NSF-funded research, from astronomy to zoology, is under intense scrutiny by the Trump administration.
Bryan Allen/Getty Images/The Image Bank RF
hide caption
toggle caption
Bryan Allen/Getty Images/The Image Bank RF
Darby Saxbe is worried her research funding might get canceled.
People’s brains change when they become parents. She studies fathers’ brains, in particular, to understand which changes might underlie better parenting. And she wants to study a variety of brains.
“If you want to understand the brain and biology changes of fathers, you don’t necessarily want to only look at white affluent fathers who are hanging out around a university, which is what a convenient sample might be composed of,” says the University of Southern California neuroendocrinologist. “That just makes for a better, more impactful research project.”
So with a grant from the National Science Foundation — a federal agency with a $9 billion annual budget to fund research — she’s working to include more people from minority groups in her study.
But her research proposal contained the words “diverse” and “underrepresented,” words that now appear on a list of hundreds of DEI-related terms that NSF is currently using to comb through tens of thousands of research grants. The process, described to NPR by two NSF officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution from the administration, aims to flag research that may not comply with President Trump’s executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
This kind of scrutiny, along with other actions of the administration so far — freezing grants, clamping down on communications from federal agencies, taking down databases on women’s health, HIV and youth behaviors and purging some of DEI-related terms — represent to many scientists an extreme move to exert more presidential control over the kinds of science that get funded, and potentially who does it. If continued, it could represent a major departure from how science has been funded for decades.
“This is totally unprecedented, nothing like this has ever happened,” says Neal Lane, who served as director of the NSF from 1993 to 1998. “NSF has a mandate to care about the workforce and ensure that all Americans have opportunities to participate in science,” he says. By targeting DEI, “they’re killing American science.”
Since the 1990s, Congress has mandated that NSF weigh how its grants will boost the participation of women and minorities in science, in addition to the intellectual merits of the proposal. Now, the Trump administration is essentially saying they can’t follow that law.
“President Trump was elected president, but in being elected president, the laws of the United States were not repealed and replaced with whatever he wants to do,” says Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology. “These are bipartisan efforts to make sure that we don’t miss smart people in the science enterprise across the United States.”
But some say that considering diversity in grantmaking leads to worse science. Last October, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, released a report saying that “NSF allocated over $2.05 billion to thousands of research projects that promoted neo-Marxist perspectives or DEI tenets” and suggesting that it undermines “objective hard science.”
“Intellectual diversity is welcome,” says Jonathan Butcher, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “But judging the merits of an idea based on the description of the grant is far more important than figuring out where the people involved are literally coming from, in terms of racial background or country of origin.”
Changing how science gets funded
Presidents have the authority to set priorities in research funding, and have used this power. The Biden administration made a push for climate and cancer research, for instance, and George W. Bush’s administration prioritized energy research and the physical sciences. Congress allocates money to these priorities, and then the agencies work out the finer details.
“Since World War II, science has been organized around this idea of peer review, that scientists understand what good science is and should make decisions about what we should be funding,” says Elizabeth Popp Berman, a sociologist who studies science at the University of Michigan.
At NSF, that means program officers — often scientists who work at other institutions who come to NSF for temporary stints — manage a review process of proposals, with input from a range of scientists. The law dictates that NSF consider both the intellectual merit of a proposal and the “broader impacts” the research might enable, meaning how the research will benefit society.
For decades, a key part of those potential benefits is how grants will boost the participation of women and underrepresented groups in science. Since 1997, Congress has required NSF to explicitly weigh such factors in its grantmaking. According to Suzanne Barbour, dean of the Duke University Graduate School and chair of NSF’s Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, that ultimately benefits the taxpayer.
“There is a large emerging literature that suggests that teams have the largest array of voices, from different different backgrounds, different kinds of lived experiences, voices that perhaps have addressed problems from slightly different angles,” she says. “They’re more creative, they’re more successful and … ultimately are the kinds of teams that make the biggest discoveries.”
Trump’s executive orders are squarely opposed to that mission. The agency is currently reviewing grants for DEI-related terms using, in part, a list from Sen. Cruz’s October 2024 report titled “How the Biden-Harris NSF Politicized Science,” according to NPR’s NSF sources.
It’s unclear what will happen to flagged grants. NSF has resumed funding existing awards after freezing them in late January and says they “can not take action to delay or stop payment for active awards based solely on actual or potential non-compliance with the Executive Orders.” The NSF sources tell NPR that approximately 20% of grants were initially flagged, and that number could be further winnowed.
In reviewing grants for DEI-related content and temporarily pausing payments, the agency seems to be prioritizing the executive order over its congressional mandate, a practice that contradicts internal guidance saying law takes precedence over executive orders when there’s a conflict.
The Trump administration’s efforts to exert more control over science at NSF go beyond DEI. On Tuesday, staff were informed of plans to cut the agency’s headcount of about 1,700 by 25% to 50% over the next two months, according to NPR’s NSF sources. Staff were also informed that President Trump’s first budget request could slash the agency’s budget from $9 billion to $3 billion, first reported by ArsTechnica and confirmed by NPR, though the actual reduction negotiated by Congress may be different.
“This administration appears to be not just setting priorities, but enforcing ideological conformity in a way that if your grant is studying something that’s not aligned with a particular view of the world, it’s just not going to be funded,” says Berman. “I think taking that away has the potential to undermine the whole scientific enterprise.”
Worries about America’s competitive edge
If the Trump administration continues aggressively targeting diversity initiatives in science and seeking to substantially cut funding, American science will look fundamentally different, says Berman.
Whole academic fields could wither without federal funds, she says, especially if DEI is broadly defined. “This cuts across economics, psychology, sociology. In all these fields, there are whole chunks of the discipline that may just not be possible to carry on anymore,” says Berman.
The moves have also sparked a culture of fear among many scientists. “This level of scrutiny is going to make research less collaborative, less competitive and less innovative,” says Diana Macias, an ecologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is funded by an NSF grant. Bringing more people into science is “not just broadening for the sake of broadening, but it’s broadening for the sake of developing rigorous questions that help us really stay competitive.”
Only about a quarter of NSF grant proposals win funding, and that’s after a rigorous application process. The idea that an awarded grant could get rescinded, or proposals not get funded for political reasons, makes many scientists uncomfortable and could ultimately lead some to quit or move outside the U.S.
“I train graduate students and undergrads who want to pursue science careers,” says Saxbe. “It’s hard for me to think about how to encourage them when it seems like the very work that we do is so vulnerable to partisan attack.”
Federal funding supports these trainees, many of whom ultimately go into the private sector. The NSF funds nearly 80% of fundamental computing research at universities, according to a recent statement from the Computing Research Association.
Reduced funding could ultimately lead to a smaller skilled workforce to work on important issues in artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and more. That’s despite an insistence by close allies of the president, including Elon Musk, that the U.S. lacks enough homegrown talent to fill the tech industry’s demand for computer science professionals like software engineers and programmers.
“The private sector does a lot of very important, primarily applied research and development. But they really don’t fund the same kind of research where you are really exploring the frontier,” says Lane, the former NSF director.
“They can’t justify to their stockholders doing most of the things that the National Science Foundation does. If you take away federal support for science, science is dead in the United States. Nothing can replace that.”