NSF Undergoes Dramatic Shift in Priorities, Cutting Hundreds of DEI and Misinformation Grants
The National Science Foundation (NSF), a cornerstone of non-medical scientific research and engineering in the United States, has announced a sweeping realignment of its priorities, resulting in the termination of hundreds of active grants. The agency cites a renewed focus on its core mission and efficient use of taxpayer dollars as the rationale behind these cuts, which primarily target projects related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and research on combating misinformation. This move aligns with the Trump administration’s broader stance against DEI initiatives and has sparked intense debate over the potential impacts on scientific progress and academic freedom.
The NSF’s revised guidelines, released in a statement and accompanying FAQ document, stipulate that research projects with a narrow impact limited to specific subgroups based on protected characteristics, such as race, gender, or religion, are no longer aligned with the agency’s priorities. Furthermore, the NSF will no longer fund research focused on combating misinformation, disinformation, or malinformation, arguing that such endeavors could infringe on free speech rights. While the precise number of terminated grants and their total value have not been officially disclosed by the NSF, external estimates suggest that 402 "wasteful DEI grants" totaling $233 million have been canceled, with over 200 originating from the NSF’s education directorate. This represents a significant portion of the NSF’s annual budget, which allocated roughly $8.4 billion to nearly 10,600 new awards in 2024.
The NSF emphasizes that its refined focus will prioritize research and outreach activities that advance its core congressionally mandated goals, such as bolstering economic competitiveness, supporting national defense, and fostering partnerships between academia and industry. Specifically, the agency has directed grant applicants to focus on the first six of its seven congressionally outlined goals, effectively excluding the seventh goal: expanding participation in STEM for women and underrepresented groups. This shift has raised concerns among Democrats and research advocates, who argue that these cuts will stifle innovation and undermine the nation’s scientific competitiveness.
The agency’s updated guidance distinguishes between "protected" and "unprotected" characteristics in determining grant eligibility. While "protected" characteristics encompass traits cited in relevant laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, "unprotected" characteristics include institutional type, geography, socioeconomic status, and career stage. The NSF maintains that even research focused on unprotected characteristics cannot indirectly favor or exclude individuals based on protected traits. Critics argue that this distinction creates ambiguity and could further discourage research that addresses systemic inequities in STEM fields.
This is not the NSF’s first encounter with scrutiny surrounding DEI programs. Following President Trump’s initial executive orders targeting DEI initiatives, several NSF grant programs were subjected to review, and the processing of numerous award applications was reportedly paused. However, this latest action represents a significant escalation, marking the termination of active grants rather than mere pauses or reviews. The NSF asserts that this updated guidance does not violate recent court orders prohibiting the withholding of congressionally appropriated funding based on executive orders, framing the changes as a matter of internal prioritization rather than a response to external pressures.
The implications of these changes extend beyond the immediate financial impact on researchers and institutions. Critics argue that these cuts will discourage participation in STEM fields, particularly among underrepresented groups, and hinder efforts to address critical societal challenges. Researchers focusing on misinformation and its impact on public discourse now face significant funding limitations, raising concerns about the future of research in this crucial area. The long-term consequences of these policy shifts on the American scientific enterprise remain to be seen, but many fear a chilling effect on innovation and a decline in U.S. scientific leadership.
The controversy surrounding the NSF’s decision highlights the broader tension between political agendas and scientific pursuits. While the agency insists that its actions are driven by a desire for efficiency and adherence to its core mission, critics contend that these cuts represent a politically motivated assault on DEI efforts and research vital to addressing societal challenges. This debate underscores the importance of protecting scientific integrity and ensuring that research funding decisions are based on merit and the pursuit of knowledge, rather than political expediency. The future of American science and its ability to address critical global issues may depend on the outcome of this ongoing struggle.