Federal Government Initiatives Examining Research Grants for Alignment with Trump Administration's Regulations
In a recent turn of events, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has realigned its grant review and funding priorities, causing significant apprehension among its staff and the broader scientific community.
Six NSF staff members have expressed their concerns about the agency's recent decisions, with one employee describing the process as a "gut punch." The lack of clarity and communication surrounding the NSF's actions has added to the uncertainty and frustration felt by those involved.
The NSF's updated policy now allows research involving protected characteristics only when intrinsic to the research question and not primarily aimed at broadening participation in STEM. This shift has led to the suspension of hundreds of grants, notably at institutions like UCLA, where nearly 300 NSF grants were frozen due to non-alignment with the NSF’s current priorities.
The White House's August 2025 executive order on federal grantmaking emphasizes more rigorous oversight, avoidance of racial or sex-based preferences, prioritizing institutions that produce reproducible, gold-standard science, and distributing grants more broadly rather than repeatedly to the same recipients.
Despite these policy changes, the NSF continues to commit funding to broadening participation in STEM and building a diverse workforce as part of its core mission. However, DEI-focused programs and new awards are more tightly scrutinized or discontinued if not meeting the revised criteria.
Thousands of grants are flagged for review due to criteria including language related to broadening participation, climate science, and discriminatory programs. This decision has left many researchers struggling to make sense of the situation. The ongoing funding uncertainty has left many researchers, particularly postdoctoral fellows, unsure of what the future holds.
Julia Barnes, a cultural anthropologist at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and an NSF grant recipient, has remarked that the recent events demonstrate that the "United States is not a stable place to be a scientist." Wei Yang Tham, an economist, underscores the critical role that research grants play in supporting the next generation of scientists.
Suzanne Barbour, a biochemist at Duke University, emphasizes the importance of broadening participation in STEM fields beyond traditional boundaries. Concerns have been raised about the legality of terminating grants that are protected by congressional appropriation.
A federal judge's order has unfrozen the funds, but the NSF has decided to press on with its review. The NSF is reviewing research grants using internal processes and criteria that have come under scrutiny.
The future implications include reduced federal funding for DEI initiatives in STEM, potentially impacting programs designed to increase participation of underrepresented groups. There may also be potential disruption to research at institutions heavily reliant on NSF DEI-related funds.
Stakeholders express concern over the impact of these shifts on maintaining a diverse and skilled STEM workforce vital to U.S. competitiveness, especially amid budget pressures and changing federal priorities.
In the face of these obstacles, the dedication and resilience of scientists serve as a testament to their unwavering commitment to advancing knowledge and discovery.
- The National Science Foundation's (NSF) recent change in grant review and funding priorities, particularly the new policy regarding research involving protected characteristics, has sparked concerns and frustration among scientists, educators, and researchers.
- The updated NSF policy has resulted in the suspension of numerous grants, not only at institutions like UCLA but also across education-and-self-development and policy-and-legislation sectors, causing uncertainty about the future of these programs.
- The White House's 2025 executive order on federal grantmaking indirectly affects health-and-wellness and fitness-and-exercise by prioritizing institutions that produce reproducible, gold-standard science, which could potentially influence the funding of related research.
- The ongoing review and scrutiny of grants, along with the potential reduction in federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in STEM, raises issues about maintaining a diverse and skilled workforce and U.S. competitiveness in the broader context of general-news and politics.
