This report provides a probabilistic, AI-generated analysis. It may contain errors and should not be relied on as the sole basis for legal, employment, medical, or safety-critical decisions.
Multiple manipulation or incongruence signals were detected in this content.
At a Glance
The video depicts the January 2026 deposition of former DOGE staffer Justin Fox. Behavioral analysis indicates a baseline of neutral compliance that degrades into high cognitive load, evasiveness, and defensive posturing when questioned about his specific role in grant terminations, use of encrypted apps, and definitions of DEI. Frequent self-soothing adaptors, such as drinking water and rubbing his neck, correlate with lines of questioning that challenge his authority or highlight contradictions in documentary evidence.
The footage is heavily edited, presenting a curated 'highlight reel' of Fox's most challenging moments. This editing pattern is consistent with the search context indicating the video went viral in March 2026 as part of a public accountability narrative surrounding the defunct DOGE agency. The selective compilation of his struggles amplifies the perception of incompetence or evasion, serving as a potent artifact in the broader information ecosystem.
Unresolved tensions exist between Fox's verbal attempts to distance himself from executive decisions and his physiological stress markers when confronted with documentary evidence, such as emails and Signal usage. Recommended follow-up includes reviewing the unedited deposition transcript to assess his full testimony without the artificial compression of the jump cuts, which currently obscure the natural rhythm of the interrogation.
Key Findings
Shows a brief moment of hesitation or mental load when asked to define his legal representation, closing eyes and taking a breath before answering.
Fox presses his lips and lowers his brows, showing frustration or mild contempt at the hypothetical scenario presented.
Presses lips together firmly when questioned about searching his personal device, indicating potential defensiveness or suppressed frustration.
High cognitive load and defensive posturing when explaining contradictions in email evidence.
Evasive gaze and discomfort when asked to define DEI, suggesting a lack of foundational knowledge or reluctance to commit to a definition.
Signal Intelligence
Behavioral events over time
Authenticity
Speaker Signals
Emotional Arc
IO Assessment
Contextual Omission
Influence
Adult male, short brown hair, wearing a tan quarter-zip sweater over a striped button-down shirt.
Female voice, off-camera/via Zoom.
Off-screen female raising objections.
Male voice, off-screen.
Signal Intelligence
Behavioral events over time
Video processing
Hover a marker for details · Click to seek and jump to event row
Click a timestamp to seek · Click ⎘ to copy event data to clipboard.
Overt bias: The video is explicitly framed as a 'highlight reel' of the witness's worst moments, omitting the surrounding context of his answers.
Covert bias: The rapid succession of jump cuts creates an artificial sense of constant evasion and incompetence.
Narrative Structure
The defunct DOGE agency was staffed by individuals who lacked subject matter expertise and relied on arbitrary or automated methods to execute sweeping government cuts.
Problem: Unqualified political appointees unjustly terminated critical humanities grants and staff.
Cause: Ideological mandates executed without proper definitions or procedural care.
Solution: Legal accountability and public exposure of the deposition footage.
Propaganda Tactics
Contextual Omission
“The use of numerous hard jump cuts to string together moments of hesitation or stress.”
Objective: To maximize the perception of the witness's incompetence and evasion.
IO Context: A common tactic in digital accountability campaigns to create viral, easily shareable content.
Target Audience
Academics, government employees, and the general public critical of the former DOGE agency's methods and mandates.
Ecosystem Fit
Perfectly aligns with the March 2026 viral backlash against the defunct DOGE agency and the ongoing federal lawsuit.
Long-term Risks
Erosion of public trust in government efficiency initiatives and the potential chilling effect on future federal employment.
Uncertainty
It is unknown who specifically compiled and leaked this edited version of the deposition.
Visibility
Face and upper torso clearly visible. Hands frequently enter the frame.
Baseline Posture
Seated upright, relatively still, hands mostly out of frame but occasionally visible when drinking or adjusting mic.
Gesture Patterns
Drinking from a paper cup.
Self-soothing, buying time before the session begins.
Adjusting the zipper on his sweater.
Initial nervous energy or settling into the baseline state.
Hands clasped tightly in front of mouth/chin.
Creating a physical barrier during questioning, indicating defensiveness.
Related: E1
Rests head heavily on right hand.
