Let’s get one thing straight: the National Science Foundation doesn’t actually have a list of "banned words" that will get you arrested or thrown out of a lab. But if you’ve spent any time in the world of federal grant writing lately, you know that the vibe has shifted. Hard.
People are nervous. There’s this lingering cloud of confusion over what you can and cannot say when asking for government money. It’s not just about political correctness, though that’s the part that gets the most clicks on social media. It’s actually about a complex intersection of legislative pressure, shifting DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies, and the way the NSF tries to protect its budget from being slashed by a skeptical Congress.
You’ve probably seen the headlines. They make it sound like there's a dusty binder in a basement in Alexandria, Virginia, full of red-strikethrough text. The reality is way more subtle, way more bureaucratic, and honestly, a bit more frustrating for the scientists just trying to fund their research into black holes or climate resilience.
Where the "Banned" Idea Actually Comes From
The myth of the National Science Foundation banned words didn't just appear out of thin air. It mostly traces back to a few specific moments of political friction. Back in 2017, there was a massive uproar when reports surfaced that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) was "banned" from using words like "vulnerable," "entitlement," "diversity," "transgender," "fetus," "evidence-based," and "science-based."
The NSF watched that PR disaster unfold from the sidelines. While they never issued a formal "ban," the chilling effect was real.
Fast forward to the last couple of years. We've seen a surge in "anti-woke" legislation at the state level and intense scrutiny during House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hearings. When a Congressman holds up a grant title and mocks it for sounding too "social justicey," the NSF leadership feels the heat. Because of that, program officers—the folks who actually help you get your money—have started giving "off the record" advice.
👉 See also: Statesville NC Record and Landmark Obituaries: Finding What You Need
They’ll tell you to maybe rethink that specific phrasing. They might suggest that "underserved communities" sounds a little less politically charged than "systemic oppression" in a specific context. It’s a game of linguistic gymnastics. It isn't a ban; it's a survival strategy for the agency's $10 billion budget.
The Words Everyone is Tweaking Right Now
If you are writing a grant today, you’re likely staring at your screen wondering if "equity" is going to be the reason your proposal gets a "Do Not Fund" recommendation.
Let's look at the actual terminology being scrutinized. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) is the big one. While the NSF still has a massive mandate to "Broaden Participation," the acronym "DEI" has become a lightning rod. You’ll notice that in 2024 and 2025, the language in many NSF solicitations shifted toward "Workforce Development" or "Inclusive Excellence."
- Systemic racism: This is a phrase that often triggers administrative audits or political pushback. Research on this definitely still happens, but the savvy move right now is to describe the effects—disparities in access, historical barriers, or socioeconomic bottlenecks—rather than using the specific label.
- Intersectionality: A powerhouse term in sociology, but a red flag for certain budget-cutters.
- Underrepresented Minorities: Even this is being swapped out. The "new" preferred phrasing is often "Individuals from groups underrepresented in STEM." It’s longer. It’s clunkier. But it’s considered "safer."
Does this mean the NSF is "woke" or "anti-woke"? Neither, really. It’s an agency trying to exist in a polarized environment.
The "Merit Review" Reality
Every NSF proposal is judged on two criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.
✨ Don't miss: St. Joseph MO Weather Forecast: What Most People Get Wrong About Northwest Missouri Winters
The Broader Impacts section is where the National Science Foundation banned words debate lives. This is where you explain how your work helps society. If you use language that sounds too much like an activist manifesto, you risk alienating reviewers who are terrified of being dragged before a committee.
I talked to a researcher at Georgia Tech recently. He told me he spent three days debating whether to use the word "justice" in a proposal about water filtration. He eventually swapped it for "equitable distribution." He got the grant. Was it a ban? No. Was it a restriction of his speech? Sort of. It was mostly just a practical realization that some words carry too much baggage to be useful in a professional document.
Science Under the Microscope: Real Examples
Take the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. It authorized a massive infusion of cash, but it also came with strings. Lawmakers want to ensure that American tax dollars aren't being spent on things they deem "frivolous."
Check out the titles of some of the grants that have been targeted in the past. If a grant is titled "Gender Dynamics in Glaciology," it’s going to get a lot more negative attention than "Human Factors in Polar Research." Both might be studying the exact same thing—how different groups of people interact with and are affected by melting ice—but the language determines the political "vulnerability" of the agency.
The NSF isn't alone here. The NIH (National Institutes of Health) and the Department of Energy face similar pressures. But because the NSF covers such a broad range of social sciences, they are often the first into the fire.
🔗 Read more: Snow This Weekend Boston: Why the Forecast Is Making Meteorologists Nervous
How to Navigate the "Unwritten" Rules
If you’re a PI (Principal Investigator), you don't need a list of banned words. You need a strategy. You've got to be smart about your rhetoric without compromising the integrity of your science.
- Read the Solicitation Literally. If the NSF call for proposals uses the word "accessibility," use that word. If it doesn't mention "social justice," don't try to force it in as a synonym.
- Focus on Outcomes. Instead of using "loaded" terms, describe what is actually happening. "Removing barriers for rural students" is a factual, outcome-based phrase that achieves the same goal as more "politically charged" language but with zero percent of the heat.
- Talk to Your Program Officer. This is the most underrated advice in academia. These people want to fund good science. They know which way the political wind is blowing. Ask them, "Hey, is the phrasing in my Broader Impacts section going to cause issues during the administrative review?" They will usually be shockingly honest with you.
The Myth of the "Forbidden List"
There is no secret PDF. There is no automated filter that auto-rejects a paper because it says "climate change." In fact, climate change is one of the NSF’s top priorities. The "ban" is a phantom created by the friction between how scientists talk and how politicians listen.
The real danger isn't a list of words. It's the self-censorship that happens when the rules aren't clear. When researchers are afraid to study certain topics because they think the language will get them flagged, that’s when the quality of American science actually starts to dip.
Actionable Insights for Researchers and Enthusiasts
If you're following the National Science Foundation banned words saga, here’s what you actually need to do to stay ahead of the curve:
- Audit your own vocabulary: Look at your most recent abstracts. Are you using buzzwords because they’re precise, or because they’re trendy? Stick to precision. Precision is harder to attack than a slogan.
- Differentiate between "Banned" and "Sensitive": Words like "marginalized" aren't banned, but they are "sensitive." Use them when they are the only accurate way to describe your population, but don't sprinkle them in for flavor.
- Monitor the "Broader Impacts" toolkit: The NSF actually provides resources on how to write these sections. Use their own templates. It’s much harder for a critic to complain about your language when you are quoting the agency’s own guidelines back to them.
- Stay informed on the "NSF Reauthorization" debates: This is where the real rules are written. Every few years, Congress has to re-authorize the NSF. The language they put in those bills is what eventually becomes the "suggested" vocabulary for the agency.
Science is supposed to be about the pursuit of truth, regardless of how we feel about it. But the funding of science? That’s always been, and always will be, a political act. Navigating the National Science Foundation banned words isn't about giving up your values—it's about learning the language of the people who hold the checkbook so you can keep doing the work that actually matters.
Keep your data tight, your outcomes clear, and your language professional. That's how you win in this environment. Forget the "banned" lists; focus on the impact.