Could using words like 'female', 'trauma' jeopardise US research grants?

The US National Science Foundation is reviewing thousands of ongoing grants to ensure compliance with executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump

‘Equity,’ ‘trauma’, ‘women’, and ‘female’ are among the words that could bring research grants under scrutiny in the US. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is reviewing thousands of ongoing grants to ensure compliance with executive orders issued by former President Donald Trump during his first week in office. These orders mandate the recognition of only two genders, scale back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and have led to the creation of a list of words whose use may trigger a review of funding, according to internal documents reviewed by The Washington Post.

 

Algorithm to flag DEI-related terms

The National Science Foundation (NSF) staff are assessing research projects using a set of flagged keywords to identify potential violations of the executive orders. Words such as ‘advocacy’, ‘victims’, ‘barriers’, and ‘excluded’, among many, have been marked for scrutiny.

 

The process relies on a software algorithm that flags grant applications containing DEI-related terms, including ‘activism’, ‘equal opportunity’, and ‘institutional’. Some flagged words, like ‘bias’ and ‘polarisation’, may have broader scientific meanings unrelated to DEI but are still being reviewed.

 

Why are research grants being affected?

The review stems from the Trump administration’s policy to limit government funding for projects that promote DEI. In line with this, scientists receiving NSF funding were recently informed to discontinue any activities that contradict these executive orders.

 

A memo dated January 29 from Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management, reinforced these measures across federal agencies, The New York Times reported. The memo instructed that official forms record only biological sex, not gender identity, and ordered the removal of online content promoting gender-related topics.

 

Following this directive, health reports were taken down from the Patient Safety Network website, a resource run by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

 

How is the NSF conducting the review?

Once a grant is flagged, NSF officials manually assess whether it violates the executive orders. In some cases, reviewers admitted to The New York Times that they overruled flags.

 

An internal email also reportedly clarified some exceptions: For example, ‘accessibility’ is flagged if it refers to DEI but not if it relates to data access. Similarly, socioeconomic status is considered relevant to the executive order, whereas rural communities are classified under geographic diversity and remain unaffected. 

Grants found to be non-compliant may be subject to modifications or partial or complete termination. The NSF has not publicly detailed its review process.

 

What does this mean for scientists, researchers?

Researchers who rely on NSF grants for their work have raised concerns about the lack of clarity on compliance. Some believe federal agencies are going beyond the executive orders, leading to confusion and frustration.

 

Given the NSF’s $9 billion budget, which funds projects in fields such as quantum computing, biology, and earthquake research, the outcome of these reviews could significantly impact scientific progress.

 

A sample of the words banned, as shared by The Post include: 

- Advocacy

- Antiracist

- Barrier

- Biases

- Cultural relevance

- Disability

- Diverse backgrounds

- Diversity

- Diversified

- Ethnicity

- Excluded

- Exclusion

- Equity

- Female

- Gender

- Hate speech

- Historically

- Implicit bias

- Inclusion

- Inclusive

- Inequities

- Institutional

- Intersectional

- Male dominated

- Marginalised

- Minority

- Multicultural

- Oppression

- Polarisation

- Racially

- Segregation

- Socioeconomic

- Systemic

- Trauma

- Underrepresented

- Underserved

- Victims

- Women