Indicates fatigue, boredom, or a desire to disengage.
Related: E1
Picks up and drinks from a paper coffee cup.
Self-soothing behavior, common in high-stress environments like depositions.
Related: E1
Lifts a paper cup to his mouth and takes a drink.
Self-soothing or buying time to process the line of questioning before the interrogator resumes.
Brings hands up to clasp near chin.
Self-soothing/barrier gesture while reviewing the new text message exhibit.
Slight drop in shoulders accompanied by a deep breath.
Releasing tension or preparing for a difficult answer.
Related: E2
Leaning head on hand.
Indicates fatigue or frustration with the document review process.
Related: E3
Right hand reaches up to rub the back of the neck/head.
Classic self-soothing gesture associated with stress or cognitive load.
Related: E2
Clasps hands together in front of mouth/nose.
Creates a physical barrier, indicating defensiveness or high cognitive load while answering.
Related: E2
Taking a sip from a green paper cup.
Used as a stalling tactic to buy time before answering a question.
Leans back slightly in chair.
Distancing himself from the line of questioning regarding document gathering.
Takes a sip of water from a paper cup.
Self-soothing or stalling tactic to buy time before answering a question about interview logistics.
Rubs the back of his neck.
Classic pacifying behavior associated with stress or discomfort.
Related: E3
Takes another sip of water.
Hydration/stalling during a long phase of questioning about agency targeting.
Rubs forehead and eyes.
Self-soothing, indicating fatigue or stress when confronted with questions about Signal.
Related: E4
Posture Shifts
From: N/A To: Seated, hands resting
Initial baseline.
From: Upright To: Slight backward lean
Reacting to the Michael Jordan hypothetical.
From: Relaxed lean To: Tense forward lean with clasped hands
When challenged on the contradiction in the email text.
From: Upright/neutral To: Slight backward lean
When stating he no longer has access to government equipment.
From: Leaning back To: Leaning forward
Shifts forward to read the physical exhibit document presented to him.
From: Relaxed lean To: Rigid upright
When asked about the specific methodology for terminating grants.
From: Upright To: Slouched forward, looking down
When pressed to define DEI.
P1 displays a consistent pattern of stress-related adaptors (face touching, neck rubbing, head resting) that increase in frequency during challenging lines of questioning, particularly regarding contradictions in emails and the use of encrypted messaging apps.
Setting
A standard legal deposition environment. The background is a plain, neutral gray wall. Lighting is even and institutional.
Objects of Interest
Paper coffee cup
Used frequently by the witness, serving as a prop for self-soothing (adaptor behavior).
First seen: 00:02:10.000
Lapel microphone
Standard deposition equipment, attached by the witness at the start.
First seen: 00:01:33.000
Paper water cup
Used periodically by the deponent, occasionally serving as a pacing tool.
First seen: 00:10:56.000
Exhibit document
Physical paper handed to the deponent, prompting a shift in posture and focus.
First seen: 00:20:40.000
Green paper cup
Used frequently by P1 as a prop for stalling or self-soothing.
First seen: 00:08:32.000
Microphone clipped to sweater
Indicates professional recording setup for the deposition.
First seen: 00:00:01.000
Paper cup
Used by the deponent for hydration and potentially as a pacing mechanism.
First seen: 00:02:48.000
Green water bottle
Used by the deponent later in the video.
First seen: 00:04:00.000
Timestamp overlay
Confirms the date of the deposition as 2026-01-28.
First seen: 00:00:00.000
Microphone cable
Visible on P1's lapel, confirming professional audio recording setup.
First seen: 00:00:00.000
Water bottle/thermos
Visible in the lower right corner of the frame.
First seen: 00:00:00.000
On-Screen Text
2026- 1-28 9:59:28AM
Standard legal video timestamp overlay, indicating the date and time of the recording.
2026- 1-28 11:21:22AM
Running timestamp at the bottom of the frame, indicating the date and time of the recording.
2026- 1-28 11:51:02AM
Running timestamp overlay indicating the date and time of the recording.
2026- 1-28 2:00:40PM
Deposition date and running timestamp.
2026- 1-28 3:13:08PM
Deposition timestamp watermark, which increments throughout the video.
2026- 1-28 4:31:56PM
Running timestamp at the bottom of the video.
