Red-flagged words risk overlooking whole communities
Researchers across the United States are quietly changing how they apply for federal grants, omitting terms such as “Black,” “women,” “marginalized” and “trauma” in an effort to avoid rejection, according to multiple academic sources and internal documents.
At the center of the controversy is the National Science Foundation (NSF), a major federal research funding agency. Internal NSF materials reviewed by The Washington Post, along with whistleblower accounts and academic testimony, indicate that the agency is flagging proposals that include language commonly associated with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI).
The flagged terms reportedly include “advocacy,” “underrepresented,” “gender,” and “female.” Proposals that include such language may be routed to additional manual review, where they could be revised or denied, the report found.
The NSF declined to comment on the matter when contacted.
According to the internal documentation, the NSF uses automated tools to scan for DEI-related terms in proposals. Applications identified through this process are subject to further scrutiny to ensure compliance with executive orders issued during the Trump administration, which remain in effect.
Those orders did not explicitly ban DEI-related language, but researchers and legal experts say they created an environment in which grant reviewers are more likely to question or avoid funding work that references race, gender, or identity-specific disparities.
Some researchers say the practice has led to a form of self-censorship. At institutions including the University of Southern California, faculty have circulated informal lists of terms to avoid in federal proposals, prompting concern among scholars who focus on marginalized communities.
“You’re telling me that I can study trauma, but I can’t say who is experiencing it? That I can fight for equity, but I can’t name which group is being excluded?” said DEI advocate and University of Minnesota graduate Mariel Thompson, who has worked with public health researchers. “This cannot be about tone, right? It’s about erasure.”
Thompson’s concerns are echoed by others in academia who say they’ve begun editing or removing language from proposals to improve their chances of receiving funding.
Some grant applicants are reportedly replacing specific identity references with broader terms such as “underserved” or “high-need,” which critics say reduces the clarity and focus of their research.
The impact extends beyond academia, according to researchers. Federal funding decisions shape the types of evidence available to policymakers working in areas such as public health, education, and climate change. If research is discouraged from naming specific populations, scholars say, the solutions developed may fail to address the communities most affected.
A professor at the University of Southern California helped bring the issue to national attention after sharing documentation that advised avoiding terms like “Black” and “women” in proposals. The warning circulated widely in academic circles and led to increased scrutiny of grant-writing practices.
Since then, multiple academic institutions have reported changes in how researchers approach federal funding applications. Some say entire lines referencing race or gender have been removed. Others report receiving informal guidance to revise proposals before submission.
As of April, the NSF has not issued public guidance confirming or denying the existence of a list of red-flagged words or phrases. Scholars and advocacy groups have called for greater transparency from the agency and from the federal government more broadly. Some have urged Congress to review current funding protocols and their alignment with existing executive orders.
“This raises questions about what kinds of research are being supported — and which communities are being left out,” said Thompson.
