In early 2025, a significant policy shift occurred in the United States regarding government funding, specifically through the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). A newly established body, known as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), was tasked with reviewing grant requests to ensure compliance with an executive order issued by Donald Trump in January 2025. This order prohibited any federal funding for projects promoting 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' (DEI). As a result, a young team, largely composed of inexperienced individuals in their twenties, was appointed to oversee this task, with the goal of canceling grants that would potentially violate the new guidelines. One of the key figures in this review process was Justin Fox, an employee at DOGE assigned specifically to identify and flag grants related to DEI for disqualification. During a deposition linked to a lawsuit initiated by several historical and academic organizations, including the American Council of Learned Societies, Fox found it challenging to provide a clear definition of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion'. Instead of articulating his understanding of these terms, he referred back to the executive order's language, demonstrating a lack of clarity and expertise around critical policy issues that impacted thousands of funding applications. This incident raised questions about the decision-making capabilities of the DOGE staff, particularly given their limited experience. Meanwhile, Nathan Cavanaugh, another staff member involved in this controversial grant review, defended the young team’s actions despite their inexperience in governmental processes and peer review mechanisms. He argued that it was appropriate for such inexperienced individuals to be placed in positions that involved canceling millions of dollars in federal support. Cavanaugh's remarks during his deposition highlighted a broader concern regarding the qualifications of staff responsible for enforcing significant changes to federal funding policies. As a result of these efforts, DOGE reportedly canceled an overwhelming 97% of grant applications reviewed under these new standards. This drastic reduction in funding aimed to align federal grant-making with contemporary political sensibilities, as dictated by the administration's directives, had considerable implications for educational and cultural institutions relying on such support. The response from academic organizations has been swift, as they question both the legitimacy and the motivations underlying these cancellations, arguing that they threaten the very fabric of academic freedom and diversity in research funding across the nation.