The Washington Post tells a slightly different story about the words scientists are forbidden to use.

“Women.” “Diverse.” “Institutional.” “Historically.”

At the National Science Foundation, staff have been combing through thousands of active science research projects, alongside a list of keywords, to determine if they include activities that violate executive orders President Donald Trump issued in his first week in office. Those include orders to recognize only two genders and roll back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. The search is driven by dozens of flagged words, according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post and two NSF employees…

…

Previously published health documents have been expunged from public-facing websites in the wake of a Jan. 29 memo from Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management, that was sent to all agency leaders. The memo instructed agency forms to record only an individual’s sex and not gender identity.

…

At the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, staff were given a list of about 20 terms to guide decisions to remove or edit content on the website. Those words include: gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, biologically male, biologically female, he/she/they/them.

Part of what’s unclear here is who made this list and who gave it to staff. Is it a list from the Trump people or is it a list from CDC bosses?

Either way, frankly, “pregnant person” and “pregnant people” should be banished from medical content. Obfuscation should never be the goal.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NSF’s review. According to an internal document and people familiar with the review process, NSF staff must analyze the keywords within grants and determine whether they are in violation of an executive order, providing a justification if they determine they are not. For example, the word “accessibility” would be flagged if it is used in the context of DEI, but is not if it is about data accessibility, the document explains. An internal email sent as an update clarifies some “edge cases,” including that the socioeconomic status of individuals is “implicated” in the executive order, but rural communities are part of geographic diversity and are not.

This is all so vague and passive voice and agent-avoiding. “would be flagged” BY WHOM? An internal email FROM WHOM? I can’t tell. It’s not clear whether it’s Trump’s goons or the managers at the NSF.