2026- 1-28 6:11:05PM
Continuous timestamp overlay at the bottom of the screen, incrementing throughout the video.
Camera & Production
professionalMovement: Static tripod shot.
Angles: Eye-level medium close-up on the witness.
Transitions: Numerous hard jump cuts.
Notable: The camera remains entirely fixed on the witness, which is standard protocol for legal depositions.
Lighting & Color
Even, flat fluorescent lighting typical of an office conference room. Neutral color temperature.
Composition
The subject is framed in the center of the screen from the chest up, ensuring facial expressions and upper body language are clearly visible.
Visual Manipulation Notes
The video file provided is heavily edited with numerous jump cuts. The on-screen timestamp jumps significantly between cuts, indicating that a much longer deposition (over an hour) has been condensed into an 11-minute highlight reel.
Adult male, short brown hair, wearing a tan quarter-zip sweater over a striped button-down shirt.
Female voice, off-camera/via Zoom.
Off-screen female raising objections.
Male voice, off-screen.
Concerns
[00:08:21.000] High cognitive load and defensive posturing when explaining contradictions in email evidence.
[01:10:11.000] Evasive gaze and discomfort when asked to define DEI, suggesting a lack of foundational knowledge or reluctance to commit to a definition.
Supporting
[00:00:00.000] Maintains a consistent, calm baseline during procedural and introductory questions.
Cognitive Load
P1 exhibits high cognitive load during specific lines of questioning, particularly when reconciling his stated role with documentary evidence and when asked to provide specific definitions. This is evidenced by extended pauses, upward gaze aversion, and increased use of adaptors.
Linguistic Markers
Frequent use of distancing language (e.g., 'Mike was the one directing', 'Nate did') to minimize personal responsibility for executive actions.
IO Role Hypothesis
P1 is the unwitting subject of a viral accountability campaign, where his deposition footage has been weaponized to highlight institutional incompetence.
Alternative Explanations
The observed stress and cognitive load are standard physiological responses to the adversarial and high-stakes nature of a federal legal deposition.
Caveats
The heavy editing of the video artificially condenses P1's stress responses, potentially exaggerating the frequency of his evasions.
Person 1
Inflection Points
[00:02:55.000] Shift to defensive posture and immediate denial when interrogator suggests he marked grants for termination.
[00:08:21.000] Significant increase in cognitive load and defensive posturing when confronted with contradictory email text.
[01:10:11.000] Displays evasion and discomfort, looking down heavily when asked to define DEI.
P1 begins the deposition in a neutral, compliant state typical of a legal setting. As questioning moves from procedural matters to specific actions and communications, his affect shifts toward guardedness and defensiveness. The introduction of documentary exhibits and questions regarding encrypted messaging apps trigger visible spikes in cognitive load and stress, marked by frequent self-soothing behaviors. By the end of the edited clips, P1 appears fatigued and frustrated, particularly when struggling to define key terms related to his mandate.
The video appears to be authentic footage from a legal deposition, but it has been heavily edited for time and narrative impact.
Visual Indicators
Numerous hard jump cuts with non-sequential or rapidly advancing on-screen timestamps.
Contextual Indicators
The video is a leaked, highly edited compilation rather than the official, continuous legal record.
Metadata Indicators
On-screen timestamps confirm the date as January 28, 2026, aligning with the known context of the deposition.
Caveats
Analysis is limited to the provided edited clip; the full context of the deposition is unavailable.
No evidence of synthetic media or AI generation was detected. The manipulation is entirely editorial (jump cuts).
Cited Evidence
Caveats
The heavy editing disrupts the natural flow of behavior, making baseline establishment challenging.
Topic
The video is a recorded legal deposition of Justin Fox, a former staff member of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), regarding his involvement in the cancellation of National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants.
Event / Issue
A federal lawsuit filed by the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), American Historical Association (AHA), and Modern Language Association (MLA) challenging the abrupt cancellation of over 1,400 NEH grants.
Timeframe
The deposition was recorded on January 28, 2026, and the edited video went viral in March 2026.
OSINT Context
Fox and his colleague Nate Cavanaugh reportedly used ChatGPT to flag and terminate federal humanities grants. The DOGE agency is now defunct following the exit of its leader.
