- Published on
The federal keyword lists that canceled billions in research funding
- Authors
- Name
- DeepHorus
In a sweeping crackdown on federally funded research, the Trump administration used keyword searches to revoke grants tied to diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change, newly unsealed court documents show. Researchers across the United States received sudden termination notices, often mid-project, with form letters citing misalignment with agency priorities. The disclosures came from a lawsuit filed by University of California researchers.
Federal agencies confirmed in court filings that they eliminated grants if projects "expressed, or were presumed to express, viewpoints disfavored by the Administration." This approach relied heavily on specific search terms, with agencies avoiding individual assessments and using "general criteria" instead. The lists varied, but centered on issues like DEI and green energy.
The National Science Foundation used the most extensive keyword list, pulling directly from a 2024 report by Senator Ted Cruz. That report targeted "neo-Marxist perspectives" and included terms such as "injustice," "ally," "prejudice," "minority," and "traumatic." NSF also referenced misinformation-related terms, though it did not list them.
The National Institutes of Health used a shorter list with "workforce diversity" and "health equity," plus "various permutations" of each. The Defense Department targeted "pay equity," "LGBTQ," and "neurodiversity," while also cutting grants citing "climate change," "solar," "wind," and "decarbonization." The National Endowment for the Humanities flagged "environmental justice" and "transgenderism."
Specific financial impact emerged: NIH cut at least $2.6 million in funding for projects using the phrase "structural racism." The agencies did not always specify which keyword triggered each termination, though NIH sometimes did. The UC researchers argue these actions violate First Amendment rights, asking a federal judge to declare the revocations unconstitutional.
The case underscores a broader ideological battle over academic inquiry. Critics see the keyword screenings as viewpoint discrimination that could chill research in sensitive fields. The judge's ruling will determine whether such funding terminations can continue.
