> McMahon also rejected the government’s argument that there was no constitutional problem because any viewpoint classification was ChatGPT’s doing, and not the government’s.

> “ChatGPT was the Government’s chosen instrument for purposes of this project, and DOGE’s use of AI to identify DEI-related material neither excuses presumptively unconstitutional conduct nor gives the Government carte blanche to engage in it,” she wrote.

This is a really bold argument. Could they have gotten away with "we hired contractors to do all the viewpoint tagging and just defunded whatever they said"? I feel like that should still count as the government doing it, given they instructed someone else to make a decision on x and y grounds. But why would a lawyer even think it's a defense?