Uncertainty
The video is a heavily edited compilation of jump cuts. It is unclear who specifically edited and released this version to the public, though it serves the narrative interests of the plaintiffs and critics of DOGE.
Justin Fox
A former staff member of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) assigned to the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). He recently faced public scrutiny after his January 2026 deposition video went viral, revealing he used ChatGPT to flag and terminate federal humanities grants and struggled to define 'DEI' (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion).
Nathan (Nate) Cavanaugh
A former DOGE employee who co-led the 'small agencies team' with Justin Fox. He was also deposed in the lawsuit regarding his role in pressuring the NEH to quickly cancel grants and terminate staff.
Michael McDonald
The Acting Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) who oversaw the agency during the DOGE-directed mass layoffs and grant cancellations, and who was also deposed in the ongoing lawsuit.
Event Context
The video is a recorded legal deposition of Justin Fox from January 28, 2026, taken as part of a federal lawsuit filed by the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), American Historical Association (AHA), and Modern Language Association (MLA). The lawsuit challenges the abrupt cancellation of over 1,400 NEH grants and the firing of 65% of NEH staff in early 2025. In March 2026, deposition videos of Fox and his colleague Nate Cavanaugh went viral, revealing that DOGE staffers used ChatGPT to target grants related to marginalized groups. Following harassment and death threats against Fox, a federal judge ordered the videos removed from public access on March 13, 2026.
Sources
Searched 2026-03-19
System
Automated behavioral analysis with expression coding. Video frames, audio, speech content, and temporal patterns are analyzed across multiple modalities.
Expression Coding
Expressions are classified using action unit analysis and mapped to emotion prototypes using probabilistic matching, not deterministic rules.
Expression Taxonomy
The system classifies expressions into 7 basic emotions, 15 compound emotions, and an ambiguous category (23 types total):
Confidence Scoring
Each expression event receives a confidence score from 0.0 to 1.0 based on visibility, duration, context, and cultural fit. Scores reflect model certainty in its classification, not ground truth accuracy.
Incongruence Detection
Speech-expression incongruence is flagged when the detected facial expression contradicts the concurrent verbal content. Incongruence is an indicator for further investigation, not evidence of deception.
Important Disclaimers
Video Quality
The video is a heavily edited compilation with numerous jump cuts, destroying the natural timeline of the interrogation.
Detection Challenges
The lack of continuous footage prevents a full assessment of recovery times after stressful questions.
Cultural Considerations
Legal depositions are inherently adversarial and stressful environments, which naturally elevate cognitive load and defensive behaviors.
Confidence Caveats
Conclusions regarding the witness's overall credibility must be tempered by the fact that the video was explicitly curated to show his weakest moments.
Formal introductions and swearing in of the witness.
P1 appears calm but slightly stiff, blinking frequently while listening to the formal instructions. He complies with directions to attach the microphone.
Establishing the timeline and terms of Fox's employment.
P1 maintains a relaxed, neutral baseline. Responses are brief, direct, and delivered with minimal hesitation.
Establishing the boundaries of attorney-client privilege.
P1 appears slightly tense, adjusting his clothing early on. He speaks slowly and carefully, frequently looking down or away to process the questions regarding legal definitions.
Questioning about the origin of directives to screen grants for DEI and gender ideology.
P1 maintains a relatively neutral and composed baseline. He answers questions directly but with measured pacing, indicating careful consideration of his responses regarding executive orders and DOGE directives.
Interrogator questions Fox on his definition of 'racial minority' in the context of DEI grants.
Fox appears evasive, frequently looking away and pausing before answering. He relies on adaptors like drinking from a cup.
Discussion of a preliminary list of NEH grants.
P1 maintains a neutral, guarded posture. He answers questions concisely with minimal physical movement.
Transitioning questioning to remote counsel and introducing Exhibit 17.
P1 appears relatively relaxed but subdued. He listens to the procedural setup and confirms his previous testimony regarding Michael McDonald.
Fox is asked to explain the system used to analyze grants and determine if they should be terminated.
Increased cognitive load indicated by longer pauses, upward gaze, and defensive posture. Fox struggles with hypothetical scenarios.
Counsel explains the rules of the deposition under oath.
