Deposition videos from two former Department of Government Efficiency staffers were ordered to be released Monday in Manhattan, where a federal judge ruled that the risk of threats and harassment does not outweigh the public interest.
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon initially ruled on March 13 that the videos be removed from the internet after a government emergency filing which claimed academic groups suing to restore grants cuts by DOGE had wrongly posted the deposition footage. Justice Department lawyers cited harassment, including death threats, of witness and former DOGE employee Justin Fox as a reason for the immediate takedown.
But McMahon lifted that order on Monday, acknowledging those threats but saying the government failed to prove that they outweigh the public interest in the conduct of federal employees.
“Here, the testimony in the videos concerns the conduct of public officials acting in their official capacities — a context in which the public interest in transparency and accountability is at its apex,” the judge wrote, according to ABC. She also noted that removing the videos not “materially reduce the alleged risk of harm or embarrassment” because they had already been widely copied and shared online.
Former DOGE staffers Fox and Nate Cavanaugh testified about using diversity, equity and inclusion keywords and ChatGPT to identify about the cuts of more than $100 million in humanities grants. In one of the videos, a DOGE staffer says he does not regret taking away income from agency employees, but also acknowledges that their work did not reduce the federal deficit.
The videos emerged from an ongoing federal lawsuit that seeks to reverse funding cuts at the Modern Language Association (MLA), American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) and American Historical Association (AHA). The cuts were enacted by the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, shortly after President Trump took office last year.
American Council of Learned Societies’ president Joy Connolly said the Monday ruling supports their position—that the videos should, indeed, be public.
“This decision validates our position that the publication of the videos, which document a process to destroy knowledge and access to vital public programs, was indeed in the public’s interest,” Connolly said. “We look forward to continuing the pursuit of justice in reclaiming government support for important humanities research, education and sustainability initiatives.”
