From preservation to purge, AI cuts language center funding
By Amber McCain
(Courtesy of testimony video) DOGE staffer Justin Fox testifies in January as part of a broader lawsuit filed against DOGE after AI cuts funding to language programs, including the Alaska Native Language Center.
At the University of Alaska Fairbanks the mission of the Alaska Native Language Center has been clear since its founding in 1972: to document and preserve the state's Indigenous languages. But according to recently released federal deposition footage, an algorithm used by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, viewed the center's work through a different lens.
The testimony of Justin Fox, a DOGE staffer, revealed that artificial intelligence was used to flag a National Endowment for the Humanities, or NEH, grant intended for the ANLC as "DEI," Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, leading to its termination.
Roughly 42 minutes into his January 2026 deposition Fox acknowledged using an automated screening process to review over 1,100 pending grants. Fox testified that he submitted project descriptions to ChatGPT with a specific prompt: "Does the following relate at all to DEI? Respond factually in less than 120 characters. Begin with 'Yes' or 'No'." Because the ANLC’s work focuses on Indigenous languages, it triggered a "Yes" flag, slating it for the chopping block.
Plaintiffs argue the cuts were an ideological "purge" carried out by DOGE staffers without the oversight of career subject-matter experts. The deposition is part of a lawsuit filed against DOGE by the NEH by the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Historical Association, and the Modern Language Association, to restore over 1,400 grants for arts. The groups claimed DOGE violated the First Amendment and federal procedures by using discriminatory methods to eliminate arts, history, and education funding.
In mid-March, a New York City judge ordered the videos to be removed from YouTube and similar platforms but media outlets and transparency advocacy groups, such as 404 Media and Electronic Privacy Information Center, argued that the video’s online presence was in the public interest. The judge ruled in the plaintiff’s favor and the testimonies remain online.