Politicization of Science: The National Science Foundation’s New Language Restrictions

Orwellian surveillance isn't just about facial recognition software.

A recent Washington Post article reported that the National Science Foundation (NSF) has begun flagging grant proposals that contain specific words—including disability, underrepresented, minority, and trauma— for additional scrutiny. This shift not only threatens the integrity of scientific inquiry it signals a troubling disregard for established peer-review processes. This should come as no surprise. Censorship of truth and scientific fact are commiserate with Convicted Felon President Trump’s political priorities and the dictates of Project 2025, signaling a broader attempt to reshape federal research funding along ideological lines.

The NSF’s move is part of a broader effort to realign federal research funding with political priorities rather than scholarly merit. According to the report, proposals flagged for using these terms may face additional “interrogation,” and the reviewers evaluating them may come from unrelated disciplines rather than experts in the field. Outside, biased, evaluators fundamentally undermine the rigor of the review process, which is designed to ensure that research is evaluated by those with the relevant expertise. Because an essential language and long-term conversation is happening inside each field that continues to advance new knowledge in a deliberate, methodological, ethical, and scientifically rigorous manner.

The consequences of this policy will be profound. Researchers studying critical issues—such as health disparities, trauma-informed care, disability rights, and social determinants of well-being—now face additional hurdles in securing rapidly diminishing funds. These areas of study are not politically motivated; they are evidence-based domains of inquiry essential to improving public health and social equity. What threat do the words “disability, trauma, minority, and underrepresented” hold to science and truth-finding?

Moreover, if the NSF is adopting such an approach, other funding agencies may soon follow. The ripple effects could be devastating, chilling important research and deterring scholars from pursuing topics deemed politically sensitive rather than scientifically urgent.

The U.S. government has a history of attempting to control scientific language and restrict research on politically sensitive topics.

1. The Global Gag Rule (1984 - Present)

• Also known as the Mexico City Policy, this rule prevents foreign organizations receiving U.S. funding from discussing or advocating for abortion services. It has been repeatedly instituted by Republican administrations and rescinded by Democratic administrations.

• This policy has not only stifled scientific discussion on reproductive health but also cut funding to research and public health initiatives that included abortion-related language.

• Project 2025 proponents intend to expand this precedent by creating an international conglomerate of countries who are opposed to abortion health care.

2. Climate Science Censorship (2000s - Present)

• Under the George W. Bush administration, climate scientists at NASA and NOAA were reportedly pressured to downplay or remove references to climate change.

• The Trump administration escalated this suppression, going so far as to erase the words "climate change" from official government websites, block reports from being published, and silence experts at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

3. HIV/AIDS Research Restrictions (1980s)

• During the Reagan administration, the government delayed funding and acknowledgment of the HIV/AIDS epidemic due to the perception that it primarily affected LGBTQ+ communities.

• Scientists and public health officials faced funding barriers when trying to study and publish research about HIV/AIDS, contributing to over 89,000 deaths.

4. CDC's Forbidden Words (2017)

• Under the Trump administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were reportedly given a list of banned words for official budget documents, including evidence-based, diversity, science-based, transgender, and fetus.

• This restriction effectively limited the scope of public health research and communication on issues related to gender, reproductive health, and LGBTQ+ rights.

5. Eugenics & Suppression of Racial Justice Research (Early 20th Century)

• In the early to mid-1900s, research on race and social disparities was often suppressed while eugenics research was promoted, influencing U.S. policies on immigration, forced sterilization, and segregation.

• Studies countering racist narratives were often denied funding or ignored in federal policy discussions. (Check out The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein)

6. Suppression of Gun Violence Research (1996 - Present)

• The Dickey Amendment (passed in 1996 and long supported by Republican lawmakers) prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from using federal funds to advocate for gun control, effectively chilling research on gun violence.

• This led to a decades-long stagnation in federal funding for gun violence studies, only recently reversed in 2019.

Science should be driven by inquiry and evidence—not ideology. The NSF’s mission is to advance knowledge for the benefit of society, and its review processes must reflect that commitment. The research community must unite to ensure that these restrictions do not become the new normal.

This is likely just one step in a broader push to reshape research priorities. The more scientists and academics remain engaged, the stronger the resistance to politically motivated interference in the scientific process.