Controversy Resurfaces Over Imposed Language in Federal Grant Programs

A recent social media post by user "csz" has drawn attention to a perceived continuity in government oversight regarding language used in federal grant funding, stating, > "it’s like those list of words that would get grants pulled a few months back only now dems are jumping on the bandwagon themselves." This tweet alludes to past controversies while suggesting a similar trend is now emerging under different political leadership.

The initial reference points to a significant event in December 2017, when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reportedly received a list of seven words and phrases to avoid in budget documents. These terms included "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based," and "science-based." The directive, issued under the Trump administration, sparked widespread criticism from scientific and public health communities who viewed it as political interference in scientific communication.

More recently, in January 2025, the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced a freeze on over 60 grant review panels. An NSF spokesperson confirmed the cancellations were to "develop guidance to ensure compliance with the recent executive orders" from the Trump administration. While the specific executive orders were not detailed, researchers widely suspected the move was linked to the previous administration's directives targeting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives within federal agencies.

The tweet by "csz" reflects a public interpretation that current political actors, identified as "dems," are now implementing or upholding similar language or funding restrictions, despite the different administration. This perspective highlights ongoing concerns within the scientific community about the potential for political influence to impact research funding and the autonomy of federal agencies in their communication and grant processes. The recurring nature of such controversies underscores a persistent tension between scientific independence and governmental oversight.