• Case 1:25-cv-03657-CM Document 249 Filed 03/06/26: Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, U.S. District Court filing, hosted by the American Historical Association, March 6, 2026.

• Case 1:25-cv-03657-CM Document 247 Filed 03/06/26: Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, U.S. District Court filing, hosted by the American Historical Association, March 6, 2026.

• How DOGE Gutted the NEH in 22 Days, Inside Higher Ed, March 11, 2026.

• 2 DOGE staffers say ‘no’ regrets for people losing income, didn’t reduce the deficit: Depositions, ABC News, March 14, 2026.

• About the National Endowment for the Humanities, National Endowment for the Humanities.

• State and Jurisdictional Humanities Councils, National Endowment for the Humanities.

• Impact in States & Jurisdictions, National Endowment for the Humanities.

• Humanities Initiatives Notice of Funding Opportunity 2025 Funding Opportunity, National Endowment for the Humanities, January 21, 2025.