A stunning deposition has surfaced, revealing the inner workings of a controversial initiative within the Trump administration. Nate Cavanaugh, a young entrepreneur and member of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team, detailed his role in systematically dismantling grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
The revelations stem from a lawsuit brought by academic groups desperate to understand the rapid changes enacted by DOGE. Newly released documents paint a picture of a focused effort to reshape federal funding, particularly within the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Cavanaugh’s team reportedly terminated a staggering 97 percent of the NEH’s grants.
For years, critics argued the NEH had become a conduit for funding projects aligned with far-left ideologies. President Trump’s executive orders provided the mechanism to halt funding for programs focused on DEI, gender ideology, and radical environmentalism. Cavanaugh, at just 28 years old, was instrumental in executing this shift.
A viral clip from Cavanaugh’s January 2026 deposition showcases a remarkably direct exchange with an opposing attorney. When questioned about the potential impact on grant recipients, Cavanaugh’s response was blunt: he prioritized reducing the national debt, even if it meant cutting funding to these projects.
The deposition then turned to specific examples of grants flagged for termination. One project focused on the history of the HIV/AIDS prison movement, explicitly referencing feminist, queer, and prison abolitionist perspectives. Cavanaugh’s reasoning for flagging it was succinct: it contained “feminist and queer insights into prison abolition and LGBTQ studies.”
Another grant aimed to examine military service through the lens of marginalized groups – specifically, female, Black, Native American, LGBTQ, and immigrant service members. Cavanaugh simply pointed to the explicit mention of “LGBTQ” as justification for its inclusion on the list for termination.
The attorney relentlessly pressed Cavanaugh on his qualifications, highlighting his lack of experience in scholarly peer review and federal grant processes. Cavanaugh readily admitted he had no formal training in these areas, yet stood firm in his judgment.
When challenged on the appropriateness of a young, inexperienced individual making such critical decisions, Cavanaugh delivered a particularly striking response. He argued that common sense and the ability to understand plain English were sufficient to determine whether a grant violated the executive order.
He dismissed the need for specialized knowledge or extensive reading, stating plainly that no specific books informed his opinion. His logic was simple: if a grant explicitly listed DEI as a focus, it was a clear violation of the directive. This assertion cut to the core of the debate, questioning the necessity of complex bureaucratic processes.
Cavanaugh’s testimony offers a rare glimpse into the mindset of those tasked with implementing a politically charged agenda. It reveals a willingness to challenge established norms and prioritize a specific interpretation of fiscal responsibility, even in the face of intense scrutiny.