P1 maintains a neutral expression, nodding occasionally. He takes a drink from a paper cup, indicating mild baseline anxiety or dry mouth.
Review of a Cellebrite report showing text messages between P1 and Michael McDonald regarding an upcoming X post.
P1 remains physically still, occasionally shifting his gaze downward to read the exhibit. His affect remains flat and controlled while confirming the contents of the texts.
Clarification of P1's specific role in marking grants for termination versus reviewing them for compliance.
P1 becomes slightly more defensive, quickly correcting the interrogator's premise about 'terminating' grants. He exhibits increased cognitive load, marked by gaze aversion and self-soothing behaviors (drinking water) when pressed on specific communications.
Questions regarding P1's legal representation and preparation for the deposition.
P1's gaze shifts frequently when recalling timelines of meetings. He displays subtle lip presses when discussing the documents he reviewed with counsel.
Questioning about P1's assignment to specific agencies and the implementation of EOs.
P1 exhibits increased cognitive load, marked by frequent adaptors (touching his head/neck) and taking sips of water. His responses become more guarded, relying on 'I don't recall' or 'I'm not sure'.
Interrogator introduces an exhibit (Excel spreadsheet) detailing the use of ChatGPT.
Fox shows signs of frustration and confusion regarding the document tabs, rubbing his head and leaning on his hand.
Questioning regarding Fox's reasons for leaving the GSA after only six months.
P1 exhibits increased cognitive load and slight guardedness. Pauses become longer before answering, with frequent upward gaze shifts indicating memory retrieval or answer formulation.
Counsel questions P1 on an email stating they were 'getting ready to cancel them today'.
P1's cognitive load increases. He frequently rests his head on his hand, looks down, and carefully parses the distinction between 'procedurally getting ready' and actually executing the cancellation.
Inquiries about P1's communications with others (including Nate Cavanaugh) and his document retention/search efforts.
P1 becomes slightly more defensive, characterized by quicker verbal responses and dismissive head movements when asked about encrypted messaging apps. He leans back slightly when stating he turned in his equipment.
Defining the relationship between DOGE and GSA, identifying team members, and discussing interview methods.
P1 displays subtle micro-expressions of amusement when describing DOGE as a 'club'. He shows slight physical tension (swallowing, lip pressing) when revealing that official interviews were conducted via the encrypted app Signal.
Discussion on how long the cancellation process takes and who set up the termination email account.
P1 exhibits self-soothing behaviors, such as rubbing the back of his neck and face. He maintains a defensive posture, emphasizing the multi-week nature of the procedural work.
Counsel asks about substantive discussions on the Signal app with various individuals and pivots to questions about DEI.
P1 repeatedly denies having substantive discussions about grant terminations on Signal with the listed individuals. He appears fatigued, frequently touching his face and displaying closed body language.
Reviewing Exhibit 2 (an email from Nate Cavanaugh) regarding the targeting of specific agencies ahead of an Executive Order.
P1 becomes highly focused on the document. His posture is rigid, and he carefully parses his words to distance himself from prior knowledge of the Executive Order, attributing that knowledge solely to his colleague.
Inquiries into who P1 worked with, including Nate Cavanaugh, and their communication methods.
P1 maintains a defensive posture. He frequently breaks eye contact with the camera/questioner, looking downward. The use of stalling tactics (pausing, asking for clarification) is prominent.
Reviewing specific exhibits and defining terms like DEI and gender ideology.
P1 shows signs of fatigue and frustration. His baseline posture shifts to a slight slouch, and his facial expressions occasionally leak micro-expressions of contempt or annoyance when pressed on definitions.
Probabilistic analysis. This report was generated by artificial intelligence and may contain errors, inaccuracies, or subjective interpretations. Authenticity signals and behavioral patterns are model-based assessments that should be one input among many. Nothing herein constitutes professional, legal, medical, or investigative advice. Use this report to inform your judgment, especially before making financial, reputational, or safety-critical decisions. Kinexis.AI disclaims all liability for decisions made based on this content.
© 2026 Web3 Studios LLC. All rights reserved. This Kinexis.AI report contains proprietary analytical frameworks, structured analysis, and compilation of findings that are protected by copyright. The AI-generated analytical content within this report is provided under license. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or republication of this report, in whole or in part, is prohibited without prior written permission.
